Update! HEALTHY BUILDING NETWORK IS NOW HABITABLE.
Update! HEALTHY BUILDING NETWORK IS NOW HABITABLE.
Update! HEALTHY BUILDING NETWORK IS NOW HABITABLE.
Update! HEALTHY BUILDING NETWORK IS NOW HABITABLE.
Update! HEALTHY BUILDING NETWORK IS NOW HABITABLE.
Update! HEALTHY BUILDING NETWORK IS NOW HABITABLE.

If we say climate change, what is the first thing that pops into your head? It’s probably not the impact of toxic chemicals on the environment.

Some people can probably name a chemical that contributes to climate change, whether that is carbon dioxide or methane. But what about other chemicals that you are not as familiar with? In the building materials world, these may include fluorinated blowing agents used in some foam insulation. The agents either have high global warming potential (GWP) or use chemicals in their production that have high GWP.1 Another example is the release of the toxic, global warming, and ozone-depleting chemical carbon tetrachloride in the enormous supply chain of vinyl products, otherwise known as poly vinyl chloride (PVC).2 Purveyors of vinyl products, you may unwittingly be contributing to global warming! 

Yes, the way in which certain chemicals contribute to climate change is important, but this interplay is not the only consequence of chemicals on our climate. Climate change is also altering how toxic chemicals impact our health and the health of the environment – as the world warms, reducing our exposure to toxic chemicals becomes ever more important.

Five Reasons Why Climate Change and Toxic Chemicals are Connected

  1. Temperatures affect how chemicals behave – warmer temperatures increase our exposure to toxic chemicals—.3 Higher temperatures can allow certain chemicals to vaporize more easily and enter the air we breathe.4 Warmer temperatures on Earth can also encourage the breakdown of some chemicals into toxic byproducts.5
  2. Impacts of extreme weather events include concentrated releases of chemicals—catastrophic weather-related events such as hurricanes, fires, etc. can result in the release of toxic chemicals into the air when homes burn, or as factories in the Gulf region are damaged or destroyed.6 These events are becoming more and more frequent and will continue to expose people and the planet to highly concentrated chemical doses.
  3. Climate change can exacerbate the health impacts of air pollution—volatile organic compounds released by chemical products contribute to the production of smog, leading to poor air quality which can negatively impact the lungs or exacerbate respiratory diseases such as asthma or Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease.7 Warmer temperatures amplify these impacts.8 As the largest source of air pollutants slowly transitions from transportation sources to chemical products, and as the earth warms, smart product choices will have even more impact on air quality.9
  4. Toxic chemicals may hinder the body’s ability to adapt to climate change—in recent years, studies discovered that many toxic chemicals are endocrine disruptors.10 Animal studies have highlighted that endocrine-disrupting chemicals can alter metabolism and hinder animals’ ability to adapt to changing temperatures.11 While these findings were in animals, similar effects occur in humans as well, particularly in communities without access to heating or air conditioning.
  5. Toxic chemicals increase communities’ vulnerability to climate change effects—toxic chemicals are an environmental justice issue. Ever heard of Cancer Alley? Cancer Alley is a predominantly African American community located in Southern Louisiana right next door to factories pumping out toxic chemicals every day.12 This 100 mile stretch of land is home to 25 percent of the nation’s petrochemical manufacturing and a large portion of its PVC supply chain.13 Aptly named, the cancer rate in this area is higher than the state and national cancer rate.14 Cancer Alley’s location right next to the Gulf Coast also increases its vulnerability to hurricanes and tropical storms. As climate change increases the frequency of extreme weather events, the impacts of toxic chemicals on this community also deepens.

Caring About Toxic Chemicals Can Help Mitigate the Impact of Climate Change—For You!

While most toxic chemicals do not cause climate change, they do affect how climate change might impact you. These impacts compound as more chemicals are produced or utilized.15 In 1970, the U.S. produced 50 million tons of synthetic chemicals.16 In 1995, the number tripled to 150 million tons, and today, that number continues to increase.17

Very few of the tens of thousands of chemicals on the marketplace are fully tested for health hazards, and details on human exposure to these chemicals are limited.18 We are exposed to these chemicals every day, in varying quantities and mixtures. Over a lifetime, the small exposures add up. Predictions of health outcomes from long-term exposure are already fuzzy at best, but add on the component of climate change and the mystery deepens.19 While researchers continue to study climate change and chemicals to answer the questions we have, there are steps that we can take to help mitigate the negative impact of climate change on chemicals.

Habitable’s Small Piece of the Pie — How We’re Keeping Consumers Safe 

We cannot remove all chemicals from our lives and many play important roles, but, we can follow the precautionary principle. If there is a less toxic chemical or product available that meets our requirements, we should use it. At Habitable, our work is guided by the precautionary principle—otherwise known as ‘better to be safe than sorry.’ Our chemical and product guidance provides advice on better products.Empowering industry to choose safer chemicals and products helps reduce the burden of toxic chemicals on all people and the planet – especially our most vulnerable populations.

Why We Can and Must Do Better  

Between climate change and toxic chemicals, it could be easy to push toxic chemicals to the side as a someday problem and choose to tackle climate change first. But the truth is that the impacts of toxic chemicals are real and happening today and will only get worse in a warming world. These two issues are connected and influence each other’s outcomes. Climate change is having a significant impact on our world, but prioritizing reduction of  toxic chemicals can reduce the negative consequences that climate change will have on chemicals, and consequently on us.

SOURCES

  1. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are being phased out as blowing agents in plastic foam insulation due to regulatory action in the United States. Starting in January of 2020, they are no longer allowed in most spray foam insulation. Extruded polystyrene (XPS) insulation manufacturers have until January of 2021 to phase out HFCs. The commonly used HFC in XPS, HFC-134a has a global warming potential 1,430 times that of carbon dioxide. A common replacement blowing agent for HFCs is a hydrofluoroolefin (HFO). While the HFO itself has a low GWP, it still uses high GWP chemicals in its production and may release these chemicals when it is made. See “Making Affordable Multifamily Housing More Energy Efficient: A Guide to Healthier Upgrade Materials,” Healthy Building Network, September 2018, https://informed.habitablefuture.org/resources/research/11-making-affordable-multifamily-housing-more-energy-efficient-a-guide-to-healthier-upgrade-materials.; “Substitutes in Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock and Billet.” United States Environmental Protection Agency: Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP). Accessed Sept 16, 2019. https://www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-polystyrene-extruded-boardstock-and-billet.; “Substitutes in Rigid Polyurethane: Spray.” United States Environmental Protection Agency: Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP). Accessed Sept 16, 2019. https://www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-rigid-polyurethane-spray.
  2. Vallette, Jim. “Chlorine and Building Materials: A Global Inventory of Production Technologies, Markets, and Pollution – Phase 1: Africa, The Americas, and Europe.” Healthy Building Network, July 2018. https://habitablefuture.org/resources/chlorine-building-materials-project-phase-1-africa-the-americas-and-europe/.
  3. Pamela D. Noyes et al., “The Toxicology of Climate Change: Environmental Contaminants in a Warming World,” Environment International 35, no. 6 (August 1, 2009): 971–86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2009.02.006.
  4. Noyes et al.
  5. Pamela D. Noyes and Sean C. Lema, “Forecasting the Impacts of Chemical Pollution and Climate Change Interactions on the Health of Wildlife,” Current Zoology 61, no. 4 (August 1, 2015): 669–89, https://doi.org/10.1093/czoolo/61.4.669.
  6. Caroline C. Ummenhofer and Gerald A. Meehl, “Extreme Weather and Climate Events with Ecological Relevance: A Review,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 372, no. 1723 (June 19, 2017): 20160135, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0135.
  7. C. M. Zigler, C. Choirat, and F. Dominici, “Impact of National Ambient Air Quality Standards Nonattainment Designations on Particulate Pollution and Health.,” Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 29, no. 2 (March 2018): 165–74, https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000777.
  8. “Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).” Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Accessed October 18, 2019. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/volatile-organic-compounds-vocs.
  9. Brian C. McDonald et al., “Volatile Chemical Products Emerging as Largest Petrochemical Source of Urban Organic Emissions,” Science 359, no. 6377 (February 16, 2018): 760–64, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0524.
  10. Research Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, and Institute of Medicine, The Challenge: Chemicals in Today’s Society (National Academies Press (US), 2014), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK268889/.
  11. Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Practice, and Medicine.
  12. Wesley James, Chunrong Jia, and Satish Kedia, “Uneven Magnitude of Disparities in Cancer Risks from Air Toxics,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 9, no. 12 (December 2012): 4365–85, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9124365.
  13. James, Jia, and Kedia.; Vallette.
  14. James, Jia, and Kedia.
  15. Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Practice, and Medicine.
  16. Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Practice, and Medicine
  17. Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Practice, and Medicine.
  18. Pamela D. Noyes and Sean C. Lema, “Forecasting the Impacts of Chemical Pollution and Climate Change Interactions on the Health of Wildlife,” Current Zoology 61, no. 4 (August 1, 2015): 669–89, https://doi.org/10.1093/czoolo/61.4.669
  19. Noyes and Lema.

A whole lot of meaning is packaged in the word equity—a term Webster’s defines as “fairness or justice in the way people are treated.” However, the easiest way to understand equity is often through pictures, like the one below.

While this photo considers height as an inequity, in real life, income, access to food and health care are often at the heart of equity discussions. Surprisingly, a critical topic often overlooked in the equity discussion is where we spent 90 percent of our lives—in buildings.1 

Oregon Metro, otherwise known simply as Metro, released a report discussing toxics reduction and equity. Its section on building materials connects building materials and equity, calling attention to the need to reduce community exposure to toxic building materials in an equitable manner. Building materials seem harmless and inert in our homes, offices, schools, or cafes. But in 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) characterized indoor air pollution as “one of the greatest threats to public health of all environmental problems”.2 

A large proportion of indoor air pollution stems from building materials.3 In particular, asthmagens are of highest concern and contribute to indoor air pollution through the release of chemicals from the surface of building finishes.4 For example, carpet, furniture and wall decor release chemicals through degradation or abrasion.5 The chemicals end up in dust in our homes and can enter our bodies through the lungs, skin or mouth.6 Volatile organic compounds emitted from paints are also of concern.7 In fact, a study of children in Australia showed a strong association among indoor home exposure to VOCs and increased risk of asthma.8 Over 70 percent of building material asthmagens identified by Healthy Building Network (HBN) researchers  are not covered by leading indoor air quality testing standards.9  These hazardous wastes and products used in building materials disproportionately affect historically marginalized communities of color, children and low-income families.10 

Equity in housing is especially important for many families with low incomes who live in multifamily housing.11  Multifamily housing often poses challenges to achieving better air quality as pollutants easily travel between units due to inadequate ventilation. Residents are usually unable to improve building infrastructure themselves.12  

Incorporating building materials into the equity discussion is only part of the solution. Product testing for chemicals of concern, biomonitoring, community health impact research, chemicals research, advocacy and education all stand to make a larger collective impact.13 

For funders looking to increase diversity and equity initiatives in their grant making, the building industry provides a blooming landscape to foster substantial impact within communities. Here are some key questions to consider when funding proposals:

  • What is the specific toxics reduction action?
  • Are there particular populations or communities impacted more than the general population by the chemical/product/system in question?
  • Does the action consider and address the structural barriers and existing resources available to a population? 
  • Does the recommendation ameliorate the disparity or gap in accessing resources for a marginalized community? 

So often, sustainability standards and initiatives are cost prohibitive, developed for those with the most access and resources, in hopes that “someday” the solutions will trickle-down. In the meantime, children and the populations with the lowest income continue to bear the burden of toxic exposures and preventable health consequences. Habitable’s Informed™ healthy product guidance is changing that old, unsuccessful paradigm. Our resources will result in healthier products for everyone, and amplify the prospect for a healthier planet. 

Visit informed.habitablefuture.org to join the movement towards a healthy future for all.

SOURCES

  1. Cuneo, Monica et. al. Toxics Reduction and Equity: Informing actions to reduce community risks from chemicals in products. Oregonmetro.gov, 2019. August 14, 2019. https://www.oregonmetro.gov/toxics-reduction-and-equity-study
  2. Ibid. 
  3. Environmental Protection Agency. “Fundamentals of Indoor Air Quality in Buildings.” Indoor Air Quality, 1 Aug. 2018, www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/fundamentals-indoor-air-quality-buildings#Factors.
  4. Lott, Sarah, and Jim Vallette. Full Disclosure Required: A Strategy to Prevent Asthma Through Building Product Selection. Healthy Building Network, December 2013. August 14, 2019. https://habitablefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/93-full-disclosure-required-a-strategy-to-prevent-asthma-through-building-product-selection.pdf.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Singla, Veena. Toxic Dust: The Dangerous Chemical Brew in Every Home. Natural Resources Defense Council, September 13, 2016. August 20, 2019. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/veena-singla/toxic-dust-dangerous-chemical-brew-every-home
  7. Lott, Sarah, and Jim Vallette. Full Disclosure Required: A Strategy to Prevent Asthma Through Building Product Selection. Healthy Building Network, December 2013. August 14, 2019. https://habitablefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/93-full-disclosure-required-a-strategy-to-prevent-asthma-through-building-product-selection.pdf.
  8. Rumchev, K, et al. Association of Domestic Exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds with Asthma in Young Children. Thorax, BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 1 Sep. 2004. August 14, 2019. http://thorax.bmj.com/content/59/9/746.
  9. Lott, Sarah, and Jim Vallette. Full Disclosure Required: A Strategy to Prevent Asthma Through Building Product Selection. Healthy Building Network, December 2013. August 14, 2019. https://habitablefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/93-full-disclosure-required-a-strategy-to-prevent-asthma-through-building-product-selection.pdf.
  10. Cuneo, Monica et. al. Toxics Reduction and Equity: Informing actions to reduce community risks from chemicals in products. Oregonmetro.gov, 2019. August 14, 2019. https://www.oregonmetro.gov/toxics-reduction-and-equity-study
  11. Ibid.
  12. Hayes, Vicky et al. Evaluating Ventilation in Multifamily Buildings. Home Energy Magazine, August 1994. August 14, 2019. www.homeenergy.org/show/article/nav/ventilation/id/1059.
  13. Cuneo, Monica et. al. Toxics Reduction and Equity: Informing actions to reduce community risks from chemicals in products. Oregonmetro.gov, 2019. August 14, 2019. https://www.oregonmetro.gov/toxics-reduction-and-equity-study

You may know the phrase, “you are what you eat.” There is a parallel concept when it comes to hazardous chemicals—you are what surrounds you!

Every day we come in contact with a large number of chemical products. Think of the last time you walked through a space being remodeled, or sat in a new car and thought “what’s that smell?” Your body notices that smell because a chemical or substance is interacting with the smell receptors in your nose. The same characteristics that allow it to interact with your nose could make those chemicals affect the body in other ways too—sometimes causing harm. The more invisible moments occur when sleeping on your mattress filled with flame retardants or using your personal care products while getting ready for work. Perhaps you work in a factory, as a contractor installing products, or some other job requiring direct contact with a variety of chemicals. The list (both visible and invisible) goes on and on. While a one-time exposure might not lead to health effects, a life-time of exposure and buildup to these chemicals can. More and more scientific evidence links these chemical exposures to diseases like cancer and diabetes, as well as developmental delays, reproductive health issues, and Autism Spectrum Disorder1

There are three main exposure pathways: 1) inhalation – breathing in contaminated air, 2) ingestion – the inadvertent passing of dust or other chemical residues from hands to mouth, and 3) because our skin is like a sponge – absorption through dermal contact. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), babies still in the womb are exposed to more than 200 chemicals that pass from their mother through the umbilical cord2. This should make you wonder—what are the chemicals I may not realize are entering my body? There is a term used to describe the load of chemicals in the human body—body burden.

There’s what in my body?!

We sat down with Teresa McGrath, Healthy Building Network’s (HBN) Chief Research Officer earlier this year to talk about urine, specifically hers. Earlier this year, Teresa participated in a study on chemical body burden led by Silent Spring Institute. Teresa is an avid runner who’s completed marathons and loves snacking on fresh vegetables from her local farmers market. She is one of the healthiest and most health conscious individuals on our team and we were very interested in learning her results.

The study, titled Detox Me Now, included approximately 350 participants. Teresa submitted her urinary sample for testing 15 chemicals, including3

  • Chlorinated phenols
  • Bisphenols
  • Alkylphenol ethoxylates (found in paints) 
  • UV filters
  • Parabens (commonly used in makeup products as a preservative)
  • Antimicrobials

Teresa’s Results

Her study results detected seven of the 15 chemicals tested in her urine sample. There are a couple of basic rules to follow when it comes to interpreting biomonitoring results. The first is that a higher number is not always a reason for concern4. And the second is that from a hazard perspective, not all chemicals are the same5. Each chemical possesses its own set of health effects at different dosages and routes of exposure6.

Regrettable Substitutions

During our conversation, Teresa McGrath offered a particularly interesting study finding—her differing bisphenol results particularly when compared to the study median and the US median.  

This study tested for two bisphenols, bisphenol-A (BPA) and bisphenol-S (BPS). If BPA sounds familiar, that is probably because this is the much-talked about ingredient commonly used in polycarbonate plastic bottles, lining for food and beverage cans and thermal paper receipts. It can cause endocrine disruption.7,8 BPS is a common replacement for BPA in many thermal applications including paper receipts and plastics and has similar health concerns as BPA9. Teresa’s results for BPA were lower than the median for the Silent Spring Detox Me Now study participants AND lower than the US median10. However, her BPS levels were greater than her BPA levels, greater than the median for the Silent Spring Detox Me Now study participants AND greater than the US median11. This is illustrated in the following graphic from her study report.

The report offers two possible explanations: 

  • Teresa successfully avoids BPA by choosing products that are BPA-free and unwittingly preferring products that use BPS, the common BPA alternative.
  • The timing of the studies coincided with an industry-wide shift from BPA to other bisphenols, including BPS. The US median data (NHANES) was collected between 2013 and 2014, while the Detox Me Action Kit test samples are dated 2016 to 2018.   

By simply purchasing BPA-free products, one can reduce exposure to BPA. However, industries continue to choose “regrettable substitutions” or replacing one chemical with another similar chemical and/or a chemical with unknown health effects. Much of our work focuses on helping industries avoid regrettable substitutions.

Here’s how you can decrease your exposure to toxic chemicals.

Wrapping up our conversation with Teresa, we briefly discussed the overall study implications and additional survey results. Compared to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted by the Centers for Disease Control, participants of this study possessed lower chemical burdens than most people in the United States. One explanation for this may be attributed to 43 percent of participants self-reporting that they avoid products with parabens, BPA, triclosan, and fragrance, and an additional 40 percent reported avoiding two or three of those chemicals. 

So, how can you reduce your exposure? Silent Spring offers some ideas, including: 

  • Asking your favorite brands and stores to choose safer chemicals
  • Avoiding personal care products and cosmetics that list parabens as ingredients
  • Learning which personal care and cosmetics companies avoid harmful chemicals

You can also download their Detox Me Now App for more tips.

Biomonitoring studies similar to Silent Spring’s are springing up in recent years, as have articles about their results, such as this story in the Guardian. For only a few hundred dollars, consumers can know the exact chemical composition of their bodies. For those who find sample submission undesirable, HBN has added a new feature in our Pharos platform that provides links to biomonitoring databases with information on chemicals identified in the bodies of individuals from different regional communities. The results continually shed light on the need for greater industrial transparency and a transition to safer products. 

This is one more example of why HBN passionately paves the way to safer products, offering recommended alternatives from expert chemical analysis and by fostering collaborative industry partnerships.

SOURCES

  1. Kim et al., “Exposure to pesticides and the associated human health effects.” Science of the Total Environment 575, (2017). 525-535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.009
  2. Environmental Working Group, “ Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns.” Environmental Working Group, last modified July 14, 2005, https://www.ewg.org/research/body-burden-pollution-newborns.
  3. Fransway et al.. “Parabens.” Dermatitis 30, 1 (2019). 3-31. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000429
  4. Casarett, Louis J., John Doull, and Curtis D. Klaassen. 2001. Casarett and Doull’s toxicology: the basic science of poisons. New York: McGraw-Hill Medical Pub. Division.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Ibid.
  7. National Toxicology Program, “Bisphenol A (BPA),” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, last modified May 23, 2019,  https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/sya-bpa/index.cfm
  8. Silent Spring Institute, “Our Science”, Silent Spring Institute, accessed September 17, 2019, https://libanswers.snhu.edu/faq/48009
  9. Ibid.
  10. Ibid. The “US median” results in this article refer to the NHANES study. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is a program established in the 1960s run by the Centers for Disease Control that tracks the health of adults and children in the United States. NHANES tested surveyed individuals for many of the Detox Me Now Action Kit chemicals. The most recent NHANES data, from 2013-2014, were used as a nationally representative estimate of exposure in the United States.
  11. Ibid.

Current climate action plans are bold, they are necessary, they feel impossible, and they are coming into the consciousness of all concerned (and unconcerned), decades after the early reports should have been taken seriously.

At this point, there is an urgency because people are now experiencing the effects of a warming planet:storms, fires, rising tides, health impacts from warmer temperatures, and more.

To date, climate plans have focused on strategies related to renewable and clean energy, greater efficiency, emissions reduction, etc., especially as it relates to building operations and transportation. However, that is only one side of the (enormous) coin, and it misses key opportunities on the opposite side. It is akin to making the decision to improve your health by incorporating an exercise plan, but continuing a diet of nutritionally deficient and unhealthy foods. You will only get so far, and your dedication to exercise will be undercut by your fast food burgers and supersized fries. 

The other side of the coin? If building and transportation energy and emissions reduction is “heads,” what could be so immense that it fills the flipside? The “tails” of that coin is the vast quantities of products being produced, its emissions and pollution, and the need for toxic chemical mitigation. The missing piece in effective climate mitigation and improved global health is a toxic-free, recyclable product cycle (low-waste and closed-loop).

The Link Between Emissions, Circular Economy, and Chemicals

Climate plans must include Circular Economy strategies, and a circular economy is possible only if safe chemistries are used as inputs to products.1 The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s (EMF) September 2019 report: Completing the Picture: How the Circular Economy Tackles Climate Change makes the case that we must address the product cycle as a core part of climate action plans.2 According to the report, “to date, efforts to tackle the [climate] crisis have focused on a transition to renewable energy, complemented by energy efficiency. Though crucial and wholly consistent with a circular economy, these measures can only address 55% of emissions. The remaining 45% comes from producing the cars, clothes, food, and other products we use every day.” 

There is more than just emissions that makes the product cycle a critical component of an effective climate strategy. At Habitable, our research shows that there is a related and similar urgency in addressing severe health crises, impacting marginalized communities the hardest, but also now affecting a larger population of people. Our plans—starting with transparency (requesting manufacturers provide the public with a complete list of product ingredients); full testing of all chemicals for human and environmental health impacts; and innovation to new, “green” (safer) chemicals—are bold, necessary and they also feel impossible. 

The EMF Completing the Picture report makes the case that we must fundamentally change how our products are made. A key recommendation in reducing emissions is to “design out waste and pollution.” To be even more precise, designing the toxics out of our products is key to eliminating waste and creating the safe and circular economy that is the cornerstone of any climate solution, an inextricable element in human and environmental health.

A companion report by Google, in partnership with EMF, The Role of Safe Chemistry and Healthy Materials in Unlocking the Circular Economy, emphasizes that toxic chemical mitigation is a precursor to a circular economy. It suggests that “the short- and long-term impacts of these new chemical substances has lagged behind the drive to create new molecules and materials. We can see the consequences around us, including ‘sick building syndrome,’ flame retardants accumulating in human breast milk and being passed along to newborns, or entire city populations toxified from local environmental exposures and contaminated drinking water.” The authors of the report put out a challenge to the world’s chemists and material scientists to not only develop molecules and materials that achieve a performance or aesthetic outcome, but also to ensure that these substances are safe for people and the environment, can be cycled and used to create future products, and retain economic value throughout its lifecycle. Safer chemistry is the key to unlock a circular economy.

The health impacts related to our petrochemical and hazardous chemical-dependent product economy are real, but are often unseen or unrecognized. Globally declining sperm counts and reproductive disorders are linked to chemicals in our plastics,3 and a growing library of peer-reviewed studies link today’s epidemic health issues—cancer, diabetes, obesity, asthma and autism—to endocrine-disrupting and neurotoxic chemicals.4 These data often take a back seat to the climate crisis in our headlines, but they too are growing worse and in need of bold action.

“Better Living Through Chemistry” vs Better Chemistry for Healthier Living

DuPont (and other chemical companies) did not get it right with the blanket phrase, “Better Living Through Chemistry.”

Has there been some great progress and benefits from innovative products that use new chemistries and materials?—yes, of course. That said, a significant lack of understanding of the toxicological effects on humans and the environment have come at great cost. We are finding that the tradeoffs are severe—though today, like the early science on climate change, most people are unaware of this silent epidemic, and tend to accept the rise in cancer, autism, fertility problems, and developmental issues in children, as only an unfortunate part of life—they or their loved ones just pulled a short straw, bad luck.

In 1970, the U.S. produced 50 million tons of synthetic chemicals.5 In 1995, the number tripled to 150 million tons, and today, that number continues to increase.6 Very few of the tens of thousands of chemicals in  the marketplace are fully tested for health hazards, and details on human exposure to these chemicals is limited.7 We are exposed to these chemicals every day, in varying quantities and combinations. Over a lifetime, the small exposures add up. Science-based predictions of health outcomes from long-term exposure continue to emerge,8 but add on the component of a warming climate and a new layer of concern is revealing itself.9

Both/And Solution

The best climate plans are holistic. They recognize and include strategies from both the clean and renewable energy effort and safe and circular product cycle. The threats and impacts of climate change and toxic chemicals are synergistic, as are the solutions. They must be tethered in order to be effective. In fact, ignoring the chemical/material side of the coin will undermine progress on climate and energy solutions. 

We know better, and we can do better. 

As energy efficiency and renewable energy gains reduce the carbon footprint of the transportation and building operations sectors, addressing product production assumes an even greater importance. Successfully addressing climate change requires a revolutionary change in how we design and manufacture materials, towards a circular, closed-loop economy. But materials cannot flow effectively in a closed-loop if they are contaminated with toxic chemicals. Safe first, and then circular is possible. 

The urgency to mitigate toxics must be on par with the urgency for clean and renewable energy – they are two sides of the same coin. Failing to recognize this, and create holistic, compatible solutions, will undermine our goals to manage climate change and improve global health. 

SOURCES

  1. “What Is a Circular Economy? | Ellen MacArthur Foundation,” accessed November 25, 2019, https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept.
  2. “Circular Economy Reports & Publications From The Ellen MacArthur Foundation,” accessed November 25, 2019, https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications.
  3. Teresa Carr, “Sperm Counts Are on the Decline – Could Plastics Be to Blame?,” The Guardian, May 24, 2019, sec. US news, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/24/toxic-america-sperm-counts-plastics-research.
  4. Naoko OHTANI et al., “Adverse Effects of Maternal Exposure to Bisphenol F on the Anxiety- and Depression-like Behavior of Offspring,” The Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 79, no. 2 (February 2017): 432–39, https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.16-0502.
  5. Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Practice, and Medicine.
  6. Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Practice, and Medicine.

Home Depot, the world’s largest purchaser of building products, announced that by the end of 2015 it will eliminate phthalate plasticizers from the vinyl flooring it sells.

Phthalates are endocrine disrupting chemicals that have been banned in children’s products since 2008 but are still widely used in a wide range of vinyl products to make them flexible.

The announcement came after lengthy negotiations led by the Mind The Store Campaign, a grassroots effort supported by the Healthy Building Network’s (HBN) cutting-edge research on building products.  Mind The Store is challenging the country’s largest retailers to restrict 100 hazardous chemicals in the products they sell. Also today, the Mind The Store campaign released a report identifying phthalates and other chemical hazards detected in vinyl flooring products.

HBN first addressed the issue of phthalate substitution in polyvinyl chloride (PVC or “vinyl”) flooring in our 2014 report, Phthalate-free Plasticizers in PVC.  The HBN analysis was intended to help purchasers evaluate the claims of phthalate-free product lines in order to make informed choices about a wide array of materials including flooring, wall guards and coverings, wire and cabling, upholstery and membrane roofing.  And it worked: the report helped to convince Home Depot that change was possible in short order.  Now that Home Depot has acted, the whole industry will surely follow.

And what a relief it will be for people who live, work and play on vinyl floors. PVC sheet floors can contain over 20% phthalate plasticizers. These semi-volatile organic compounds readily migrate from flooring into dust and are inhaled by building occupants. Researchers are finding that exposures to phthalates occurs in the womb as well as after birth, and can impair the development of lungs and immune systems. This disruption in turn can lead to the development of asthma, as we first reported in 2004, and genital deformities in boys.

For over a decade now, leading green designers, architects and building owners have taken a precautionary approach, avoiding PVC building products in commercial buildings as evidence grew of the many toxic impacts associated with PVC and its additives. As a result, phthalate-free formulations of vinyl floor and wall coverings began appearing in this market a few years ago. Home Depot’s leadership marks a tipping point that will bring these products to everyone.

…that some chemicals used for stain or water repellency in building products last longer than nuclear waste?

In fact, as far as can be determined, the most studied of these perfluorinated chemicals, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) – formerly the key chemical in Scotchgard™ – never breaks down in the environment.[1]

Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) are manmade compounds, based on the element fluorine, and are the key ingredients in stain- and water-repellent treatments such as Teflon®, Crypton® and Crypton Green®, Gore™, and Stainmaster®, and in nanotech products such as Nano-Tex™ and GreenShield™.[2] Scientists have raised concerns about PFCs because they are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic. Moreover, biomonitoring studies confirm widespread human exposure to this class of compounds.

Scientific studies have linked PFCs with developmental toxicity, cancer, thyroid, liver and immune system functions, cholesterol increases, and low birth measurements in newborn humans.[3] The health issues associated with PFCs, coupled with alarming data about the increasing chemical burden of these compounds in our bodies,[4] as well as the widespread exposure in wildlife, have prompted scientists and public health experts to express increasing concern about continued use of these chemicals.

In May 2009, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) added PFOS to a growing list of chemicals recognized by international treaty as chemicals of greatest concern to be reduced or eliminated in the global environment, putting them in league with widely recognized threats such as dioxin and PCBs.

In the U.S., most major fabric treatment brands continue to use PFCs as chemical manufacturers rush to replace the most well-studied PFCs with similar fluorinated compounds that have not been heavily scrutinized. Although chemical manufacturers such as DuPont resist releasing information about the new compounds, it is clear that some are virtually unstudied, and some that scientists have studied are breaking down to PFOS and perfluorooctanic acid (PFOA), which would add to the reservoir of these persistent contaminants in the general environment. In June 2008, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a report on PFCs, which uncovered evidence that manufacturers’ own tests showed that many of the alternative chemicals lead “to a conclusion of substantial risk to human health or to the environment.”[5]

Like nuclear waste, the problem of PFCs isn’t going away. Still, there are steps that can be taken today to stem the tide of PFCs accumulating in our bodies. For many of the PFC applications, we can start out by simply asking ourselves whether we really need these chemicals at all.

For those wanting to understand more about PFCs and potential health concerns, HBN and Kaiser Permanente have produced a paper that examines PFCs in more detail.

SOURCES

  1. Co-operation on Existing Chemicals – Hazard Assessment of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate and its Salts. Environment Directorate Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides, and Biotechnology, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. November 2002. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/18/2382880.pdf.
  2. In addition to these products which are widely used to create water and soil repellency in fabric, furniture, and carpet, PFCs are found elsewhere including fire fighting foams, metal plating, and within the photographic industry.
  3. References for these health impacts and the chemical burden concerns outlined below can be found in the report Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) and Human Health Concerns, from the Global Health and Safety Initiative, http://www.healthybuilding.net/healthcare/2009-04-20PFCs_fact_sheet.pdf.
  4. Calafat A, Kuklenyik Z, Reidy J, Caudill S, Tylly J, Needham L. Serum Concentrations of 11 Polyfluoroalkyl Compounds in the U.S. Population: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2000. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/perfluorinated_compounds_3.html.
  5. Nadenko O, Sharp R. Credibility Gap: Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging and DuPont’s Greenwashing: New Chemicals and Risks are Confidential. Environmental Working Group Report. June 2008. http://www.ewg.org/reports/teflongreenwash. Accessed April 15, 2009.

…that some building products may expose you to the chemical banned from plastic bottles?

Everyone has heard the news about the health concerns associated with bisphenol A (BPA) leaching from baby bottles, food can liners and perhaps most famously those distinctive polycarbonate plastic water bottles popularized by Nalgene.[1] Last May, Chicago became the first city in the U.S. to ban the sale of baby bottles and sippy cups made from BPA. Few, however, are aware that BPA is a chemical component of epoxy resins used in a wide range of building materials, typically paints, sealants, adhesives and fillers,[2] that may put manufacturing workers, installers, and building occupants at risk.

Epoxy resins are used in building materials, often listed on a material safety data sheet as a proprietary mixture, without disclosure that the resin is made from BPA. While manufacturers claim that the BPA in epoxy resins is consumed entirely in the production process and does not show up in the final products, scientists investigating the metabolic breakdown of epoxy resins during occupational exposure have found that epoxy resin products can be metabolized in the human body back into BPA and may impact the endocrine and reproductive system of those exposed.[3]Animal studies have linked this hormone-disrupting chemical to prostate cancer, breast cancer, pre-diabetes (insulin resistance), abnormal fat metabolism, early puberty, and changes in the way the brain develops resulting in behavioral abnormalities.[4] 

The BPA expert panel from the Center for Evaluation of Human Risks to Reproduction raised concern about BPA in epoxy-based resins, reporting to the National Toxicology Program that, “several studies collectively suggest hormonal effects of bisphenol A exposure, including one in occupationally exposed male workers likely exposed through multiple routes including inhalation…”[5] The NTP’s final monograph states that “a number of studies, when considered together, suggest a possible effect on reproductive hormones, especially in men exposed to higher levels of bisphenol A in the workplace.”[6] Germany has already instituted occupational exposure limits for bisphenol A.[7]

Recent biomonitoring studies have raised concerns about widespread human exposure to BPA. A National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) study found that more than 90% of people in a representative sample of the general population have BPA residues in their urine[8] and that there must be significant non-food exposures to reach such levels.[9]

It is likely that BPA in building products will become subject to greater health and safety regulation, but responsible specifiers do not need to wait for the regulatory system to catch up with the science to protect their clients. Products are available that can replace epoxy-based coatings and adhesives. For example, many paint companies now offer high-performance low-VOC water-based acrylic paints and acrylic-based adhesives for flooring, carpets, and wall covering. For applications where high-performance BPA-free substitutes are not yet available, the act of asking manufacturer reps for products without bisphenol A is an important step to prod the industry to bring safer high performance alternatives to market.

For a comprehensive discussion of the emerging science on BPA risks, read “Bisphenol A in Building Materials: High Performance Paint Coatings.”

SOURCES

  1. BPA is also known as a component of dental sealants, some medical and dental devices, and thermal paper receipts.
  2. Epoxy-based products are used in a wide range of applications including coatings (such as paints, floor sealers and protective coatings), adhesives and fillers (including caulks, grouts, mortars, and putties), fiberglass binders and cement additives. Epoxy resins are also in some wind energy applications, generators and other electronic equipment, industrial tooling applications, and materials used in the art, aerospace and marine industries.
  3. Hanaoka T, Kawamura N, Hara K, Tsugane S. Urinary bisphenol A and plasma hormone solvents in male workers exposed to bisphenol A diglycidyl ether and mixed organic solvents. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2002; 59:626; Cha B, Koh S, Park J, et. al. Influence of Occupational Exposure to Bisphenol A on the Sex Hormones of Male Epoxy Resin Painters. Mol Cell Toxicol. 2008; 4(3): 230-234.
  4. Sarah Janssen, staff scientist for the NRDC, summarizes health concerns and the issue with links to some of the key science on her 7/13/09 blog entry “California is the latest battleground on BPA regulation”. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sjanssen/many_of_my_blog_posts.html.
  5. Expert Panel cited in NTP-CERHR Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Bisphenol A page 15. http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/bisphenol.pdf.
  6. Ibid at page 37.
  7. Murakami T, Oyama T, Isse T, et al. International comparison of criteria for evaluating sensitization of PRTR-designated chemical substances. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 2007;12:56–65, citing Deutsche Forschungsgemeinshaft. List of MAK and BAT Values 2004, Commission for the investigation of health hazards of chemical compounds in the work area, Report No. 40. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA; 2004.
  8. Calafat A., et. al., Urinary concentrations of bisphenol A and 4-nonylphenol in a human reference population. Environ. Health Persp. 2005; 113(4): 391-395. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2004/7534/7534.html. Accessed online June 20, 2009.
  9. Stahlhut R, Welshons W, Swann S. Bisphenol A data in NHANES suggest longer than expected half-Life, substantial nonfood exposure, or both. Environ Health Perspect. (2009); 117(5):784-789. http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2009/0800376/abstract.html. Accessed online July 20, 2009.

Fourteen residents of McCullom Lake Village, Illinois (population 1,000) have brain cancer.

The incidence in the US population is 4 in 100,000.[1]  This is the largest brain cancer cluster identified in a non-occupational setting. In epidemiological terms, the chance that this is a coincidence is something like your chance of winning the lottery.  It’s far more likely that the 14 victims share some sort of common link. The evidence in this case points to the vinyl chloride in the groundwater flowing into their wells from a nearby factory that made vinyl food wrap.[2]

Aaron Freiwald is an attorney representing the cancer victims in a class action lawsuit against Rohm & Haas, which bought the suspect facility from the Morton Chemical Company in 1999. According to Freiwald, “By the time we are done with this case, the association between vinyl chloride and brain cancer is going to be much stronger. They are going to have to revise the way current textbooks discuss cancer risks associated with vinyl chloride.”

One critical factor in the case is the clear connection between the vinyl chloride and the cancers.  It can be difficult to prove a specific chemical causes a specific cancer because so often people have multiple exposures to carcinogens.  But, Lake McCollum is an isolated community.  There are no other significant industrial sources of chemical contamination to which the 14 victims have been exposed.  According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), vinyl chloride is carcinogenic to humans and has been associated with brain cancer.

Improved methods of analyzing DNA allow scientists to compare cancer cells in ways not available in earlier cases – such as the case of vinyl chloride plant worker Dan Ross featured in the PBS documentary Trade Secrets, and HBO’s Blue Vinyl.   This new DNA analysis shows that the damage to brain tissue among the Illinois victims is strikingly similar, and that this pattern is different from other types of brain cancers – further evidence of a common local cause. 

Freiwald is most excited by what his investigation has uncovered about industry-sponsored studies of vinyl workers. These have been the backbone of the vinyl industry’s defense that there is at best a “weak statistical correlation” between vinyl chloride exposure and brain cancer.  The industry studies have long been criticized for having diluted the surveyed worker population with employees unlikely to have been exposed to vinyl chloride. “Our questioning of industry experts under oath,” says Freiwald, “has brought to light evidence that is going to strike at the heart of the whole industry’s defense of vinyl chloride.”

In depositions taken as part of this case, Freiwald says that industry experts acknowledged that had just one more case of cancer been identified in the worker population that was studied, the conclusion would have changed from a “weak statistical correlation” at best to a “statistically significant” correlation. 

The McCollum case reminds us that the many problems associated with chlorinated materials, such as PVC plastic, are likely under-estimated, masked by the limits of scientific investigations to date, and obscured by the intensive cigarette science campaigns of its manufacturers.

SOURCES

  1. According to Freiwald, the number of glioblastomas (the dominant brain cancer in this group) is 3-4 per 100,000.  The number of oligodendrogliomas, the second and related type of brain cancer among the victims, is 0.3 cases per 100,000.  The number for all “brain and CNS” cancers, which is a more inclusive group of diseases, is 7 in 100,000. 
  2. The chemical alleged to have been released into the Lake McCollum’s groundwater is known as dichlroroethylene, or 1, 1-dce, which undergoes reductive dechlorination to vinyl chloride in groundwater and landfills.

“To protect the health of our state’s children,” California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation on October 14, 2007 prohibiting the use of phthalates (pronounced “thall-eights”) in childcare products designed for babies and children under three years of age.

Phthalates are used as plasticizers to soften polyvinyl chloride plastic, also known as PVC or vinyl, including a wide range of building products such as vinyl flooring, wallcovering and upholstery.

Phthalate plasticizers are not chemically bound to PVC. They have been found to leach, migrate or evaporate into indoor air and atmosphere, foodstuff, IV solutions and other materials, etc. Consumer products containing phthalates can result in human exposure through direct contact and use, indirectly through leaching into other products, or general environmental contamination. Humans are exposed through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal exposure during their whole lifetime, starting in the womb. Phthalates come in many different formulas. Most haven’t been tested or examined at all for human health impacts. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has noted that one phthalate formula common to certain building materials — DINP [1] — is a mixture of up to 100 chemical variants, of which only five have been minimally studied [2]. Others have been found to pose a risk of serious negative health impacts at very low doses.

Phthalates have been shown to have negative effects on human health including interference with the natural functioning of the hormone system, and reproductive and genital defects. Phthalates may lower sperm count and are associated with the risk factors for testicular cancer, as well as early onset of puberty and premature birth.

In June 2005, HBN discussed recent research findings that the cumulative impact of different phthalates leads to an exponential increase in associated harm, and documented levels of phthalates found in humans at levels higher than levels shown to cause adverse health effects. A 2007 study concluded that the exposure of children to phthalates exceeds that in adults, warning, “Current human biomonitoring data prove that the tolerable intake of children is exceeded to a considerable degree, in some instances up to 20-fold” [3].

Phthalates have been found in high quantities in studies of household dust. Other studies have documented links between childhood asthma and phthalate exposure from vinyl flooring. Because phthalates are not a volatile organic compound (VOC), however, they are usually not accounted for by indoor air quality standards such as those used to certify green building materials.

California now joins the EU [4] in restricting the use of phthalates in the use of children’s products, and many other US states are expected to take up legislation similar to that signed by Governor Schwarzenegger [5].

Like the human carcinogens vinyl chloride and dioxin, phthalates are uniquely associated with PVC [6]. It is this triple threat from PVC that distinguishes it as the worst plastic for environmental health and green building. Regrettably, there are still few restrictions on the use of vinyl in green buildings.

SOURCES

  1. Diisononyl phthalate, a general use vinyl plasticizer. It is the primary plasticizer used in vinyl toys, though it finds many other applications such as garden hoses, shower curtains, vinyl flooring and wall covering. Source: http://www.phthalates.org/glossary.asp [link no longer available]
  2. “Aggregate Exposures to Phthalates in Humans,” Health Care Without Harm, July 2002. http://www.noharm.org/lib/downloads/pvc/Agg_Exposures_to_Phthalates.pdf, p.16, footnote 149 Heudorf et al., 2007. “Phthalates: Toxicology and exposure“. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. Article in Press.
  3. Heudorf et al., 2007. “Phthalates: Toxicology and exposure“. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. Article in Press.
  4. “Permanent EU ban on phthalates in toys and childcare articles is published” TDCTrade.com website, Feb 03, 2006, http://www.hktdc.com/info/mi/a/baeu/en/1X008GDB/1/Business-Alert-%E2%80%93-EU/Permanent-EU-ban-on-phthalates-in-toys-and-childcare-articles-is-published.htm
  5. “A nationwide toxic toy ban likely to follow state lead” SF Chronicle, October 16, 2007, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/16/MNT0SQDJV.DTL
  6. About 80 to 90% of phthalate production goes into PVC (Costner, Pat et al. 2005, “Sick of Dust: Chemicals in Common Products–A Needless Health Risk in Our Homes”, Safer Products Project, http://safer-products.org/downloads/Dust Report.pdf and the Phthalates Information Centre Europe http://www.phthalates.com

A week after the US Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Technical Science Advisory Committee determined that PVC was one of the most unhealthy building materials in part due to occupational exposures to vinyl chloride, the federal Chemical Safety Board (CSB) found that a massive release of vinyl chloride led to the explosion that killed 5 workers at a PVC factory in Illiopolis, Illinois on April 23, 2004.

The CSB Investigation Report is made all the more relevant to green building professionals in light of the USGBC’s finding that PVC flooring ranked absolute worst in both human health and environmental factors compared to the alternatives reviewed. The destroyed factory, owned by Formosa Plastics, had been a major supplier of vinyl resin for Armstrong floors.

The CSB is the industrial equivalent of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the agency that rushes investigators to the scene of plane crashes, train derailments and the like. [1] The CSB’s March 6, 2007 report found among other things that the cause of this accident, “inadvertently draining a reactor, is a serious hazard in the PVC manufacturing process.” [2] Indeed just 60 days before the fatal explosion, workers at the same facility accidentally released an undisclosed amount of vinyl chloride. The report also notes that 8,000 pounds of vinyl chloride were released by accident in June 2003 at the company’s Baton Rouge, LA facility. [3] A year after the explosion, in May 2005, another 2,500 pounds of vinyl chloride were accidentally released from the company’s Delaware City, DE location. [4] Each release was caused by the same problems which led to the catastrophe at the Illiopolis facility in April 2004. Other PVC factories owned by Formosa have also suffered catastrophic explosions in the recent past. [5]

The chemical at issue, vinyl chloride, is a human carcinogen whose total danger is believed by many to be underestimated by the EPA. A 2005 study in the peer reviewed journal American Health Perspectives found that the EPA employed discredited scientific practices at the behest of the chemical industry in order to lower estimates of vinyl chloride’s cancer potency by tenfold. [6]

The USGBC’s study of PVC found it “consistently among the worst materials for human health impacts” based upon exceedingly conservative estimates of impact. To understand how conservative, consider that its evaluation of PVC only accounted for exposures from normal operations to workers in the factory and neighbors at the fenceline. The health impacts of the extraordinary accidental releases from Formosa’s facilities described above — and the deadly explosions that can follow as at Illiopolis — are beyond the reach of tools like LCA and risk analysis.

This CSB report further underscores the significance of the USGBC’s decision to be guided by the Precautionary Principle in its evaluation of green building materials and to fully consider the impacts of manufacturing processes on production workers. It is the essence of precaution to avoid hazards and risks that are avoidable. So remember this the next time you specify pipe, roofing membranes, wall coverings and especially flooring: the chemical that killed those 5 men in Illiopolis is essential and unique to only one material you are considering: PVC plastic, also known as vinyl. [7]

SOURCES

  1. The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. The agency’s board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems. The Board does not issue citations or fines but does make safety recommendations to plants, industry organizations, labor groups, and regulatory agencies such as OSHA and EPA.
  2. US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Investigation Report, Formosa Plastics Corp., Illiopolis, Illinois, April 23, 2004 p. 29. http://www.csb.gov/completed_investigations/docs/FormosaPlasticsIlliopolisReport.pdf
  3. Ibid. p. 28
  4. Ibid. p. 29
  5. http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=nation_world&id=3514274 [link no longer available]
  6. Jennifer Beth Sass, Barry Castleman and David Wallinga. “Vinyl Chloride: A Case Study of Data Suppression and Misrepresentation,” Environmental Health Perspectives, published online 24 March 2005, doi:10.1289/ehp.7716, http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7716/7716.html
  7. To be sure, vinyl chloride is not the only avoidable risk in the production of flooring, or plastics, or materials generally. However, the risk of explosion is only one of the negative environmental health consequences of vinyl chloride whose use is both essential and unique to PVC plastic. Related impacts include dioxin emissions from manufacture and fire, the use and release of toxic additives such as cadmium and lead stabilizers and phthalate softeners, and the threats associated with the production of massive quantities of chlorine gas as the basic building block of vinyl chloride production. These factors lead HBN to the conclusion that PVC is the worst plastic for the environment.

Download this resource:

* indicates required

Yes, I’d like to receive exclusive email updates.