Is modern
life poisoning me? I took the tests to find out
We are
exposed to synthetic chemicals in plastics, cosmetics and food every day. Could
it be making us toxic? Our environment reporter was tested for over 1,530
chemicals to find out
Editor’s
pick: best of 2019. We’re bringing back some of our favorite stories of the
past year. Support the Guardian’s journalism in 2020
Emily
Holden
Wed 22 May
2019 07.00 BSTLast modified on Mon 16 Dec 2019 14.55 GMT
Emily
Holden shops at the Whole Foods in their neighborhood in Washington, DC,
February 23, 2019. Emily is the environment reporter for The Guardian US and
has been wearing a silicone band developed by Oregon State University to
measure chemicals from the surrounding environment over time. The wristbands
can absorb volatile and semi-volatile compounds directly from the air and
enable researchers to correlate location with air pollutants.
Emily Holden shops at Whole Foods in
Washington DC, on 23 February, wearing a silicone band to measure chemicals
from the surrounding environment. Photograph: Evelyn Hockstein/The Guardian
Sitting on
a plastic chair in a small office, I’m wearing medical scrubs rolled up to my
knees and I have an X-ray machine strapped to my shin.
The machine
is scanning my bones for lead as an expert monitors readings streaming on to a
screen.
Earlier
that day, after arriving at a Mount Sinai facility in New York City, I dropped
off a urine sample that will be studied for 81 chemicals in lab tests far more
advanced than at a regular doctor visit.
A couple of
weeks earlier, I spent five days wearing a silicone wristband designed to
measure dangerous chemicals in my environment. I wore it while I cleaned my
apartment, applied cosmetics and commuted to work.
All this
testing came during a six-month journey to try to answer what sounds like a
very simple question: how toxic am I?
As an
environment reporter for the Guardian in Washington DC, I had noticed a growing
number of experts expressing concerns about how Americans are exposed to
potentially toxic chemicals just by living our everyday lives.
But how
concerned should individuals be? How worried should I be?
Emily
Holden, the environment reporter for The Guardian US, has been wearing a
silicone band developed by Oregon State University to measure chemicals from
the surrounding environment over time. The wristbands can absorb volatile and
semi-volatile compounds directly from the air and enable researchers to
correlate location with air pollutants.
In Baton
Rouge, I passed industrial facilities churning out gasoline and petrochemicals
on drives to the airport or my favorite po boy shop for lunch. At home, I
rarely thought about those chemicals when I moved my dad’s dirty coveralls from
the washer to the dryer.
So when the
Guardian decided to explore how Americans encounter toxic substances, I
couldn’t turn my mind away from my own quiet worries. Tallying the people in my
extended family who have died from cancer, I texted my parents. We stopped
counting at eight.
The
hour-long drive between my hometown and New Orleans is technically called the
“petrochemical corridor”, but more Louisianans know it as Cancer Alley.
In
Louisiana from 2011 to 2015, about 188 people out of 100,000 died each year
from cancer, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
That’s higher than all but three states: Kentucky, Mississippi and West
Virginia. One town outside New Orleans, which the Guardian is reporting from in
a series through this year, has a cancer rate 50 times higher than the national
average because of toxic air.
Our ‘body
burden’
Humans are
more vulnerable to chemicals in utero and in youth, so my concerns aren’t unreasonable.
Even the most health-conscious people have carcinogens and other harmful
chemicals in their bodies – from plastics, cosmetics, cleansers,
pesticide-soaked food, polluted air and water and the many other exposures that
are a part of modern life.
All the
chemicals together form what is known as a person’s “body burden”. Almost none
of us can test ourselves to see our own body burdens. Doctors’ offices don’t
offer the option and private labs don’t routinely test individuals and cost
thousands of dollars.
With that
in mind, I set out to quantify one person’s health risks from chemicals. As the
complex world of toxicology unfolded, I realized just how much none of us know.
Of the tens
of thousands of chemicals in commerce, scientists have closely studied the
health impacts of roughly 50 to 100. The CDC records some of the average levels
shown in the bodies of a representative sample of Americans.
We know
what levels are average, but we don’t know what levels are safe. We also don’t
know how various chemicals react together in the human body.
Individually,
some of the chemicals commonly in use and in human bodies are known to be
linked with cancer, organ problems, reproductive difficulties, endocrine
disruption, obesity, diabetes, birth defects, neural issues and developmental
delays. Together, we don’t know what they do.
One
analysis of CDC data found that mixtures of chemicals can heighten toxicity in
the body. But chemicals are typically studied only for their individual
effects. And the existing research covers only a small fraction of chemicals
people are exposed to – many more are unknown.
I didn’t
understand most of this when I started working on this story.
The science
of ‘exposomics’
I think of
myself as a relatively cautious consumer. I buy most of my soaps and lotions at
Whole Foods, but I don’t closely examine the hair products from my salon or the
cleaning products I’ve always used. I eat mostly organic when I cook at home,
but I dine out often too. Plastic is everywhere in my life, although I try to
purchase as little of it as possible. I bought a special mattress specifically
to avoid flame retardants.
So I was
fascinated when I first heard of exposomics – the burgeoning study of how toxic
chemicals affect a body over a lifetime.
“I like to
say that exposomics is roughly where genomics was 15 years ago,” says Robert
Wright, director of the Institute for Exposomic Research at Mount Sinai in New
York.
“There’s a
growing realization among geneticists that genetic information in the absence
of environmental information doesn’t have very much value because everything
interacts.”
In the US,
Wright says, companies start using new chemicals and don’t stop using them
unless people get sick and can prove how it happened. Medicines are tested
before market, but most other products aren’t.
I know
this, but hearing it from an expert makes me hyper aware of my environment. I
start wearing socks after cleaning my floors. At a restaurant, I smell
disinfectant and cringe at the silverware resting on the table.
Searching
for tests
Wright
tells me we can test my body for a small number of chemicals but we won’t know
where in my life they’re coming from.
To examine
my current-day risk, I can wear a newly developed silicone wristband designed
by another researcher that will show what toxic substances I encounter in a
given week.
For a
longer history, we would need to analyze my baby teeth, which I don’t have.
They would show signs of early exposures to toxic substances like lead and
pesticides.
As I start
seeking tests, I also find Leonardo Trasande, a doctor at New York University
who helped a reporter with a similar experiment years ago. He tells me that
unfortunately not much has changed since then.
Trasande
suggests starting with four categories: phthalates, bisphenols, polybrominated
diphenyl ethers (flame retardants) and organophosphate pesticides.
Aside from
popping up in products and food, many of these chemicals enter the air, water and
soil where they are manufactured and used.
I tick
through my daily life and hypothesize that I probably have moderate levels of
all four categories.
Wright, the
exposomics expert, says people educated about risks can reduce their toxic
burdens, and this makes me feel my personal research is worthwhile.
However,
Paolo Vineis, the chair of environmental epidemiology at Imperial College in
London, tells me I should consider the psychological impact of my quest. He
says he worries about a future where people are frequently testing their
exposures. “I’m not sure it is good mental health to be that concerned about
pollution,” he says.
Andreas
Kortenkamp, a researcher looking at the effects of mixtures of chemicals, says
there are limits to how much individuals can do. “It requires regulatory action
from government,” he says.
What all
the experts agree on, however, is that the best thing is to maintain a healthy
lifestyle – to be active, eat fruits and vegetables and never smoke.
I’m unsure
of how much I really want to know until I speak to Philippe Grandjean, a
Harvard environmental pollution specialist who splits his time between
Copenhagen and Cambridge, Massachusetts.
His studies
have made him an expert in lead, mercury and most recently, manmade non-stick
perfluorinated chemicals, or PFAS , which most people have in their bodies.
“The lower
you can get your exposure, the better, and simply use your brain,” Grandjean says.
There may be bigger hazards we haven’t discovered “so we should try to limit
our exposure to essentially all chemicals”, he adds.
Grandjean
is also hyperaware. He doesn’t scrape melted cheese off chemically treated
pizza boxes. He doesn’t eat popcorn microwaved in a bag.
If he can
be that careful, I figure I can throw out some old perfumes and lotions. But
for months while I’m learning about this invisible world, I try to keep my
routines the same for the sake of our experiment.
The
wristband test
After a few
weeks, Kim Anderson, who developed the wristband for chemical testing at Oregon
State University that Wright told me about, sends me a thick resealable plastic
bag with a Livestrong-style bracelet.
For five
days I don’t take it off. It’s bright orange and black, and I can’t help but
notice it constantly. When I put on makeup or clean a counter, I think about
whether it will show. When I take a deep breath, I wonder about the day’s air
quality.
A
photographer comes to document my everyday life and we line up my shower
products on the edge of the bathtub. I feel overwhelmed: I don’t know much
about the ingredients in what I use.
A few weeks
later, Wright and Mount Sinai volunteer to test me for some of the chemicals
the experts I’ve interviewed highlighted as important. I take a train to New
York City and tour the lab where my samples will be collected and analyzed.
Expensive machinery whirs all around.
I head to
the bone scanner – which exposes me to a small fraction of the radiation
involved in an annual dental X-ray. I was born in 1989, the year lead was
phased out of gasoline. So if I was exposed, it was probably from old wall
paint or drinking water pipes.
The full
results of the lead test will take time to analyze, but Andrew Todd – who
operated the machine on my leg – tells me I’m in the clear. “Because you’re not
lighting up like a Christmas tree,” he says.
Lead is the
only heavy metal we’re testing. The other tests we’ve arranged – after months
of phone and video calls, emails and train trips – focus on the kinds of
chemicals most Americans encounter every day, which worry me more.
Holden
looks closer at ingredients in her products, keeping some and replacing others.
With all my
testing complete, I get home and start to make some changes.
I collect
what I understand to be my riskiest products throughout my home, according to a
database and app maintained by the Environmental Working Group, a health
advocacy group.
I keep some
of my personal care products and cosmetics but discard others. I struggle to
part with a poorly rated hair cream I used since I was a teenager and perfumes
that remind me of my first years in Washington DC. I remind myself that
cosmetics, and particularly fragrance, in the US are largely unregulated.
Friends who
hear about the project ask if I’m scared. But I’m actually relieved to know I’m
making better-educated decisions.
Then the
results arrive.
The test
results from the wristband
My
wristband was analyzed for 1,530 chemicals. Twelve were detected, and the
remaining 1,518 analytes were below the detection limit.
I Google
the 12, and they sound terrifying, but I have no frame of reference. There is
no database for chemicals Americans are exposed to on a daily basis.
Most on my
list are fragrances used in body care products and cleaning supplies. Several
are phthalates, the plasticizers used in food packaging and cosmetics. One is a
flame retardant.
Olga
Naidenko, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, goes through
the list with me. She notes phthalates can mimic hormones, affect the endocrine
system and harm a developing fetus. She adds that the flame retardant – TPP –
is used in some nail polishes and is another suspected endocrine disruptor.
An excerpt
from Emily Holden’s results from her wristband test which showed - highlighted
in yellow - what had been found, including Triphenyl phospate (TPP), a toxic
flame retardant used in polyurethane foam for furniture and children’s
products.
An excerpt
from Emily Holden’s results from her wristband test which showed – highlighted
in yellow – what had been found, including TPP, the flame retardant used in
some nail polish. Photograph: Emily Holden
Endocrine
function is important to a healthy body. Endocrine disruptors can turn on or
off, or modify, signals that hormones carry. They are linked with
developmental, neural, immune and reproductive problems.
Naidenko
reminds me that research can’t yet tell us the effects of cumulative exposure
to multiple chemicals simultaneously.
“In EWG’s
view, this question should have been answered by chemicals and products
manufacturers before the chemicals were released on the market,” she says. “In
the meantime, EWG recommends avoiding various possible sources of exposure to
endocrine disrupting chemicals in everyday products.”
This, she
adds, will “require a bit of detective work … since ingredients are not
typically listed on consumer products”.
At first, I
don’t aggressively pursue that detective work – I’m busy and I’ve been living
this way without major problems for years, right? But I find I can’t help
myself. Within the month I decide to start skipping pedicures and painting my
toenails at home or not at all.
Results
from the rest of my tests
When Mount
Sinai completes my lab tests, Wright won’t send them to me until we talk. He
knows I would go straight to Googling.
First he
asks if I have chronic illnesses or take medications. I don’t, but I do take
two pills a day for minor issues. I work in front of a computer, but I’m
otherwise active and eat plenty of fruits and vegetables. I’m also gluten
intolerant, so I skip many processed foods.
Wright
tells me I have at least 36 chemicals in my body – phthalates, flame retardants
and pesticides, as well as some phenols used in plastics and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons from air pollution.
I also have
a metabolite from cigarette smoke, called cotinine. I don’t smoke and I’m
rarely around smokers, but I did briefly visit relatives who were smoking two
weeks before my test.
It’s
remarkable to me that this could show up in my results.
“There’s no
such thing as a ‘normal’ level for any of these chemicals,” Wright says.
But
compared with the CDC data, I’m fairly average for a person living in a city.
Two of my
phthalate levels are two to three times higher than the American average. Those
are the chemicals found in my fancy soaps and shampoos. But they’re also in the
plastic medicine capsules I swallow each day. And they’re in food packaging –
like the plastic sheets that wrap American cheese. They are associated with
obesity and reproductive problems, particularly for males.
“All those
things are not directly causal, they’re risk factors,” Wright explains.
Even
average levels aren’t necessarily healthy.
Trasande
says he would have compared my numbers to the ranges of levels – rather than
the averages – present in Americans. He says results like mine “are associated
with a host of health consequences that can develop in folks who don’t have
clinical symptoms of any disease or burden”. He counsels me to avoid the
exposures I can.
But Wright
says that since I don’t have any illnesses – like type 2 diabetes – he wouldn’t
advise any extraordinary measures to limit my encounters with phthalates.
“My bet is
you’re more in tune than most people and probably have a lower risk,” Wright
says. He says taking your health seriously, “more than anything else, will help
no matter what you’re exposed to and pretty much no matter what your DNA says.”
Based on
one result, my elevated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, I decide to get a big
fan and open the window when I cook over my stove.
My kitchen
doesn’t have an exhaust. It’s unclear whether the air pollution my labs show is
from cars in a traffic jam or smoke inside my home.
“I think
the important message is it’s not that we think that all chemicals should be
banned,” Wright says. “Chemicals have positive uses. It’s just that we need to
be aware of what’s in [products] and then make informed choices.”
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário