MisInformation Exchange
Return to MisInformation Blog.
Missing - Information on Environmental Pollutants and Women's Health
(April 28, 2004)
Addressing the effects of environment pollutants on women is important. A recent study (2003) by the
Women's Foundation of California on how environmental toxins affect women's health found that women - with
as much as 10 percent more body fat than men - are able to store more fat-soluble toxic materials.
In addition, Patti Chang, president and chief executive officer of the Women's Foundation of California,
said that low income women and women of color are even more disproportionately impacted.[1
] One of the main conclusions of this report is the fact that very little is
known about how environmental
toxins affect women. To date, the report notes, "many of the exposure assessment and risk assessment tests
that have been performed [on chemical exposure] do not take into account gender, age, geographic location,
or other demographic differences."[2] These findings are particularly disturbing because
women often work closely with potentially toxic chemicals (in the case of house cleaners, manicurists and
factory workers for example), and because women historically have not been the primary subjects of occupational
studies. Clearly, more gender disaggregated research into this matter is needed.[3] An
article in the April 2004 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives (co-authored by Sherry A. Marts,
Vice President for Scientific Affairs at the Society for Women's Health Research, a NCRW member center),
calls for just such an action. The SWHR reports: "Women's and men's health can be impacted differently
by environmental exposures. . . To better understand the effect of such exposure on women and men, new
research approaches are needed."[4]
Despite these findings - and despite promises in 1997 by the Science Policy Council of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to address gender specific issues and to use gender and age-differentiated data in risk
assessment and management decisions - there have been no new fact sheets on women's health and environmental factors
since 2000.[5] The government seems to be doing little gender disaggregated research
on women and the environment and has even revised important environmental legislation, with potentially
devastating effects for women. For example, in 2000, the EPA determined
that mercury was a hazardous substance, as it can damage the nervous system, especially in fetuses and
infants. About eight percent of American women have more mercury in their bloodstreams than the EPA
considers safe. Both the EPA and FDA adamantly warn pregnant women about the amount of mercury they consume
in the form of tuna and other types of fish (some environmental advocacy groups argue that even these warnings
do not go far enough).[6] But when it comes to emissions of mercury into the environment
by "big business," the government takes a different perspective. The Clean Air Act of 2000 required that
substances like mercury be controlled. This Act would have led to a 90 percent reduction in power-plant
mercury emissions by 2008. However, recent revisions of this Act will only lead to a 70 percent reduction
by 2017.[7] Instead of relying on unbiased scientific fact to
inform revision of the Act, this revision downplays the potentially serious health risks which result
from mercury exposure. For instance, the word "confirmed" was crossed out from a definition of mercury
as a "confirmed public health risk," and "mercury warrants regulation" was used instead in an EPA
draft of the proposed regulations circulated in November 2003.[8]
In addition, EPA expert staff, who normally perform economic and technical studies on new regulations
before they are issued, reported that they were asked not to undertake these routine precautions prior
to the release of the most recent regulations.[9] Instead,
the government "cut and pasted entire portions of its mercury proposal from industry recommendations
submitted to the EPA by a trade association representing two dozen large utility companies."
[10]
This behavior is clearly not impartial, nor is it inconsistent with the government's behavior on
other hazardous substances which have a disproportionately negative effect on women and children.
Recent appointees to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Lead Advisory Committee bring
the impartiality of scientific research and policy on lead into question. Many of the individuals have
close ties to the lead industry,[11] and include Dr. William
Banner, who has served as an expert witness for Sherwin-Williams (a maker of lead paint). Dr. Banner
has also testified that a lead level seven times higher than the normal standard is safe for children's brains,
a position which does not appear to be shared by any expert or scientific organization independent
of the lead industry.[12] The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency itself warns that exposure to lead
can cause, amongst other problems: difficulties during pregnancy and other reproductive problems
(in both men and women), nerve disorders, memory and concentration problems, and muscle and
joint pain.[13]
For more information on Environmental Pollutants and Women, See:
Endnotes
1. Qtd in Rebecca Vesely (2003, October 21). Study: Women Bear Brunt of Environmental Toxins.
Womens Enews. http://www.womensenews.com/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1570/context/archive.
[Return to text]
2. The Women's Foundation of California (2003) Executive Summary: Confronting Toxic Contamination in Our Communities.
Available at: www.womensfoundca.org. [Return to text]
3. Rebecca Vesely (2003, October 21). Study: Women Bear Brunt of Environmental Toxins. Women's eNews.
http://www.womensenews.com/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1570/context/archive.
[Return to text]
4. See March 30, 2004 Society for Women's Health Research's Press Release: 'Better Understanding of Sex
Differences in Environmental Exposure Needed to Improve Women's and Men's Health'. Available at:
www.womens-health.org. [Return to text]
5. Before this time they were regularly posted - seven 'faq sheets' were produced in 1998 alone.
See the National Women's Health Information Center at http://www.4woman.gov/faq/index.htm.
[Return to text]
6. Women's Health Weekly (2004, January 1). OBSTETRICS: FDA under fire for mercury fish advice.
Available online at: www.NewsRx.net.
Weise, Elizabeth (2004, April 8). Study: Pregnant women eating too much fish. USA Today. 3A. [Return to text]
7. Paul Krugman, (2004, April 6). The Mercury Scandal. NY Times. A23. [Return to text]
8. U.S. Newswire. (2004, April 16). Once Again, White House Silences a Scientist; FDA Admits
It Barred Experts from Testifying About Impact of Anti-Depressants on Children. www.usnewswire.com.
[Return to text]
9. Miller, Alan C. and Tom Hamburger (2004, March 17). A Plea to Scrap Mercury Emission Plan;
A bipartisan group says the Bush proposal is slanted towards industry and is too weak to protect public health.
Los Angeles Times. A 18. [Return to text]
10. Seager, Joni (2004, April 7). Editorial: 'Protectors' of unborn put them in peril. The Baltimore Sun.
19A. [Return to text]
11. Seager, Joni (2004, April 7). Editorial: 'Protectors' of unborn put them in peril. The Baltimore Sun.
19A. [Return to text]
12. Editorial (2003, August 18). Corrupted Science. The Boston Globe. A14.
[Return to text]
13. http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/lead/leadinfo.htm#health
[Return to text]
Return to MisInformation Blog.
| 
