“Going personally green is a bet, nothing more or less, though it’s one we probably all should make, even if the odds of it paying off aren’t great. Sometimes you have to act as if it will make a difference, even when you can’t prove that it will.” Michael Pollan

Our children today live in an environment that is fundamentally different from that of 50 years ago. In many ways, their world is better. In many ways, they’re healthier than ever before.  Thanks to safe drinking water, wholesome food, decent housing, vaccines, and antibiotics, our children lead longer, healthier lives than the children of any previous generation.  Traditional infectious diseases have largely been eradicated. Infant mortality is greatly reduced. The expected life span of a baby born in the United States is more than two decades longer than that of an infant born in 1900.

Yet, curiously, certain childhood problems are on the increase:

• asthma is now the leading cause of school absenteeism for children 5 to 17[1];
• birth defects are the leading cause of death in early infancy[2];
• developmental disorders (ADD, ADHD, autism, dyslexia and mental retardation) are reaching epidemic proportions – 1 in 88 children is now diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.[3] Currently one of every six American children has a developmental disorder of some kind. [4]
• Childhood cancers had once been a medical rarity but have grown 67% since 1950.[5] Childhood leukemia and brain cancer has increased sharply, while type 2 diabetes, previously unknown among children, is on the increase.[6]
• Most likely, one in three of the children you know suffers from a chronic illness – perhaps cancer, birth defects, asthma, learning disorders, ADHD or autism.[7]

And the cost of these illnesses is staggering – a few childhood conditions (lead poisoning, cancer, developmental disabilities –including autism and ADD – and asthma) accounted for 3% of total U.S. health care spending in the U.S.  “The environment has become a major part of childhood disease” trumpeted Time magazine in 2011.[8]

The generation born from 1970 on is the first to be raised in a truly toxified world.

Since World War II, more than 80,000 new chemicals have been invented.  Scientific evidence is strong, and continues to build, that exposures to synthetic chemicals in the modern environment are important causes of these diseases.[9]  Indoor and outdoor air pollution are now established as causes of asthma. Childhood cancer is linked to solvents, pesticides, and radiation. The National Academy of Sciences has determined that environmental factors contribute to 25% of developmental disorders in children[10] –  disorders that affect approximately 17% of U.S. children under the age of 18. Even before conception and on into adulthood, the assault is everywhere: heavy metals and carcinogenic particles in air pollution; industrial solvents, household detergents, prozac and radioactive wastes in drinking water; pesticides in flea collars; artificial growth hormones in beef, arsenic in chicken; synthetic hormones in bottles, teething rings and medical devices; formaldehyde in cribs and nail polish, and even rocket fuel in lettuce. Pacifiers are now manufactured with nanoparticles from silver, to be sold as ‘antibacterial.’

What is different now?

• The chief argument used by manufacturers to defend their chemical use is that the amounts used in products are so low that they don’t cause harm.  Yet we now know that the old belief that “the dose makes the poison” (i.e., the higher the dose, the greater the effect – because water can kill you just as surely as arsenic given sufficient quantity) is simply wrong.  Studies are finding that even infinitesimally low levels of exposure – indeed any level of exposure at all – may cause endocrine or reproductive abnormalities, particularly if exposure occurs during a critical developmental window.[11]Surprisingly, low doses may even exert more potent effects than higher doses. 
Endocrine disrupting chemicals may affect not only the exposed individual but also their children and subsequent generations.[12] Add to that the fact that what the industry bases its “safe” exposure limits on is calibrated on an adult’s body size, not children’s body sizes.
• We also now know that time of exposure is critical – because during gestation and through early childhood the body is rapidly growing under a carefully orchestrated process that is dependent on a series of events.  When one of those events is interrupted, the next event is disrupted – and so on – until permanent and irreversible changes result. These results could be very subtle — like an alteration in how the brain develops which subsequently impacts, for example, learning ability.  Or it could result in other impacts like modifying the development of an organ predisposing it to cancer later in life. There is even a new terminology to explain the consequences of exposure to EDCs: “the fetal basis of adult disease”, which means that the maternal and external environment, coupled with an individual’s genes, determine the propensity of that individual to develop disease or dysfunction later in life.  This theory, known as the “developmental origins of health and disease,” or DOHad, has blossomed into an emerging new field. DOHad paints a picture of almost unimaginably impressionable bodies, responsive to biologically active chemicals until the third generation.
• Order of exposure is important – exposures can happen all at once, or one after the other, and that can make a world of difference.
• There is yet another consideration:  The health effects from chemical pollution may appear immediately following exposure – or not for 30 years. The developmental basis of adult disease has implicit in its name the concept that there is a lag between the time of exposure and the manifestation of a disorder. Each of us starts life with a particular set of genes, 20,000 to 25,000 of them. Now scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence that pollutants and chemicals might be altering those genes—not by mutating or killing them, but by sending subtle signals that silence them or switch them on at the wrong times.  This can set the stage for diseases that can be passed down for generations.  This study of heritable changes in gene expression – the chemical reactions that switch parts of the genome off and on at strategic times and locations – is called “epigenetics”. Exposure to chemicals is capable of altering genetic expression, not only in your children, but in your children’s children – and their children too.  Researchers at Washington State University found that when pregnant rats were exposed to permethrin, DEET or any of a number of industrial chemicals, the mother rats’ great granddaughters had higher risk of early puberty and malfunctioning ovaries — even though those subsequent generations had not been exposed to the chemical.[13]  Another recent study has shown that men who started smoking before puberty caused their sons to have significantly higher rates of obesity. And obesity is just the tip of the iceberg—many researchers believe that epigenetics holds the key to understanding cancer, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, autism, and diabetes. Other studies are being published which corroborate these findings.[14]
• Age at time of exposure is critical. Fetuses are most at risk, because their rapidly developing bodies can be altered and reprogrammed before birth.
• Finally, exposures don’t happen alone – other pollutants are often involved, which may have additive or synergistic effects.[15] Synergy means the interaction of two (or more) things that produce an overall effect that’s greater than – or different from – the sum of the individual effects. In other words, we cannot predict the whole simply by looking at the parts.   Even so, we are challenged to understand and predict the impacts that contaminants have on communities – when understanding the effect of a single contaminant on a single organism is daunting. There are almost unlimited variables that impact any situation. For example: a dose of mercury that would kill 1 out of 100 rats, when combined with a dose of lead that would kill 1 out of 1000 rats – kills every rat exposed.

It is well documented that chemicals can make each other more toxic, and because we can’t know what exposures we’re being subjected to (given the cocktail of smog, auto exhaust, cosmetics, cleaning products and countless other chemicals we’re exposed to every day) coupled with an individuals unique chemistry, we can’t know when exposure to a chemical will trigger a tipping point.

Thanks to a computer-assisted technique called microarray profiling, scientists can examine the effects of toxins on thousands of genes at once (before they could study 100 at a time at most). They can also search for signs of chemical subversion at the molecular level, in genes and proteins. This capability means that we are throwing out our old notions of toxicology (i.e., “the dose makes the poison”). In a recent talk at the National Academy of Sciences, Linda Birnbaum, the head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program, called toxicogenomics—the study of how genes respond to toxins—the “breakthrough” that pushed the study of poisons beyond the “obvious things” that is, that huge doses led to “death or low birth weight.”

Are these rates of disease and the corresponding rise in the use of industrial chemicals a coincidence? Are our increased rates of disease due to better diagnosis? Some argue that we’re confronting fewer natural pathogens. All plausible.  But it’s also true that we’re encountering an endless barrage of artificial pathogens that are taxing our systems to the max. And our children are the pawns in this great experiment. And if you think artificial pathogens are not the main culprits, your opinion is not shared by a goodly number of scientists, who believe that this endless barrage of artificial pathogens that is taxing our systems to the max has replaced bacteria and viruses as the major cause of human illness.[16] We don’t have to debate which source is primary, especially because, with the rise of super bugs, it’s a silly debate. The point remains that industrial pollution is a cause of human illness – and it is a cause we can take concrete actions to stem.

Consider this: Children of moms who had the highest levels of phthalates in their blood during pregnancy had children who had markedly lower IQs at age 7.[17] Why talk about this? Because phthalates are in the fabrics we use. Generally, phthalates are used to make plastic soft, but they’re also found in perfume, hair spray, deodorant, nail polish, insect repellent, carpeting, vinyl flooring, shower curtains…..I could go on. They’re in our food and water too. And also in fabrics. People don’t think about the soft fabrics they’re surrounded most of every day as containing chemicals that can harm us – while we continue to identify fabric as the elephant in the room. Greenpeace did a study of fabrics produced by the Walt Disney Company in 2004 and found phthalates in all samples tested, at up to 20% of the weight of the fabric.[18]  Phthalates are one of the main components of plastisol screen printing inks used on fabrics. They’re also used in the production of synthetic fibers, as a finish for synthetic fibers to prevent static cling and as an intermediary in the production of dyes.

Consider this: The Mt. Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center published a list of the top 10 chemicals they believe are linked to autism – and of the 10, 6 are used in textile processing and 2 are pesticides used on fiber crops.[19] What other chemicals are used in textile production, and what do those chemicals do to human health?

1. Disruptions during development (including autism, which now occurs in 1 of every 68 births in the US[20]); attention deficit disorders (ADD) and hyperactivity (ADHD): Chemicals commonly used in textiles which contribute to these conditions:

• Bisphenol A
• Brominated flame retardants
• Heavy metals – lead, cadmium, mercury, antimony and others

2. Breathing difficulties, including asthma (in children under 5 asthma has increased 160% between 1980-1994[21]) and allergies. Chemicals used in textiles which contribute:

• Formaldehyde, other aldehydes
• Benzene, toluene

3. Damage to the nervous and immune system, reproductive disorders, endometriosis:

Dioxins

Toluene/benzene

4. Hormone disruptions, infertility and lowered sperm counts:

Chlorine

Sodium cyanide/ sodium sulfate

Alkylphenolethoxylates

Phthalates

5. Cancer:

Formaldehyde,

Lead,

Cadmium,

Pesticides,

Benzene,

Vinyl chloride

Specifically:

• Formaldehyde is used often in finishing textiles to give the fabrics easy care properties (like wrinkle resistance, anti cling, stain resistance, etc.).  Formaldehyde resins are used on almost all cotton/poly sheet sets sold in the USA.
  • Formaldehyde is a listed human carcinogen.  Besides being associated with watery eyes, burning sensations in the eyes and throat, nausea, difficulty in breathing, coughing, some pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs), asthma attacks, chest tightness, headaches, and general fatigue, as well as well documented skin rashes, formaldehyde is associated with more severe health issues:  For example, it could cause nervous system damage by its known ability to react with and form cross-links with proteins, DNA and unsaturated fatty acids. These same mechanisms could cause damage to virtually any cell in the body, since all cells contain these substances. Formaldehyde can react with the nerve protein (neuroamines) and nerve transmitters (e.g., catecholamines), which could impair normal nervous system function and cause endocrine disruption.[22]
    • In January 2009, new blue uniforms issued to Transportation Security Administration officers gave them skin rashes, bloody noses, lightheadedness, red eyes, and swollen and cracked lips, according to the American Federation of Government Employees, the union representing the officers[23]; in 2012 Alaska Airlines flight attendants reported the same “dermal symptoms” as the TSA officers – and in 2016 American Airlines flight attendants had the same symptoms.[24]
    • In 2008, more than 600 people joined a class action suit against Victoria’s Secret, claiming horrific skin reactions (and permanent scarring for some) as a result of wearing Victoria Secret’s bras.   Lawsuits were filed in Florida and New York – after the lawyers found formaldehyde in the bras.
    • A study by The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found a link in textile workers between length of exposure to formaldehyde and leukemia deaths.[25]

Studies have been done which link formaldehyde in indoor air as a risk factor for childhood asthma.[26] Formaldehyde in clothing is not regulated in the United States, but 13 other countries do have laws that regulate the amount of formaldehyde allowed in clothing.   Greenpeace tested a series of Disney clothing articles and found from 23ppm – 1,100 ppm of formaldehyde in 8 of the 16 products tested.   By the way, OSHA has established a Federal standard that restricts the amount of formaldehyde that a worker can be exposed to over an 8 hour workday – currently that’s 0.75 ppm. That means if you have 0.2 ppm of formaldehyde in your indoor air, and your baby is wearing the Disney “Finding Nemo” t-shirt, which registered at 1,100 ppm formaldehyde – what do you think the formaldehyde is doing to your baby?

• Perfluorocarbons (PFC’s, which break down in the body to perfluorooctanoic acid – PFOA – and perfluorooctanyl sulfate – PFOS) are used on fabrics as soil and stain repellents. (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are both included as PFAS.)
  • These are among the most persistent synthetic chemicals known to man. Scientists noticed that PFOS was showing up everywhere: in polar bears, dolphins, baby eagles, tap water and human blood. So did its cousin PFOA.  These two man-made perfluorochemicals (PFOS and PFOA) don’t decompose in nature and are toxic to humans, with health effects ranging from birth or developmental effects, to the brain and nervous system, immune system (including sensitization and allergies) and some forms of cancer.  Once they are in the body, it takes decades to get them out – assuming you are exposed to no more. Every American who has been tested for these chemicals have these hyper-persistent, toxic chemicals in their blood. The Cradle to Cradle program no longer certifies any products which contain PFCs. A 2012 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reveals that the more exposure children have to PFCs, the less likely they are to have a good immune response to vaccinations.[27] This is not a frivolous concern because the levels of PFCs globally are not going down, and in some places may be increasing.

• Benzene, used in the production of nylon and other synthetics, in textile dyestuffs and in the pigment printing process – is highly carcinogenic and linked to leukemia, breast cancer, lymphatic and hematopoietic cancers. It is easily absorbed by the skin.
• Endocrine disruptors (EDC): Used in detergents, as dye stripping agents, fastness improvers and in finishes (water repellents, flame retardants, anti-fungal and odor-preventive agents).

The endocrine system is the exquisitely balanced system of glands and hormones that regulates such vital functions as body growth (including the development of the brain and nervous system), response to stress, sexual development and behavior, production and utilization of insulin, rate of metabolism, intelligence and behavior, and the ability to reproduce. Hormones are chemicals such as insulin, thyroxin, estrogen, and testosterone that interact with specific target cells.  The endocrine system uses these chemicals to send messages to the cells – similar to the nervous system sending electrical messages to control and coordinate the body. Pregnancy, childhood and adolescence are periods of brain development that are considered critically sensitive to toxic chemicals, with even small exposures at the wrong time altering the brain’s developmental programming signals in an irreversible way.  Impaired brain development may result in a broad range of human health effects:  from altered reproduction, metabolism and stress response, to mental retardation and subtle, subclinical intellectual deficiencies.  In addition, fetal and early childhood life stages are particularly sensitive to heavy metals and EDCs and there are likely to be no safe levels which can be set with sufficient certainty. (To see which chemicals impact the fetus, go to:         http://endocrinedisruption.org/prenatal-origins-of-endocrine-disruption/critical-windows-of-development/timeline-test/

Over the past 60 years, a growing number of endocrine disrupting chemicals have been used in the production of almost everything we purchase. What this constant everyday low-dose exposure means in terms of public health is just beginning to be explored by the academic community. Only relatively recently have we learned that a large number of chemicals can penetrate the womb and alter the construction and programming of a child before it is born. Through trans-generational exposure, endocrine disruptors cause adverse developmental and reproductive disorders at extremely low amounts in the womb, and often within the range of human exposure. In 2007, the global prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was 5.3%.  In the United States, by 2012, the number of children diagnosed with ADHD was 10% of children while 8% of children have a learning disability.

As the TEDX (The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Inc.) website states:   “The human health consequences of endocrine disruption are dire. Yet, no chemical has been regulated in the U.S. to date because of its endocrine disrupting effects – and no chemical in use has been thoroughly tested for its endocrine disrupting effects. The U.S. government has failed to respond to the evolving science of endocrine disruption. While much remains to be learned in regard to the nature and extent of the impact of endocrine disruptors on human health, enough is known now to assume a precautionary approach should be taken.”

• Lead: used in textile dyestuffs and as a catalyst in the dye process. Lead has been known to cause intellectual disabilities for many years, with no known safe blood level. Studies have shown that if children are exposed to lead, either in the womb or in early childhood, their brains are likely to be smaller.[28]
• Mercury: also used in textile dyestuffs, and as a catalyst in the dyeing process. Exposure to mercury during development prevents neurons from finding their appropriate place in the brain, causing lower language, attention and memory scores, reduced cognitive performance and psychomotor deficiencies in children.
• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs):  used in textile dyestuffs. PCBs have been banned from most uses since the 1970s in many countries. Known to interfere with the normal function of the thyroid hormone, and there is growing evidence that PCBs adversely affect neurodevelopment.
• Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs):  used in flame retardants in the textile industry

PBDEs are widespread contaminants of the environment and the human body.  PBDEs persist in the environment and some bioaccumuate in human tissues.  A recent Dutch study reported that PBDEs were associated with lower mental and psychomotor development and IQ in pre-school children, and poorer attention for those in school. A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that Latino children born in California had levels of PBDE in their blood seven times higher than Latino children who were born in raised in Mexico.[29] In general, people in the United States have higher levels of PBDE than anyone else in the world. A paper published in Environmental Science & Technology[30] also finds high fire retardant levels in pet dogs. Cats, because they lick their fur, have the highest levels of all. See the Chicago Tribune series “Playing with Fire”, in which they concluded fire retardants were a public health debacle. (http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html )

• Dioxins: Main uses of dioxin in relation to textiles is as a preservative for cotton and other fibers during sea transit,  and in cotton bleaching. It is also found in some dyestuffs.   It is one of the strongest poisons which man is able to produce. It causes cancer of the liver and lung, and interferes with the immune system, resulting in a predisposition to infectious diseases and impacts the developing fetus
  • Studies have found dioxin leached from clothing  onto  the skin of participants.[31] It was shown that these contaminants are transferred from textiles to human skin during wearing. They were also present in shower water and were washed out of textiles during washing. Extensive evidence was found indicating that contaminated textiles are a major source of chlorinated dioxins and furans in non-industrial sewage sludge, dry cleaning residues and house dust.

Today there are more than 80,000 synthetic chemicals in use by industry, most of which have never been tested.   These synthetic chemicals, many believe, can be blamed for many of the modern maladies affecting humans. In fact, many scientists are saying that the increasing levels of human disease are caused by the chemical burden imposed on our bodies. Dr. Dick Irwin, a toxicologist at Texas A&M University, says, “Chemicals have replaced bacteria and viruses as the main threat to health. The diseases we are beginning to see in the 21st Century as the major causes of death are diseases of chemical origin.” These chemicals are becoming part of our environment, being taken into our bodies and changing them in unknown and unforeseen ways.

We need to do whatever we can to stem the tide of chemical incursions into our world; we can see the damage being done, from dead zones in the oceans to desertification of entire countries. We all suffer the “common wound”. We know very little about what these exposures are doing to our genetic makeup. We need to act now to protect our kids. We can’t wait for the government to put legislated controls in place – the government historically has not been proactive in this area.

What is an “organic fabric”?   When you see a fabric that says “made with organic cotton” the manufacturer is not telling you anything about how the organic cotton was made into cloth. The fiber, organic cotton, used to make the fabric may have been raised with regard to health and safety of the planet and people; but the production of the fabric made from that cotton may not have been. Think of applesauce: if you start with organic apples, then add Red Dye #2, stabilizers, emulsifiers, and antibacterials to inhibit mold – you don’t end up with organic applesauce. The same analogy can be used for textile production.

An organic fabric is a fabric that is produced using no known or suspected toxic chemicals (toxic to the earth, humans or animals) at any stage of the production process: from fiber to finished fabric. The major textile production steps include spinning; weaving; dyeing; printing; and finishing. Sub steps can include bleaching, brightening, sizing, de-sizing, de-foaming, brightening and countless others. The GOTS, or Global Organic Textile Standard, which forbids the use of many known or suspected toxic substances in each step of the textile production process, also requires water treatment (because even benign chemicals released into the eco-system will degrade the local eco-system and threaten the life of all that depend on it). It also covers fundamental social justice issues (no child labor, no slave labor, certain minimal working conditions); and addresses in a preliminary way carbon footprint concerns.

The trend to eco consciousness in textiles is major progress in reclaiming our stewardship of the earth, and in preventing preventable human misery. The new textile standards are not, by any means, yet environmentally benign. But, if people demand or support the efforts, more progress can be made – and rapidly. Many new techniques are possible, such as using ultrasound for dyeing, thereby eliminating the use of water entirely; and drying fabrics using radio frequencies rather than ovens, saving energy.

You have the power to stem the toxic stream caused by the production of fabric. If you search for and buy an eco textile, you are encouraging a shift to production methods that have the currently achievable minimum detrimental effects for either the planet or for your health. You, as a consumer, are very powerful. You have the power to change harmful production practices. Eco textiles exist and they give you a greener, healthier, fair-trade alternative. What will an eco textile do for you? You and the frogs and the world’s flora and fauna could live longer, and be healthier – and in a more just, sufficiently diversified, more beautiful world.

[1] Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8&sub=42

[2] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsInfantDeaths/

[3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/Features/CountingAutism/

[4] Boyle, Coleen A., et al, “Trends in the Prevalence of Developmental Disabilities in U.S. children, 1997-2008”, Pediatrics,  February, 2011.

[5] Shabecoff, Philip and Alice; Poisoned Profits: the Toxic Assault on Our Children, Random House, August 2008.

[6] Grady, Denise, “Obesity-Linked Diabetes in children Resists Treatment”, New York Times, April 29, 2012

[7] Shabecoff, op cit.

[8] Walsh, Bryan, “Environmental Toxins Cost Billions in childhood Disease”, Time, May 4, 2011.

[9] Koger, Susan M, et al, “Environmental Toxicants and Developmental Disabilities”,  American Psychologist, April 2005, Vol 60, No. 3, 243-255

[10] Polluting Our Future, September 2000, http://www.aaidd.org/ehi/media/polluting_report.pdf

[11] Sheehan DM, Willingham EJ, Bergeron JM, Osborn CT, Crews D; “No threshold dose for estradiol-induced sex reversal of turtle embryos: how little is too much?” Environ Health Perspect 107:155–159, 1999

[12] Anway MD, Skinner MK “Epigenetic transgenerational actions of endocrine disruptors.” Endocrinology 147: S43–S49, 2006

[13] Sorensen, Eric, “Toxicants cause ovarian disease across generations”, Washington State University, http://news.wsu.edu/pages/publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=31607

[14] http://www.sciguru.com/newsitem/13025/Epigenetic-changes-are-heritable-although-they-do-not-affect-DNA-structure  ALSO SEE: http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/documents/HoleskiJanderAgrawal2012TREE.pdfALSO SEE: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32637/title/Lamarck-and-the-Missing-Lnc/

[15] Crews D, Putz O, Thomas P, Hayes T, Howdeshell K “Animal models for the study of the effects of mixtures, low doses, and the embryonic environment on the action of endocrine disrupting chemicals”, Pure and Applied Chemistry, SCOPE/IUPAC Project Implications of Endocrine Active Substances for Humans and Wildlife 75:2305–2320, 2003

[16] Irwin, Richard, “Chemicals replace infection as top threat to health”, January 31 2016.

[17] Factor-Litvak, Pam, et al., “Persistent Associations Between Maternal Prenatal Exposure to Phthalates on Child IQ at Age 7 Years”, PLOS One, December 10, 2014; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114003

[18] Pedersen, H and Hartmann, J; “Toxic Textiles by Disney”, Greenpeace, Brussels, April 2004

[19] http://www.mountsinai.org/patient-care/service-areas/children/areas-of-care/childrens-environmental-health-center/cehc-in-the-news/news/mount-sinai-childrens-environmental-health-center-publishes-a-list-of-the-top-ten-toxic-chemicals-suspected-to-cause-autism-and-learning-disabilities

[20] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

[21] http://www.aaaai.org/about-the-aaaai/newsroom/asthma-statistics.aspx

[22] Horstmann, M and McLachlan, M; “Textiles as a source of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurrans (PCDD/F) in human skin and sewage sludge”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol 1, Number 1, 15-20, DOI: 10.1007/BF02986918    SEE ALSO:  Klasmeier, K, et al; “PCDD/F’s in textiles – part II: transfer from clothing to human skin”, Ecological Chemistry and Geochemistry, University of Bayreuth,  CHEMOSPHERE, 1.1999 38(1):97-108 See Also:  Hansen,E and Hansen, C; “Substance Flow Analysis for Dioxin 2002”, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Project No.811 2003

[23] http://www.examiner.com/article/new-tsa-uniforms-making-workers-sick-afge-demands-replacement

[24] Tuten, Craig, “Employee Uniforms a Major Source of Irritation for American Airlines Flight Attendants”, Dec. 4, 2016; http://www.alaskacommons.com

[25] Pinkerton, LE, Hein, MJ and Stayner, LT, “Mortality among a cohort of garment
workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update”, Occupational Environmental
Medicine, 2004 March, 61(3): 193-200.

[26] Rumchev, K.B., et al, “Domestic exposure to formaldehyde significantly increases the risk of asthma in young children”, Microsoft Academic Search 2002

[27] Grandjean, Philippe et al, “Serum Vaccine Antibody Concentrations in Children Exposed to Perfluorinated Compounds”, January 25, 2012; JAMA.2012; 307(4):391-397.doi:10.1001/jama.2011.2034

[28] Dietrich, KN et al, “Decreased Brain Volume in Adults with Childhood Lead

Exposure”, PLoS Med 2008 5(5): e112.

[29] Eskenazi, B., et al., “A Comparison of PBDE Serum Concentrations in Mexican and Mexican-American
Children Living in California”, http://ehp03.nieh.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.100284

[30] Vernier, Marta and Hites, Ronald; “Flame Retardants in the Serum of Pet Dogs and in their Food”, Environmental Science and Technology, 2011, 45 (10), pp4602-4608. http://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?action=search&searchText=PBDE+levels+in+pets&qsSearchArea=searchText&type=within

[31] Horstmann, M and McLachlan, M; “Textiles as a source of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurrans (PCDD/F) in human skin and sewage sludge”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol 1, Number 1, 15-20, DOI: 10.1007/BF02986918  SEE ALSO:  Klasmeier, K, et al; “PCDD/F’s in textiles – part II: transfer from clothing to human skin”, Ecological Chemistry and Geochemistry, University of Bayreuth,  CHEMOSPHERE, 1.1999 38(1):97-108 See Also:  Hansen,E and Hansen, C; “Substance Flow Analysis for Dioxin 2002”, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Project No.811 2003

We haven’t talked about stain repellents for a few years (we last published a blog on the subject 4 years ago) and think it’s time to revisit the topic because of all the claims that companies are making about “safe” stain repellents.

Here’s why stain repellents are simply doing us no good:  All stain repellent finishes used in textiles are based on fluorotelomer chemistry – which means it pertains to chemicals which become  perfluorocarbons (PFCs) when they are released into the environment.   PFC’s  break down in the body and in the environment to  Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctanyl sulfate (PFOS) and similar chemicals.  These are among the most persistent synthetic chemicals known to man. Scientists noticed that PFOS  was showing up everywhere: in polar bears, dolphins, baby eagles, tap water and human blood. So did its cousin PFOA.    These two man-made perfluorochemicals (PFOS and PFOA) don’t decompose in nature. They kill laboratory rats at higher doses, and are toxic to humans, with health effects ranging from birth or developmental effects, to the brain and nervous system, immune system (including sensitization and allergies) and some forms of cancer.  Once they are in the body, it takes decades to get them out – assuming you are exposed to no more. According to Our Stolen Future, the “PFOS story is likely to emerge as one of the apocryphal examples of 20th century experimentation with widespread chemical exposures: prolific use and almost no testing for safety, until unexpectedly and almost serendipitously, it is discovered as a contaminant virtually everywhere. And as is often the case in these stories, the company producing PFOS products possessed information hinting at its risks but chose not to share their data with regulators or the public for years.”

Every American who has been tested for these chemicals have these hyper-persistent, toxic chemicals in their blood. A growing number of researchers believe that fabric-based, stain-resistant coatings, which are ubiquitous, may be the largest environmental source of this controversial chemical family of PFCs.  So now you will find companies advertising that they can provide stain repellents that “are free of harmful levels of” PFOS (perfluorooctane sulphonate) or PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid).  What does that mean?

The PFC family is a group of man-made chemicals created using perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAA), all of which have a carbon backbone, with atoms of fluorine attached to them.  The PFAA’s are known as C4 – C14:   the numbers denote how many carbon atoms are present.  Those with 8 or more carbon atoms are known as the “long-chain” PFC’s;  PFOS and PFOA are two of the most common C8s.  Those with fewer than 8 carbon atoms are called “short-chain” PFCs.  The carbon-fluorine bonds in these chemicals are very, very strong and are resistant to high temperatures, acidic and alkaline solutions, and other environmental factors. In general, the longer the carbon chain, the more potent and persistent the chemical. The same chemistry that makes these chemicals so potent and useful also means they stick around for a long time in the environment and have the potential for wide-ranging and long-term health and environmental effects.

In January 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approached the eight largest fluorocarbon producers and requested their participation in the 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program.  They wanted these manufacturers to commit to reduce PFOA and related chemicals globally in both facility emissions and product content by 95% by 2010, and 100% by 2015. Although the amount  of PFOA in finishing formulations has been greatly diminished and continues to go down, even parts per trillion are detectable.

So finishing formulators continue to evaluate new materials which can eliminate PFOA while maintaining performance – but a solution is still over the horizon.  One critical piece in this puzzle is that PFOA is also produced indirectly through the gradual breakdown of fluorotelomers – so a stain resistant finish may be formulated with no detectable amounts of PFOA yet STILL produce PFOA when the chemicals begin to decompose.

Since the EPA mandated that textile treatments can no longer contain these specific compounds, the industry is now using “short-chain” PFCs  – C6 and C4 chemistries.  These chemicals are considered safer because they are not as persistent or bioaccumulative as C8 – but there is little human data to support these contentions.  Because these chemicals haven’t received as much scrutiny as their cousins, environmentally aware designers may wonder if we are substituting the devil we don’t know for the devil we know.

3M, which produces Scotchgard, was the first company to switch to the new C4 chemistry by using perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS).  According to 3M, the results show that under federal EPA guidelines, PFBS isn’t toxic and doesn’t accumulate the way the old chemical did. It does persist in the environment, but 3M concluded that isn’t a problem if it isn’t accumulating or toxic. PFBS can enter the bloodstream of people and animals but “it’s eliminated very quickly” and does no harm at typical very low levels, said Michael Santoro, 3M’s director of Environmental Health, Safety & Regulatory Affairs.

But it’s also less effective, so more of the chemical has to be used to achieve the same result.  The smaller the fluorocarbon, the more rapidly it breaks down in the environment.  Unfortunatley, the desired textile performance goes down as the size of the perfluorocarbon goes down.  Now most textiles are finished with C6 chemistry, which produces a by-product called PFHA (perfluorohexanoic acid), which  is supposed to be 40 times less bioaccumulative than PFOA.  “C6 is closest chemically to C8, and it contains no PFOA. It breaks down in the environment – a positive trait – but it doesn’t stick as well to outerwear and it doesn’t repel water and oil as well as C8, which means it falls short of meeting a vague industry standard, as well as individual company standards for durability and repellency.”

PFCs are available as branded products, such as Crypton Green, or generic, unbranded treatments sold through fabric finishers.   Nanotechnology is one way to increase the performance of a fabric; Nano-Tex, Nano-Sphere and GreenShield all use C6 chemistry that is engineered using nanotechnology.

An aside about Crypton Green:  Crypton Green uses an immersion bath of C6 PFCs and what they call “silver ion technology”.  After heat curing, the fabrics are then coated twice with an acrylic-based backing that contains stain blockers and biocides.  This is bad for human health in so many ways:

• • The key ingredient of acrylic fiber is acrylonitrile, (also called vinyl cyanide). It is a carcinogen (brain, lung, bowel and breast cancers) and a mutagen, targeting the central nervous system.  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, acrylonitrile enters our bodies through skin absorption, as well as inhalation and ingestion.  
  • o Acrylic manufacturing involves highly toxic substances which require careful storage, handling, and disposal. The polymerization process can result in an explosion if not monitored properly. It also produces toxic fumes. Recent legislation requires that the polymerization process be carried out in a closed environment and that the fumes be cleaned, captured, or otherwise neutralized before discharge to the atmosphere.
  • o Acrylic is not easily recycled nor is it readily biodegradable. Some acrylic plastics are highly flammable and must be protected from sources of combustion.

• • The CDC has concluded that there is little evidence that biocides and antimicrobials (including silver ion technology) are effective in controlling disease and infection.   All manufacturers claim that their antimicrobials are safe for humans – but healthcare giant Kaiser Permanente no longer specifies carpet or textiles with  antimicrobials.

Back to our subject:  The companies that make these new C6 treatments tout the safety of the new short-chain PFC, yet the Cradle to Cradle program no longer certifies any products which contain PFCs – of any number.  By contrast, Chrstopher Lau, Ph.D., a leading biologist at the EPA, says ”what we’ve found is that short chains don’t have the PBT problems the longer chains have—they might be ‘P’ (persistent) but they are not ‘B’ (bioaccumulative) and definitely not ‘T’ (toxic)”.  It may be too soon to write off bioaccumulation and toxicity altogether, though, according to Lau. He agrees that short-chain PFCs are not as bioaccumulative as C8s, but he cautions that there is little human data to draw other conclusions.

Given the fact that, despite industry assurances that the C6 chemistry is not toxic or bioaccumulative, it is nevertheless persistent in the environment.  And given the number of times the EPA has failed to protect consumers  – most recently regarding Monsanto’s Roundup (which the World Health Organization has deemed a “probable carcinogen”) – I think I’d rather err on the side of not putting a substance (such as C6, which according to the experts, needs more study to determine toxicity) on my sofa.

That one stain repellant which is NOT based on fluorotelomer chemistry? It’s an Oeko-Tex certified stain repellent which is based on silicon dioxide (SiO2). Silicon dioxide is recognized by the FDA as a safe food additive. The second component of this stain repellent is the use of nanotechnology. Since we’re in the dawn of the nano world, we don’t know yet what nanoscience will grow up to be. If you can accept the nano portion of the stain repellent, the product is called Nano4Life (http://www.nano4life.co).