>> today on "earth focus," everyday chemicals and how they may be e harming us, comomg up on "eararth focus." [captioning made possible by kcet public television] they are everywhere in our environment. in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat. they are in everyday products we use for personal care and cleaning. they are in our furniture, our children's toys, and the products we use in gardening and agriculture. and almost all of us have them inside our bodies. >> chemicals, right now, according to the best evidence we have, are contributing

to the chronic disease burden inin this couountry in waways that are substantial. >> we arere seeinincreases, cleearly, in certain k kinds of illnesses. . asthma is one. autism is another. adhd is a third. >> one out of every third child born today is going to have diabetes. and if you're a minority, it''s one out of tw. >> chemicals contribute to the incidence of leukemia. >> breast cancer, infertility. >> alzheimer's, parkinsoson's. >> people are more obese or higher weight than they were 10 to 20 years ago. >> childhdhood cancers aree going up. >> we're seeing effects on sperm count in men. um, the catch line is, you know, memen today are not the men their grandfdfathers were. >> there are more of these bizarre birth defects, particularly around male reproductive development. >> if i i were a parent.....

i would be very concerned. >> they were meant to make life easier, and they do. >> better things for better living through chemistry. >> chememicals fight disease, bolster food production, and support manufacturing. they're big business, a keystone of the u.s. economy. from consumer goods to high technology, almost all aspects of m modern life depend on the chemical industry. chemical production in the united states has grown 25-fold since world war ii. with sales of over $763 billion in 2011, the chemical industry supports over 3 million u.s. jobs

and invests billions into research and development. our bodies take in a soup of chemicals every day, and this exposure has consequences, for our health, our safety, and our future. >> there's 84,000 chemicals that are legal for commerce inin the united states, to be ud to make all kinds of things, go into the products we bring into our homes, our work places. and they are basically unregulated. >> of course, every year, new chemicals are coming on the line that have not been fully tested. there's almost 13,000 chemicals that are used in cosmetics, and just about 10% of them have actually been evaluated for their safety. we found lead in lipstick. there's memercury out ththere in skin lightening creams. we have found formaldehyde in products. >> this is stuff that you use

to embalm the dead, yet they're in products that people are applying to their faces and their skin daily. > pesticides are clearly poisonous. and it should be obvious to us that if they kill insects that they are going to h have the possibilitity of hurting usus. >> in your kitchen cabinet, if you opened up the doors and you counted up all the tin cans in there, all of them are going to be lined with bisphenol a, unless they're labeled that say they're not. >> pcbs might b be in plastics, might be in cups, might be in containers that we put in our microwaves, m might be perfectly safe when ththey are first p pun the shelf, but ququite dangerous once they starart to break down. >> what we have is chemical companies that have created products t that have contaminatd literally every living thingng on the planet. >> i think that the corporations who are profiting from this really have run away with our system.

> industrial l chemical polln begins i in the womb. >> everythihing that we're bringing into our bodies if we choose to have children, we actually pass that right on through to a developing child. >> some of these chemicals we know can cross the placenta and enter the womb and have effectcts at incredibly tiny, tiny doses. >> about 10 years ago, a seminal study was done on 10 newborns' cord blood. the cord blood, as the baby was born, contained several hundred toxic elements. which terrified all of us. >> chemimicals like e bisphenol, many different classes of flame retardants. >> we found ddt and pcbs, polychlorinated biphenyls. chemicals that we interact with every day fromom consumer products. >> we now know that along with

the nutrients and d oxygen that thee mother supplies the developing baby y comes a cocktail of ttoxic chemicals. [baby cooing] >> we know that chemicals will affect younger children, fetuses,ewborns, b babies, and young children in general more than older children and adultsts. and the reason for that isis that yoyounger chililr and fetuses are e developining h more rapidly. theieir organ syststems are much more sensnsi. >> whahat science is starting to show now is that early exposures to toxic chemicals at critical points when a child's in the womb has effects later in life. >> endocrinine disruptorsrs are chemicals of growing concern. fetuses and children exposed to even minute amounts may develop a wide range of health conditions, from diminished intelligence to cancers later in life.

our endocrine glands produce hormones that regulate the basic processes of our body, like metabolism, growth, reproduction, and development. endocrine disruptors disturb how these processes work. >> endocrine disrupting chemicals interfere with hormone signaling. proper hormone signgnaling is very important for fetal development and for childhdhood development, as well as sesexual maturation. therefore, compoundsds that interferere with thesese process could have very profound efcts.s. >> many of these and other chemicals appear to be associated with lower i.q.s, and/or behavioral problems in children. >> if you look at what these chemicals can do to the brain, we know now these chemicals are also interfering with how we process information. >> they a affect our gegenetic

outcomeme. they increase ththe possibility ththat we lose a baby. thehey change the activy of our h hormones, our sex hormones, in a variety of dififferent way. >> we're seeing c children statarting pubertrty at youngerr ages. so there are many little girls that have, for example, breast buds by the age of 7 in the african american community and 8 inin the white community. this is too young for our children. >> 980 endocrine disrupting chemicals have now been identified. among the most ubiquitous are a class of compounds called phthalates, bisphenol a, and flame retardants, including pbdes, chemicals so common that almost all of us have them inside our bodies.

>> so you may have vinyl floors, you m may have vinyl shower curtains, you may have vinyl toys that your kids are using.. those, if it's soft and pliable plastic, it's leachgg pthalates, which are known to be toxic, into the environonment where you getet exposed. >> pthalates are in many common products, including food packaging, building materials, and pharmaceuticals. they're in our cars, and even in new car smell. they're used in cosmetics to hold fragrance and help products to more effectively pepenetrate and moisturize the skin. >> we're concerned about their effects on males, on baby boboys. >> we see problems with testicular development, problems with sperm development. >> they can be assosociated with a decrease in testosterone levels. so if you interfere with the testosterone levels, ththey don't quite go up all the way. in animal studies, it's been shown to be linked to cryptororchidism, so,o, undesced

testicles, and hypospadias, which is incomplete formation of the male reproductive organs. >> pthalates may a also be feminizing boys. scientists found that pthalates may be associated with a shorter ano-genital distance-- the distance between the genitals and anus, a subtle marker of feminization in boys. the american chemistry council, which represents chemical manufacturers, says pthalates are among the most thoroughly studied compounds in the world and have a history of safe use. but pthalates are banned from children's toys in moree than 10 countries and the european union. in the united states, 3 pthalates were permanently banned from children's toys and child-care articles in 2008 because of their potential to leach from plastic that's chewed or sucked. >> the worst actors have been taken out o of children's toys,

but they're still widely used in many other types of consusumr products, and bio-monitoriring stududies show that these chemicals are ststill showing up in people. >> we're deep in the hold of bisphenol a. there's widespread exposure. it's biologically active at very low levels. >> bpa is of concern, becausese it looks likeke an esestrogen. and it''s been sn to have a weak estrogenenic effect. and soso if you'rere exd to a chemicacal that might inttfere with h your hormone levels, in this case your estrogen, that can have effects, particularly if itit happens during development. >> and there is preliminary data that says that it may in fact directly--an early life exposure might directly increasase the risk of breast cancer in animals. >> ifif there are chemicals that affect the development of the breast t even before birth, if thehere are chemicals that cause breast tumors in

animals, these are chemicals that we want to be worriried abt and start thinking about reducing exposure. > in addition to breast canc, bpa may bebe associated with genetic c damage and a wide vavariety of reprproductive, metabolic, behaviorral, and developmental p problems.. it's one of the top industrial chemicals in the world. about 6 billion pounds of bpa are produced globally each year, earning manufacturers a profit of some $8 billion. >> we've made some progress with eliminating bpa from infant products, including infant formula packaging, baby bottles, and plastic drinking cups. >> but bpa remains widely used in manany consumer products, from electronics to medical equipment. and it's in the resin of can linings and in plastic bottles, where it can leach into the food or liquid contents

inside. the food and drug administration, which has jurisdiction over food packaging, says bpa is safe at the low doses that occur in food. but many research and health organizations remain concerned about bpa's impact on human health at current levels of exposure. over 1.5 million tons of flame retardants are used worldwide each year. they're added to consumer products to meet flammability standards, though their effectiveness remains questionable. >> any furniture that you have that has polyurethane foam in it, which is most of our furniture, may contain toxic flame retardants. and those flame e retardants don'tt stay t in that foam. they leech out and they end up in the dust in our house, where we're all exexposed and particularly kids who are on the ground low, picking things up, putting their hands in their mouths,

they're exposed to that dust, which is gonna have flame retardant chemicals in it. >> there are many different kinds of flame retardants. among the most studied are polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or pbdes. scientists have linked pbdes to a wide range of conditions, from delayed development to learning problems and diminished intelligence. >> the neuro-developmental effects--so that's exposures during pregnancy or early in life, lininking to neuro-d-developmental effects in animimals, have e now been evaluated in two human studies. so there's one in a population in n new york and one in a population in california. anand what they find is actually remarkably similar. these developmental exposures to pbdes arere actually linked to detriments in i.q. >> two pbdes, penta and octa, were taken off the u.s. market voluntarily in 2004 because

of growing health concerns. production of the pbde deca is in the process of being terminated. >> the problem with all of these pbddes is that they y are very persistent in the environment. >> the issssue with pbdes is tht they've been replaced with other types of f chemicals that mayaye verery similar concerns and perhaps even the same mechanism of action, in terms of their ability to disrupt the endocrine system. >> the flame retardants chlorinated tris and fire master 550, which may be linked to dna damage, cancer, or neurological defects, continue to be widely used in polyurethane foam in a number of common children's' products. >> so i think that the whole issue of flame retardants is one fofor which there is some cocon, and i think the real question we shouldld ask, and maybe we nd to ask this more broadly of other kinds of chemicals as wewell, is, do we realally

need them? >> when it comes to endocrine disruptors, one of the most toxic places is your home. the silent spring institute conducted the first household endocrine disruptor exposure study in 2004. their focus was cape cod. >> we went into 120 homes on the cape and tested air and dust samples and women's urine, looking for 89 hormone disruptors. and we found 67 of them. >> we werere surprised to find pcbs in house dust and in i indr air in these suburban homes. >> we see some links between certain ones of these pcbs and breast cancer diagnosis years later. >> we measured 27 different pesticides. we've measured 44 different flame retardants.

in two thir o of thhomemes, stilfounund t. >> a 2007tutudy fnd a a psiblee linketween ear exposurto ddt anlater velopmen of east canr, even ough ddtas band 40 yearsgo. >> we s in thattudy that thwowomen o wewerender 1 1 ars old en they re e exped tddt t arat much gher rk of beg diagnod with bast canr under r e age of 50. abou5-fold higher sk in these women w had been exposed ddt as rls. if c can lk in t lab an see w wt chemics are dog blogicay and thene can look k in our bodies and in our homes and see which ones we're exposed to, where they're coming from in the products or pollution, then we have the opportunity to reduce exposure to these suspect chemicals, uh, now.

>> the emerging science on endocrine disrupting chemicals really means that wwe have to have a c complete overhaul of our chemical safety system. >> you know,w, we're dealing with chemicals for which therere is no safe level of exposure. >> it's the tiny, repeated exposure that more adequately mimimics our own horormone systm that is really concerning. >> the hormones in our bodies are operating at parts per billion and parts per trillion concentrations. >> the one ththing that's clears that our current system isn't working, and it doesn't take these low chronic doses ininto account. > i think it's very important for us to makeke sure that wee investigate effects that at least approach human exposure levels.s. >> our current s system does not look at aggrgregate exposures, basically a fancy way of saying, what do all these low dose chemicacals do in combination together?

>> but looking at lolow dose exposusures means a sea change in how we do toxicologigical tetesting and risk a assessment, and that's controversial, costly, and something the chemical industry opposes. >> > one of the areas of science that is emerging, and very interesting and very troubling, is called epigenetics, whwhich shows that an acute chemical exposure can actuually result intto a genetitic change.. and that getetic changnge can be passed down from generation to generation based onn a chemical exposure. >> your grandmother could have been exposed to something that you didn't know about, she didn't know about, that is affecting your health today. >> the evidence that we d dhave from laboratory experiments in animals certainly gives us cause for concern. >> some people are more exposed to chemicals because of the job they do or where they live. low income and minority commumunities often live nenear

points of f pollution like chemical plants and waste dudump sites, , or in ageded and substandard housing. and these communities share a disproportionate burden of disease. >> higher rates of asthma, higher rates of obesity, higher rates of lead poisoning. >> so the aststhma rate in whae calll central l and east h harlm is at one in 4 children. um, and w when you gogo basicallly 0 blocksks south to o the upperr eastside, you find that t the asthma rate for c children is le half of that. >> we house over one third of the new york city's diesel bus fleleet. and d when you fige that we've got 5 depots, each with 200 or more buses, these are depots right across from people's homes, u uh, from schools, across from parks. >> researches at columbia university found that pregnant african american and dominican american mothers in new york

city who are exposed to high levels of airborne pollutants from vehicle exhaust and burning solid waste gave birth to children who later developed cognitive and behavioral problems. dr. frederica perera led the study. >> > developmenental delay y ate 3, withth cognitive deficits at age 5, and behavioral problems, including anxiety, depression, and attention, symptoms ofof those problems, at ages 6 to 7. >> these children also scored more than 4 points lower on standardized intelligence tests at age 5. >> [i[indistinct chatter]r] >> even a verery small drdrop in i.q. cacan affect or can be predicted to affect lifetime earninings of that indivividual. >> you have these types of injustices occurring in rural communities, like out on indian reservations, for example.

you hahave thehem occurring g in suburbs that might t be predominantly african american or latino. >> when you realize that some communities have, uh, have a disisproportionate share of that pollution burden, then you begin to understand why we have communities that are sicker than others and why it is harder for those communities to recover. >> there is nothing more important than protecting the health of our children and generations to come. and no one's profit margin can justify harm brought to our children and to future generations. thank you. [cheering] >> the fact is that our chemical policy system in the united states, whether it's at the state level l or at ththe federl level, is broken. >> the toxic substanances contrl act, my joke is it's the laww that never lived up to its name. >> when they passed the law in 1976, they grandfathered in about 62,000 chemicals, called them safe because they were

already in use. some of these chemicals that we knew nothing about at the time are turning out to be problematic. >> and according to the general accounting office, 85% of new chemimical applications and ther technical names of pre-manufacture notice include no testing data whatsoever. >> under the toxic substances control act, or tsca, the burden is on the environmental protection agency to show that an industrial chemical is unsafe. epa can only ask the company for data or require testing if epa can prove that there is a potential risk. and that's hard to do without access to the company's data in the first place. >> the burden of proof has to shift. it has to be on the companies, not on the government. the companies are making the profit, a and thee government simply doesn't have the resources. > the decisions aboutut chems are made almost entirely on the basis of their functionality for a manufacturer. >> in reality,

we become the guinea pigs in thehe marketplace. >> safefety only comes s into py if people like us have made a stink about it. >> the chemical industry, scientists, and environmentalists all agree that change is needed. but efforts at reforming legislation are currently stalled between the chemical industry's push for profit and safety advocates' drive to protect the public from harm. with federal toxic law broken and no improved law likely coming soon, action on chemical safety on the state level has taken the spotlight. in 2013, 29 states introduced policies to reduce exposure to toxic chemicals in legislative sessions. >> statates can actually foforbd different products from coming in with t these chemicals o of concern. so that's s really important. it's also important in that the more states take action, , the signal to the mart

is that you need t to startt looking for an n alternative chchecal. becausese there's e eh of a consumer concern to support the ate level l action. >> so i think that that sort of intersection of the consumer power and policy advocacy is what's going to lead us to these real long-term changes. >> when people speak up and citizens speak up, companies are forced to listen because of the power of the purse, so to speak. >> johnson & johnson agreed to reformulate all of their products to remove carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxins. they've made this commitment because they recognize that this is what their consumers want. >> i think shoppers should be able to go to the store without a chemistry degree and a magnifying glass and know that the products on the shelf have been evaluated for safety. >> it's our children and our grgrandchildren who a are goingo suffer as these toxins buildld

upup in our bodies and in our environment over time. >> we don't want to kill the economy. we want to make sure that t children are protected. >> no mother should have to worry and look at this baby from the m minute it's born and watch it and wonder what is going g to happen to this child. [captioning made possible by kcet public television] [captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--] úgq

narrator: yet another hurricane pounds c cuba. waves as tall as five story buildings. streets flooded. many forced from their homes. in an era of climate change, ather around the world is becoming more extreme. hurricanes are getting worse. if this is the future for our coastal cities, how will they survive the storm?