While it may be true that for each and every day, week and month on the American calendar there is something to celebrate or advocate, this week we're into it. Why?

Because it's National Women's Health Week. It's also a few days after mother's day, so rather than focus on kids - a concern to us and many women - we decided to shine some light on women's health.

So we pulled together a little round-up to celebrate National Women's Health Week. From body burden to safe cosmetics, and from mercury to breast cancer, we've blogged about it in 2009.

Whether you're young or not-so-young, a mother or a grandmother or neither, there are environmental health issues that affect you, and we do our very best to see that they're addressed by policy makers. Here is a sampling:

Pollution in people: It's an inside job.
Beverly Wright has done battle with oil refineries and landfills. She has dug her New Orleans East neighborhood out from under tons of contaminated sludge smeared across the landscape by Hurricane Katrina.

Mercury in fish: Why does the debate go on?
The topic of mercury and fish is once again in the news. This time it was prompted by public comments submitted to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) about its controversial (hurry-up-and-get-it-out-before-George-leaves) mercury report, which largely concludes that the toxic effects of mercury in fish are mostly overcome by the beneficial fats in fish. Here at EWG an eyebrow or two (OK, more than that) were raised when these "findings" were released.

A new target for deadly lead?
Yesterday Janet Raloff of Science News wrote about a new study linking lead levels in older women to an increased risk of mortality. Naila Khalil and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh report that women whose blood lead levels measure > 8 micrograms per deciliter were a whopping 60% more likely to die during the study.

Pregnancy Today: A lesson in toxics.
When I was pregnant for the first time, I was all about prenatal yoga, checking my baby's amazing developing body online, and comparing symptoms with friends. As it should be.

Lead in lipstick: More enduring than love?
With Valentine's Day right around the corner, there's a lot of puckering up to be done. But if you're not into lead poisoning, we recommend that you go natural. That's right, ditch the lipstick, ladies.

Breast Cancer Fund study finds strong cancer-chemical link.
A new survey of scientific evidence conducted by researchers working with the Breast Cancer Fund makes a persuasive case that the industrialized world's rising breast cancer rate may stem from exposure to radiation and chemicals in plastics, pesticides, cosmetics and other common household goods.

So that's what's been on our minds related to women's health in 2009. You?

[Photo courtesy of MrUllmi on Flickr]

Special to Enviroblog by Sonya Lunder, EWG Senior Analyst.

The topic of mercury and fish is once again in the news. This time it was prompted by public comments submitted to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) about its controversial (hurry-up-and-get-it-out-before-George-leaves) mercury report, which largely concludes that the toxic effects of mercury in fish are mostly overcome by the beneficial fats in fish. Here at EWG an eyebrow or two (OK, more than that) were raised when these "findings" were released.

The problem with FDA's guidance? Bad science
FDA's new guidance is based on a fatally flawed model leaked last fall that was blasted by mercury experts at the Environmental Protection Agency - who cautioned against releasing it, citing scientific flaws and inadequacies.

The current draft, released minutes before the Inauguration, has slightly less outrageous language, but the basic findings remain the same. Recent public comments submitted by EWG, scientists and advocates identified the huge deficiencies in the modeling, which (not surprisingly) cast FDA's conclusions in serious doubt.

FDA presents the hazards of mercury and benefits of fish as a "he said, she said" type of argument, which could lead a rational adult to conclude that there is a legitimate scientific conflict about the issue. Which of course, there's not.

While it is true that the beneficial Omega-3 fats and other nutrients in fish appear to ameliorate or off-set some of the adverse impacts of mercury to the brains of the developing fetus and child, and does actually reduces risks to patients with heart disease. But. The conversation is skewed by the longstanding efforts of the fishing industry to downplay mercury risks.

Industry says... mercury ain't so bad
FDA scientists are not the first to fall for the industry's line on mercury. But as a government agency advising pregnant women and people with heart disease, they are taking dangerous risks with our health.

Comments supporting FDA's flawed work largely came from those with clear industry ties, like the National Fisheries Institute, StarKist, Seafood Producer's Association, Center for Consumer Freedom, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Shelf-Stable Food Producers Association. But you need a bit of a history to distinguish some other characters.

One bizarrely strong fish supporter
One commenter, Ashley Roman, presented herself as "a mother and physician." She neglected to mention she was an 'expert-for-hire' for the fisheries-industry sponsored Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition, which has concluded that pregnant women were not eating enough fish. No, really.

Dr. Roman's opinion on mercury is less restrictive than even FDA's (a bit shocking). She told the Washington Post in 2007 that she recommended her pregnant patients eat at least 3 servings of fish a week - a clear violation of the FDA and EPA's guidance for pregnant women. Dr. Roman added that "fish intake in pregnancy has never been linked with mercury toxicity" in fetuses or newborns. Huh?

The truth about mercury toxicity: it's not good for pregnant women
Assertions like these, echoed in FDA's draft report, are completely untrue. Mercury toxicity is known to overwhelm the benefits of fish fats in several international studies. And Dr. Roman need look no further than Massachusetts or Manhattan for evidence that exposure to even low levels of mercury during pregnancy has a negative effect on infant development.

The FDA should take a long, hard look at mercury
As it stands, the 2009 FDA draft is a relic of a previous Administration in which scientific findings could be stretched to defend nearly any policy decision.

We urge the new FDA to take a fresh look at the risks and benefits of mercury and seafood. There are likely some fish - with low mercury levels and lots of good fats - that can be eaten in large quantities with little risk. There are also some bad fish, like shark, tilefish, swordfish, mackrel, and others that are unsafe for at-risk groups. Consumers are hungry for clear guidance, and it just takes the right group of committed scientists to provide it. We're waiting.

In the meantime, check out our safe fish list for women.

When I was pregnant for the first time, I was all about prenatal yoga, checking my baby's amazing developing body online, and comparing symptoms with friends. As it should be.

What I wasn't doing was avoiding traffic pollution because I knew it could cause genetic changes that led to asthma, as a recent study shows. And really, how can you? Nor did I weigh the fish I ate to minimize my baby's mercury exposure. And I happily accepted hand-me-down baby bottles (reuse! save money!), which I later learned (after years of use) contained BPA.

Nope. I ate too much, slept a lot, and ultimately gave birth to a (thankfully) healthy, full-term baby boy. It wasn't until my second pregnancy that I read Sandra Steingraber's excellent book, Having Faith: An ecologist's journey to motherhood. In beautiful prose, she weaves the story of her own pregnancy into a scientific report on the critical moments of those nine months, when developing fetuses are most sensitive to chemical exposures. And I've never looked back.

Not that I regret reading the book. I don't. Or awakening to the toxic world we live in. It's better that my head is squarely out of the sand. But, I do regret that modern pregnancy is such a toxic minefield, a time when fetal chemical exposures can cause significant adverse health effects. In the U.S., we are lucky to have advanced maternal care, eliminating many of the health concerns that can be associated with pregnancy and childbirth. So it is disheartening that the list of don'ts for expectant mothers is impossibly long - and seemingly longer every day as science reveals more and more links between chemicals and our children's health.

So what's a pregnant woman to do? It's complicated, and we're not doctors. But if you're interested in taking some personal steps toward an environmentally healthy pregnancy, take a look at our Healthy Home Tips for Parents. Our public health researchers created it to be highly effective but very do-able.

And if you're like me, you'll get all riled up about this and get political. Because really, is this what pregnancy should be? A time to worry whether your neighborhood, your food, your air, your water, your everything could harm your baby because it's toxic? No! Of course not. It's a time of wonder and joy, a slow but exciting journey into parenthood - and chocolate desserts (ok, I'm not totally forgetting sleeping sitting up or the swollen ankles).

So let's change this. Sign The Declaration and join our campaign to pass the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act. Because a strong national chemical policy like Kid-Safe would systematically assess the chemical soup we live in, elevating human health right to the top of the evaluation criteria. Where it should be.

[belly photo courtesy of cafemama]

With all the recent talk about safe levels of mercury in fish, why not learn more about it from the experts? Join EWG and Earthjustice for a fascinating evening with Dr. Jane Hightower, author of the recent book Diagnosis: Mercury, Money, Politics & Poison.

In this book, she retraces her investigation into the modern prevalence of mercury poisoning, revealing how political calculations, dubious studies, and industry lobbyists endanger our health.

While mercury is a naturally occurring element, she learns there's much that is unnatural about this poison's prevalence in our seafood. Mercury is pumped into the air by coal-fired power plants and settles in our rivers and oceans, and has been dumped into our waterways by industry. It accumulates in the fish we eat, and ultimately in our own bodies. Yet government agencies and lawmakers have been slow to regulate pollution or even alert consumers.

Dr. Hightower will be in conversation with Patti Goldman, Vice President for Litigation with Earthjustice.

And, since we've been talking about Facebook lately, be sure to become a fan of Diagnosis: Mercury if you like it. We did.

Details: Wednesday, 2.4.09 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. @ the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco.

R.S.V.P. to Earthjustice.

It was all over the news few weeks ago. On December 12, Environmental Working Group published a report called Mercury Mischief at FDA, disclosing internal documents from the federal Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency that showed a secret FDA effort to promote unlimited fish consumption and drop government warnings that some popular fish - tuna, swordfish and mackerel - are high in mercury, a neurotoxin particularly hazardous to the developing fetus and infants.

As the documents showed, EPA officials were resisting on grounds that FDA had presented no scientifically valid justification for dispensing with the March 2004 federal health advisory on mercury in fish that cautioned women and young children not to eat more than 12 ounces of seafood a week and no more of 6 ounces of albacore tuna.

Since EWG published the documents, FDA officials have apparently backed away from their plan, for the moment anyway.

But there's more to do. By now, most people know that mercury is toxic for young. But many are not aware of the effects of mercury on adults. One of the first scientists to focus on this problem has been San Francisco physician Jane M. Hightower, who specializes in internal medicine. Puzzled that 123 of her patients were complaining of similar mysterious symptoms - fatigue, nausea, joint pain, insomnia, memory lapses and inability to focus, Hightower found that most were heavy fish-eaters and fully 89 percent exceeded the mercury safety level set by EPA. In fact, some exceeded the EPA protective level by a factor of 30.

Hightower reported her striking findings on fish and mercury in a groundbreaking study published in the April 2003 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives. Her work became a pivotal factor in helping EWG and other health advocates prevail over the seafood industry in the fight for the March 2004 seafood consumption warning. Hightower expanded on her medical detective work in a book, Diagnosis: Mercury -- Money, Politics & Poison, published in September 2008 by Island Press, Washington, D.C.

This week, in letters to Senate environment committee chair Barbara Boxer, D-CA., and House energy and commerce committee chair Henry Waxman, D-CA., whose panels oversee FDA, Hightower pressed for even stronger warnings to consumers. "The FDA and fishing industry have not adequately informed the consumer as to what fish are high, medium, or low in mercury at the point of sale," Hightower wrote. "This has exposed the consumer to a roulette game of mercury doses and leaves the high-end consumer at risk for excess mercury and adverse health effects."

Hightower asked the Congressional leaders to investigate the relationship between FDA and the fishing industry and determine why the agency had seemed so ready to abandon its fish/mercury stance.

We second Hightower's call for a thorough scrub of FDA. As we point out in our own research on fish and mercury, it's true that seafood is rich in vital nutrients: protein, iron, omega-3 fatty acids, which reduce "bad" cholesterol and the trace mineral selenium, which helps prevent cellular damage. But obtaining an adequate supply of these nutrients need not mean compromising on mercury. We advise consumers to find these healthful nutrients in worry-free foods such as walnuts, fortified eggs, margarine and low-mercury seafood such as shrimp and wild salmon. The government should work with independent scientists, such as Hightower, not with fish industry lobbyists, to guide consumers to the safest fish.

Our new year's resolution: build on the accomplishments of 2008 to make 2009 the year we turn the corner on crucial environmental issues facing our society. We scored breakthroughs on a range of problems last year. Among them:

Advancing the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act.
EWG's work on toxic chemicals spurred the reintroduction of the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act and its requirement of mandatory biomonitoring of industrial chemicals in people. EWG briefed Congressional staff members on the legislation, that aims to replace the weak Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. In the next Congress, EWG plans to organize briefings and push for hearings and passage of the bill.

Progressing toward a ban of toxic plastic chemical BPA.
On October 31, the Science Board of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a stinging rebuke to the agency and embraced EWG arguments that bisphenol-A (BPA), a synthetic estrogen used to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resin may be a threat to human health. The panel forced FDA to retreat from its stance that trace levels of BPA are safe in food packaging, including infant formula cans and baby bottles. EWG scientists testified, wrote comments and served on the expert panel for the Science Board.

In September, the National Institutes of Health's National Toxicology Program (NTP)declared that BPA, shown in laboratory tests to disrupt the endocrine system, may alter brain development, cause behavioral problems and damage the prostate glands in fetuses, infants and young children.

In 2009, EWG will work with Congressional leaders and the Obama administration to press for a federal ban of BPA in food packaging and other products that expose children and pregnant women to the chemical.

With strong advocacy by EWG's California office, the California assembly office came close to passing the first state-level BPA ban. In 2009, 13 state legislatures are expected to consider similar measures.

Blowing the whistle on FDA plan to push mercury-laced seafood.
On December 12, the Environmental Working Group made public internal government documents disclosing the Food and Drug Administration's secret plans to reverse federal warnings that pregnant women and children limit their fish intake to avoid mercury, a neurotoxin especially dangerous to the fetus and infants. EWG obtained both the FDA plan, stamped "CLOSE HOLD," and memos by senior Environmental Protection Agency scientists attacking FDA's rationale. The Washington Post broke the story, and other national stories followed.

Reaction from Capitol Hill was swift and sharp. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., denounced FDA: "Now, in the administration's 11th hour, they are quietly trying to water down advisories for women and children about the dangers of mercury in fish, disregarding sound science on this issue....This backroom bouquet for special interests should be stopped in its tracks. If they slip this through, I will work with the incoming Obama Administration to restore science-based decisions on mercury."

Chicago Tribune environmental reporter Michael Hawthorne recently reported on a new study by EPA that found 1 in 5 women of child-bearing age living in coastal states are contaminated with excessive levels of the toxic chemical mercury – twice the rate for women in inland states.

The study found that the blood of females between 16 and 49 was contaminated with levels of mercury that could pose risks for a child in the womb. Mercury crosses the placenta and concentrates in a baby’s brain, where it can lead to irreversible damage.

The government has long ignored mercury risks in populations that eat more fish. These data confirm what many have long suspected, that coastal populations are at greater risk from mercury in seafood. The FDA’s current health advice covers only 4 fish, leaving pregnant women in the dark about the mercury hazards in most of the seafood they consume.

This study highlights the real world consequences of FDA’s bad advice on mercury in fish and raises serious health concerns for women in coastal states. Women need solid advice from FDA on what’s safe to eat, including what types of seafood provide nutrients without the excess mercury.

This study further confirms the urgent need for policies that protect the public from exposures to any of the more than 200 industrial chemicals, including mercury, that pose risks to the human brain and nervous system.

With 1 in 6 children in the U.S. born with some form of developmental disability – what research have termed a “silent pandemic” caused by industrial chemicals – we can’t afford for FDA to continue pandering to the seafood industry at the expense of children’s health.

A few years back, EWG researchers decided to step in and help women get more accurate information regarding the amount of tuna they could safely consume in a week by creating an online calculator.

Jane Houlihan

Photo by mrjoro