Donald L. Hassig (DH): Good evening, Dr. Schecter.
Arnold Schecter, MD (AS): Good evening.
DH: Dr. Schecter is a scientist who has devoted his career, decades,
to studying the levels of POPs, persistent organic pollutants,
chemicals like dioxins, PCBs, brominated flame retardants. He has
dedicated much of his life to studying the levels of these chemicals
in the US food supply. Tell us about some of your more recent
research Dr. Schecter.
AS: What we have been looking at recently is levels of certain man
made chemicals that are toxic and in some cases persistent in humans
and in food. For example, in the past we have looked at dioxins and
PCBs in this country in Vietnam veterans and everyone in the US we
have loooked at and others have looked at where dioxins seeem to be
contaminating all of us as do PCBs. These are described by many as
persistent organic pollutants or POPs because they are persistent in
the environment or people. They are toxic. They bioaccumulate. They
cause a number of health problems. Lately, we have been interested in
what are now known as emerging POPs and chemicals that are similar to
the emerging POPs. We started looking not too long ago at a certain
type of flame retardant, PBDE, polybrominated diphenyl ether. We
looked first in nursing mothers’ breast milk, because of reports from
Sweden that the levels of these were going up. At the same time,
dioxin levels and PCB levels were decreasing in the people they
studied. We did a study here in Texas. We found that every nursing
mother had milk that was contaminated with PBDE type flame retardants.
By comparing it with other countries we found that the levels were
higher than had been measured in any other country. We had three
findings. PBDEs are in nursing mothers’ breast milk. The levels are
the highest in the world. We found no one who did not have this
contamination. We realized that this meant that babies before birth
were being contaminated as some moved through the placenta. We
realized that if an infant was getting all of his or her food by
nursing that child was going to be getting a dose of PBDEs and flame
retardants are not what babies need in their bodies. We later looked
at PBDEs in food and found that some foods particularly with animal
fats, whether they were animals or fish or dairy products were
contaminated with PBDEs. These are fat soluble chemicals. When we
looked at fish with higher fat levels like salmon or sardines we found
higher levels of PBDEs.
We also were interested in looking at another popular brominated flame
retardant. In America we use more PBDEs than in most other countries.
Another brominated flame retardant, which is believed to be toxic,
hexabromocyclododecane, was found at the same levels in nursing
mothers‘ breast milk in the US as in Europe. The levels are lower
than PBDEs in the US but we did find them in the milk of every woman
that we looked at. We then looked at hexabromocyclododecane in food
purchased from American supermarkets. We found that a number of
foods were contaminated with hexabromocyclododecane.
We also were interested in perfluorinated chemicals. We looked in
foods. These are chemicals found in Teflon and ScotchGuard that
resist stains or resist water. We found that a number of foods had
some of these perfluorinated chemicals.
We looked at dust vacuumed from floors in the US and Germany. We
found that PBDEs were at fairly high levels in dust and also that they
were much higher in the US than in Germany in a small study that we
did there.
DH: How do the PBDEs get from where they are put when used in
manufacturing? How do they get out of the material good into the
dust and get into the food?
AS: Yes, a very key question, of course. What is believed now is
that PBDEs, which are found in electronics and also in mattresses,
sofas, chairs, break off from what they are put in so that if your
were to lie down on your mattress tonight if PBDEs were used to
prevent fire, then as you lie down on the mattress this may release
dust containing PBDEs. Food also somehow gets contaminated. I do not
know what the route is for getting into the food.
DH: I have been familiar with this to the extent that I understand
how dioxins get into the animal food supply. It is my understanding
that minute particulates settle upon the vegetation or the aqueous.
In the terrestrial, when these particles settle upon vegetation cattle
consume the forage that has minute particles that contain dioxins
which then accumulate in their bodies. I wondered about the PBDEs.
Is it possible that the PBDEs would be minute particles in the outdoor
atmosphere and that they would come down like that?
AS: Well, the PBDEs are not chemically bound to the products that
they are in. They are added so that they can break off. The plastic
could break off with the PBDEs. It is not as well worked out right
now how PBDEs are migrating through the environment, food and us as
what we seem to know about dioxins.
DH: What is known about the health impacts? With babies that are
during gestation being exposed to PBDEs and then after gestation they
begin their own individual life and they are nursing the mother
getting more PBDEs. Then they are in the house crawling around on
the floor in the dust with the PBDEs. What is know about the health
impacts of these exposures?
AS: This is a relatively new field where investigations have been
done on laboratory animals like rats and mice and now more recently on
people, human epidemiology studies. It is interesting that PBDEs seem
similar in some of the health outcomes to PCBs. For example, it is
believed that both can cause cancer, both PCBs and PBDEs. It is
believed that both can have effects on the nervous system such as
lowering IQ if the baby has been exposed or the child has been
exposed, or emotional changes in children. Endocrine disruption,
changes in the levels of hormones. Problems with reproduction or
development such as less fetuses carried to normal delivery;
spontaneous abortions can happen. As best we know now, these POPs,
the PBDEs seem somewhat similar to PCBs. The literature now is coming
out with new papers very frequently on various POPs or chemicals that
are sort of like POPs but are not POPs. For example, bisphenol-A,
which is not persistent, but because we get an intake into our body
every day it’s something like POPs we’ve got it in us and we are
getting it in us. So BPA which is not persistent is sometimes called
a POPs-like chemical.
DH: I see. Because it is continuously present in our body. It
doesn’t persist, but by being constantly exposed it is continuously
present in our body.
AS: Exactly.
DH: We have talked about the presence of these chemicals, where they
are at and that they end up being part of the human body and that
there is some scientific knowledge about the diseases that can be
associated with these exposures. Is there sufficient scientific
knowledge and this would be your expert opinion? Is there sufficient
scientific knowledge on the subject of POPs exposure and disease
outcome to create, to produce public health statements on these
chemicals?
AS: There are POPs networks that have been producing public health
statements warning about health hazards. There is an international
POPs network and the Stockholm Convention meets periodically. (The
Stockholm Convention) targeted first what they call the “Dirty Dozen”
and has been adding to it. For example PBDEs went on the list
relatively recently. I think both persistent organic pollutants and
endocrine disruptors, some of which are the same chemicals have been
described by many people and many organizations as being a public
health hazard.
DH: What is the public health message that exists in the scientific
literature from your viewpoint?
AS: Ok. I will give you my personal opinion as someone who works in
the field. Different scientists will not alway agree on how toxic
something is or almost anything else in science there are areas of
disagreement. My own personal feeling is that these are man made
chemicals and they are toxic and bioaccumulate so they present a
hazard. If at all possible, we should be using non-hazardous
chemicals or phasing out those we know to be hazardous and trying to
replace them, if we need to replace them with less hazardous
chemicals. It may be that we could use other materials in our
mattresses to make them soft and flame resistant where you don’t need
to add man made chemicals.
DH: This is kind of a regulatory matter, where we’re deciding what
chemicals to use. What about the public health matter, this matter of
what do you tell the people? What would you tell the public about
POPs?
AS: I think I would find myself in the group of scientists who feel
that if you have something that is toxic and persistent and man made
that you don’t necessarily have to use that we should do whatever we
can do to decrease the amount in the environment and in people, but
also be thoughtful about what we replace the dangerous chemicals with.
We don’t want to replace one dangerous chemical with another. We
want to make sure that before a new chemical is introduced that it has
been thoroughly tested for safety.
DH: Considering the fact that numerous POPs are contaminants of
animal fat, what is the public health message on POPs that exists in
the science?
AS: Well I think that raises a very interesting point. What you just
mentioned is that some of the POPs are fat soluble and they are found
in animal fats. In public health and medicine for quite some time now
there has been a general consensus among most that the less animal
fats the better for a person’s health, whether we are talking about
colon cancer, heart attacks, or heart disease, or strokes. Now we can
add one more reason to eat less animal fat and perhaps more vegetables
and fruits and that is to decrease the intake of toxic POPs,
persistent organic pollutants or other toxic chemicals.
DH: What would the likely outcome be of reducing your exposure to
these chemicals? Isn’t it the point of this being addressed by public
health that having less of these chemicals in your body, less body
burden of POPs would reduce disease risk for some of these chronic
diseases?
AS: The way I see it as a public health physician who does research
and practice in the field, in my opinion, what is happening when we
reduce toxic chemicals whether it is lead in gasoline or cigarette
smoke or dioxin, or mercury at high levels or lead at certain levels,
is that we will be reducing in the population disease. It does not
mean that every person who ingests a certain number of molecules of a
toxic chemical is going to get sick. It does mean that in the general
population of the six billion people on the Earth or 360 million
living in America, whatever the figure is these days, there should be
less disease and better health.
DH: I am very hopeful that your research and the research of others
will lead to wide spread public knowledge of these matters. We do
this work. Our organization makes it our practice to conduct
information tables at colleges and in high schools and educate policy
makers. We have been educating town board members all around St.
Lawrence County where our group is located, where we started up. We
are finding that there is an interest. People want to reduce the
incidence of these diseases, particularly cancer. We go to a town
board and talk to them about POPs and the cancer risk that is
associated with exposure to chemicals like dioxins and PCBs. We have
been hesitant to say very much about the cancer risk associated with
the PBDEs, just because as you say its a newer field of research and
there is not as much known about cancer outcome. I don’t think there
is any epidemiology on cancer outcome with PBDE exposure. There is so
much epidemiology on cancer outcome with dioxin exposure and a little
less with PCB exposure.
We go to town boards. They have been quick, in wanting to reduce
cancer burden in their jurisdictions, they have been quick to show
their support by passing resolutions and speaking with people at other
levels of government. They show their support for public education on
reducing exposure to POPs by way of limiting animal fat intake. They
want the federal government, the state government and the county
governments to provide this kind of education to the general public.
We tell them that the environmental groups can not get this job done.
We need to have good partners with government to educate the public
about the existence of POPs in the food supply.
It is so good you have this great science that you produce and the
other scientists have been producing. Let’s just step back from this
a bit. Tell about the book that you wrote so long ago and tell us
when it was first published and how many editions it has gone through.
This book is titled, “Dioxins and Health”. I remember checking that
out of the library quite a long time ago so I know there is quite a
bit of history here.
AS: What is your question?
DH: Tell us about what motivated you to write “Dioxins and Health”,
when you first published this book. Tell us about that book. I see
that as the Bible of POPs. It was the starting point. It was a very
important document in the world scientific community, human beings,
dealing with the presence of these persistent organic pollutants in
the environment, in our bodies, in food. Tell us about your work that
went into publishing “Dioxins and Health”.
AS: The history of that, and we are working on the third edition now,
was that I went to a number of meetings both of citizens’ groups and
scientists and I noticed a great interest in the chemicals, the
dioxins, PCBs, similar chemicals. I noticed a couple of things. One
was even the best scientists did not understand the science that
scientists in different fields were generating. Chemists did not
understand epidemiologist. Physicians spoke to other physicians, not
chemists, not toxicologists who studied animals. I thought it would
be useful to try to edit. I didn’t write the book, I edited it to
have a book that spoke to different people and scientists to people
who are not scientists and vice versa. That was the origin.
DH: Great idea. Certainly wonderful that you conceived of that and
set about doing it. When was the first edition published?
AS: I don’t remember. The second edition was published in 2003. We
are working on the third edition right now.
DH: When do you think it will become available?
AS: I hope it will be out before this year is over. If not this year.
DH: I certainly would like to know when it comes out.
AS: We’re trying.
DH: What changes have you seen? What is the difference between
edition three and edition one or edition two? What is the trend?
What has taken place in the existing scientific knowledge with regards
to dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, including some of the PCBs?
AS: I think, well, I know we have more science on the dioxins and
PCBs. I think what needs to be added in addition is the emerging
persistent organic pollutants such as we have been talking about or
compounds related to them.
DH: So, in the third edition you are going to address PBDEs and the
other brominated flame retardants?
AS: Yes.
DH: It has been great talking to you. I always enjoy these
interviews with you. There is one thing more that comes to my mind,
if you have time to discuss this. You had looked at the levels of
POPs, specifically, dioxins in the bodies of vegans and compared this
to the levels of these chemicals in the bodies of those who consume.
I am sure that you know and that most of the people in the audience
know. Just for the completeness of this. The term vegan refers to
the fact that people do not consume any animal products. So you
looked at the levels of dioxins and possibly some other POPs in the
bodies of people who do not consume animal products and then you
compare that to the body burdens of these chemicals in people who do
consume animal products. What did you find?
AS: What we found in two small studies, one with dioxins in vegans,
or people who have not eaten any meat or fish or dairy products for a
long time, or eggs, and then with PBDEs, was that the levels were
lower in vegans than in the US general population. In the more recent
study with PBDEs, what we found was that the longer the time since
eating meat or, animal fat, lets put it that way, the lower the
levels.
DH: That’s certainly interesting. It proves out this matter of if
you recommend that people reduce their intake of animal fat that the
hope is that it would cause these levels to be lower. Then you see
this actually existing in the case of the vegans who have not been
consuming animal fat and they have these lower levels. They certainly
are an example of how one might go about minimizing their body burden
of chemicals like dioxins and PCBs and the brominated flame
retardants.
I think I have covered everything that I wanted to talk to you about.
I look forward to these interviews with you so much because I know you
are this great source of scientific knowledge on this subject area.
What do you intend? You told me that you were working on a research
proposal earlier today. What are your intentions for future research
in this area, Dr. Schecter?
AS: I would like to continue learning what levels of toxic chemicals
are in people and in food. How does it get into us? And then, what
is the health consequence of these chemicals?
I’m about talked out. My voice is about gone.
DH: Thank you so much, Dr. Schecter. You are a great man. I am so
glad that you are a former New Yorker. We’ll always be able to say
that even though it’s sunnier in Texas, this is where Arnold Schecter
started his dioxins and his PCBs and his PBDEs research. We are
very proud of that.
AS: Thank you for your kindness and thank you for your probing,
interesting and insightful questions.
DH: Thanks for all the research you are doing. The research is the
very heart of the activism and the public health. It all comes down
to what do we know. What do the scientists know about these chemicals
and about the health of the human beings and the animals? Thanks a
lot.
AS: Thank you for your interest.
DH: Have a wonderful evening.
AS: Thanks, same to you.
Tags: cancer prevention, cancer risk reduction, POPs
Prevent Cancer Now 