Air “Fresheners” Last month Jane Kay reported on a coalition of environmental groups petitioning the federal government to “crack down on air fresheners, products that scientific studies show can aggravate asthma and pose other health risks” (SFChron, 9/20/07).

The Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Alliance for Healthy Homes, and the National Center for Healthy Housing filed a petition with the EPA and the Consumer Product Agency to request better regulation of the industry, which is expected to garner $1.72 billion in sales this year. Excerpts from the petition:

Scented sprays, gels and plug-in fresheners offer no public health benefits yet contain harmful chemicals linked to breathing difficulties, developmental problems in babies and cancer in laboratory animals.

In houses, offices and restrooms, Americans suffer significant exposure to a veritable cocktail of dangerous and potentially dangerous volatile organic compounds. In cases of mold and damp indoor environments, air fresheners may hide an indicator of potentially serious health threats to the respiratory system.

Proposed truth-in-advertising labeling would require listing all ingredients in air fresheners. The government should ban ingredients that would cause allergies or appear on California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals linked to cancer and reproductive harm.

The air fresheners can contain a number of harmful chemicals including benzene, formaldehyde, and phthalates.

Lab animal studies show that some phthalates interfere with hormonal systems, disrupt testosterone production and cause malformation of sex organs. Some studies of humans have shown a link between exposure and adverse changes in the genitals of baby boys.

The Natural Resource Defense Council sent 14 air fresheners to be tested for phthalates in an independent lab. The tests found that 12 products, including those marked “all natural,” contained phthalates.

Rewriting History

While Walgreens pulled the offending products from their shelves, other industry representatives insist the air fresheners “pose no health threat and contribute to a better quality of life in many households.” Further, that air fresheners “do contribute to the quality of life. Fragrances have been used for centuries, dating back to when the Chinese and the Egyptians used incense and fragrant oils. They obviously have a value, or consumers wouldn’t buy them” (Bill Lafield, op cit).

Of course, what Mr Lafield fails to mention is that the fragrances used for centuries bear no resemblance to the petrochemically-based synthetics his group sells that make people sick. Before the rise of the chemical industry, traditional sources for cosmetics were botanically-based, derived from common nut or fruit oils like coconut, apricot, and olive; or from essential oils such as rose, jasmine, sandalwood, frankincense, and lavender. These botanicals and volatile oils actually enhanced health. One of the health hazards cited in the environmental groups’ petition is the ability of air fresheners to mask the smell of mold, an indicator of potentially serious health threats to the respiratory system.

Among the many ironies of misleading industry statements such as the quote from Lafield is that traditional fragrances - essential oils like lemon, tea tree, eucalyptus, and others that are commonly used to purify dank air - have antimicrobial actions that in fact kill bacteria and fungus, making breathing easier for people with respiratory conditions.

Chemical Hazards from Multiple Sources

The news of a statewide ban on phthalates follows several other alarms sounded recently about the presence of chemical dangers to health to which the public and wildlife are commonly exposed, in everyday consumer products and even new forms of advertising.

Wetlands advocates and other environmental groups have issued warnings and public safety requests to Bay Area residents to forgo phthalate- and bisphenol-containing plastics, cosmetics, and cleansers because the chemicals in these products find their way into runoff that kills or harms wildlife in the Bay. As for human health, phthalates – linked to cancer, birth defects, and neurological damage - were found in 75% of urine samples tested in a 2003 study on safety (http://www.environcorp.com/img/media/Phthalates.pdf).

Meanwhile, perfluorinated compounds - used in Scotchgard, Gortex, and nonstick surfaces like Teflon, are showing up in marine life literally throughout the world – the Mediterranean, the Baltic, the Atlantic, the Ganges in India, the Midway Atoll in the Pacific, Korea, Canada and the US, and even as far away as Antarctica . These chemicals have caused hormone disruption, immune compromise, and devastating neurological effects. They have been linked to cancer in whales and dolphins, a disease previously unheard of in cetaceans (http://assets.panda.org/downloads/causesforconcern.pdf).

Fake Cookie Smells

Last year, San Francisco bus shelter ads exuding aromatic smells of chocolate chip cookies were pulled after multiple complaints and controversy. Conceived by the “Got Milk” people – the California Milk Processor Board, the ads prompted complaints by health activists in defense of people with asthma and chemical sensitivity. Resisting behavioral manipulation, diet-conscious people complained of being driven by temptation while waiting for the bus. Others worried that cookie smells would constitute cruel and unusual punishment for the homeless who routinely sought shelter there from the elements but might not have the ready purchasing power to satisfy cravings (SF Chron, 11/30/06 and 12/6/06). Clearly, if the smells were genuine baking aromas, they would not trigger asthma attacks or neurological symptoms; rather it is synthetic chemicals that are health hazards.

Synthetic Pheromonal Pesticide

Hundreds of residents in Fresno were hospitalized earlier this month with stomach pains and shortness of breath when a synthetic pheromone-containing chemical was sprayed on crops to eradicate the brown apple moth. Whether it was the pheromone itself that caused illness, or other chemicals added to the pesticide, is still under investigation. Judge Robert O’Farrell issued a temporary injunction to stop the spraying, but he has since ruled that the spraying can resume, even though the source of the problem has not been identified; thus it would seem that locals will again be at risk (SF Chron 10/19/07).

Statewide Ban Enacted: Phthalates

Front-page news last week from the California Assembly highlighted passage of a statewide ban on phthalates, a softener in plastics (San Francisco Chronicle, 10/16/07). A nationwide push to ban phthalates is currently taking place in nine other states as well, according to the advocacy group Environment California. Though common in the US in items ranging from baby bottles, toys and teething rings to hospital IV bags, household cleansers and cosmetic fragrances, phthalates are banned in fourteen countries, as well as the European Union.

“Death by Perfume”

Long suspected of causing adverse health effects, phthalates in items ranging from plastics to perfumes have been linked to hormone disruption in animals, developmental damage in young children, and breast cancer (Gretchen Lee, Breast Cancer Fund, op cit). In the class of phthalates is the substance that “fixes” the scent in perfumes, making their smell linger. Phthalate enables molten acrylic to soften, and its noxious volatile odor is what causes nausea, headaches and other neurological symptoms in susceptible people when exposed to the smell of acrylic nails being applied in manicure shops.

Industry representatives claim that a ban will deny consumers the products they “want and need” by removing them from store shelves, and that “scientific reviews here and in Europe have found these toys safe for children to use.”(Jack Gerard, American Chemistry Council, ibid). However, a ban by the European Union suggests otherwise. Absent citation of such scientific reviews, one suspects they may be industry-funded research commissioned and designed to arrive at the conclusion of safety.