Exposed: Selected Sources

Chapter 1: Soft Power, Hard Edge

  • Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005.
  • "Fertile Grounds for Inquiry: Environmental Effects on Human Reproduction," Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114, no. 11, November 2006, pg. 646.

    Chapter 2: The Beauty Bluff

  • The Environmental Working Group has researched and advocated on personal care product safety and created a helpful database based on their findings: Environmental Working Group, "Skin Deep."
  • "State of the Evidence: What is the Connection Between the Environment and Breast Cancer?," Breast Cancer Fund, 2006, pg. 4
  • "Use of Hair Dyes and Bladder Cancer Risk," Manuela Gago-Dominguez and four co-authors affiliated with the Dept. of Preventative Medicine, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, International Journal of Cancer, vol. 91, issue 4, February 2001, pp: 575-579.
  • "Cancer-Causing Chemicals: A Thousand Threats. Cancer-causing chemicals don’t work alone, but in tandem. A scientist argues for increased vigilance," Devra Davis, Newsweek International, March 5, 2007. That article reflects scientific findings in: "Personal Care Products that contain estrogens or xenoestrogens may increase breast cancer risk," Devra L. Davis and a team of co-authors affiliated with the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, the Epidemiology Center for Cancer Prevention in Bourdeaux, France, the New York University Clinical Cancer Center and the Center for Research on Minority Health at the University of Texas, Medical Hypotheses, vol. 68, no. 4, 2007, pp: 756-766
  • Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (otherwise known as the 7th amendment to the Cosmetics Directive, which came into force on March 1, 2005), published in the Official Journal of the European Union, March 11, 2003.
  • Cosmetic Ingredient Review Board
    A comprehensive article written for the American Academy of Dermatology by members of the review board explains the board’s methods for assessing cosmetic ingredient safety: "Safety of ingredients used in cosmetics," Wilma Bergfeld, Donald Belsito, James Marks and F.Alan Anderson, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, January, 2005. 
  • National Library of Medicine, Household Products Database
    This database provides information on the health effects of over 7,000 consumer brands of household items. 
  • Scientific committee opinions on public health and risk assessment of cosmetic products can be accessed at the website of the European Commission.
  • Advocates of the Safe Cosmetics Act
    A coalition that calls for the "elimination of chemicals used in the cosmetic industry linked to cancer, birth defects and other health problems." 
  • Opponents of the Safe Cosmetics Act
    An organization comprised of members of the cosmetic industry whose "goal is to arm consumers with the information needed to make an informed decision on cosmetic safety." 
  • Procter & Gamble Fund, 990 Forms for Internal Revenue Service, July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005.

    Chapter 3: Sex & Plastic

  • "Perinatal Exposure to the Phthalates DEHP, BBP, and DINP, but not DEP, DMP, or DOTP, Alters Sexual Differentiation of the Male Rat," L Earl Gray, et al., Toxicological Sciences, vol. 58, December 2000, pp. 350-365."A Mixture of the 'Anti-Androgens' Linuron and Butyl Benzene Phthalate Alters Sexual Differentiation of the Male Rat in a Cumulative Fashion," L. Earl Gray and six co-authors affiliated with the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory and North Carolina State University, Raleigh, Biology of Reproduction, vol. 71, October 2004.

    Dr. Gray's work has also been incorporated in several EPA risk assessments of DEHP; his most recent contribution to the scientific literature on the relation between phthalates and male reproductive development is: "Cumulative Effects of Dibutyl Phthalate and Diethylhexyl Phthalate on Male Rat Reproductive Tract Development: Altered Fetal Steroid Hormones and Genes," L. Earl Gray and five co-authors affiliated with the EPA's National Health and Environmental Research Laboratory, Raleigh, North Carolina, Toxicological Sciences, March 30, 2007.

    For background information on rates of male sexual malformations and their possible links to chemical exposure, also see:

    "The relationship between environmental exposures to phthalates and DNA damage in human sperm using the neutral comet assay," Susan M. Duty and six co-authors affiliated with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Environmental Health Perspectives, December 2002

    "International Trends in Rates of Hypospadias and Cryptorchidism," Leonard J. Paulozzi of the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control,
    Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 107, no. 4, April 1999.

  • "Decrease in Anogenital Distance among Male Infants with Prenatal Phthalate Exposure," Shanna H. Swan (and ten co-authors), Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 113, no. 8, August 2005.
  • "Use of Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate-Containing Medical Products and Urinary Levels of Mono(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Infants," Ronald Green and six co-authors affiliated with the Harvard School of Public Health, the Centers for Disease Control and the Science and Environmental Health Network, Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 113, no. 9, September 2005, pp. 1222-1225.
  • "Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Di(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP)," National Toxicology Program, Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, November 2006
  • For criticism of Swan’s work, see website of the Phthalate Esters Panel.Also, see Science magazine: "Panel Finds No Proof that Phthalates Harm Infant Reproductive System," Jocelyn Kaiser, vol. 310, 21 October 2005.

    For criticism of agd as a marker of gender, and Swan's response, see Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114, no. 1, January 2006, letter from Gerald N. McEwen, Jr of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association and Gerald Renner, of the European Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfume Association, "Validity of Anogenital Distance as a Marker of in utero Phthalate Exposure and Author’s Response." Swan’s response follows in the same issue of EHP.

  • "Human Breast Milk Contamination with Phthalates and Alterations of Endogenous Reproductive Hormones in Infants Three Months of Age," Niels E. Skakkebaek and Katharina M. Main, and eleven other researchers affiliated with the University Department of Growth and Reproduction, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; the Dept. of Physiology and Pediatrics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; and the Dept of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114, no. 2, February 2006.
  • "In Utero Exposure to Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate and Duration of Human Pregnancy," Giuseppe Latini, Claudio De Felice, Giuseppe Presta, Antonio Del Vecchio, Irma Paris, Fabrizio Ruggieri and Pietro Mazzeo, Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 111, no. 14, November 2003. [research sponsored by Clinical Physiology Institute, National Research Council of Italy, Brindisi, Italy].
  • "Directive 2005/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 14 December 2005, amending for the 22nd time Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (phthalates in toys and childcare articles)."
  • "Expert Panel Update on the Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity of Di(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate," National Toxicology Program, Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, November 2005, pg. 179-180.
  • "Phthalate Exposure and Human Semen Parameters," Susan M. Duty and Russ Hauser of the Harvard School of Public Health, Epidemiology, vol. 14, 2003, pp. 269-277.
  • "Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Di(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP)," National Toxicology Program, Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, November 2006, pg. vii.Other studies on phthalate exposure reviewed by the author include:
    "Decreased Serum Free Testosterone in Workers Exposed to High Levels of De-n-butyl Phthalate (DBP) and Di-2-ethylhexyl Phthalate (DEHP): A Cross Sectional Study in China," Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114, no. 11, November 2006.
  • "Pediatric Exposure and Potential Toxicity of Phthalate Plasticizers," Katherine M. Shea, MD, MPH, in Pediatrics (Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics), vol. 111, no. 6, June 2003, pp. 1467-1474.
  • "Male Reproductive Effects of Phthalates: An Emerging Picture," Jane A. Hoppin, Epidemiology, vol. 14, 2003, pp. 259-260.
  • For a comprehensive journalistic treatment of rising concern over phthalates in toys, see:
    "From an Ingredient in Cosmetics, Toys, A Safety Concern: Male Reproductive Development Is Issue With Phthalates, Used in Host of Products," Peter Waldman, Wall Street Journal, October 4, 2005, page A1. 
  • The CPSC's decision not to restrict phthalates in toys was issued on February 26, 2003 in the form of a letter from Todd A Stevenson, CPSC Secretary, to Jeffrey Becker Wise, Policy Director of the National Environmental Trust: "Re: 'Petition Requesting Ban of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) in Products Intended for Children Under Five Years of Age and Under.' Letter is available on the CPSC website.Also, see: "Young Children and Plastic Toys," Consumer Product Safety Review (a CPSC newsletter), pp. 3-5, Summer 2003.
  • Chemical analysis of playthings is cited in: The Right Start: The Need to Eliminate Toxic Chemicals from Baby Products, U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Environment California, October 2005.
  • For more on the Weinberg Group, see: "The Weinberg Proposal: A scientific consulting firm says that it aids companies in trouble, but critics say that it manufactures uncertainty and undermines science," by Paul D. Thacker, Environmental Science and Technology, February 22, 2006
  • RAPEX can be accessed on the web, offering a week by week survey of citations and confiscations due to violations of EU safety standards. References to prohibited goods due to their phthalate content are at:
    Consumer Affairs, European Commission, citation # 8
    Consumer Affairs, European Commission, citation # 15 

    Chapter 4: Two Houses of Risk

  • For text of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS), latest ratifications, etc., see: The POPS website. The US Pops Watch Campaign seeks ratification of the Stockholm Pops Convention by the United States.
  • "Proposal to add a new substance to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS)," formal submission nominating lindane from Daniel Chacon Anaya, Director for Integrated Management of Materials and Risky Activities in Mexico’s Secretariat for Environment and Natural Resources, paperwork formally submitted on June 29, 2005.
  • "Lindane and other HCH Isomers—EPA Risk Assessment Fact Sheet," EPA, February 8, 2006. An Environmental Protection Agency fact sheet on risks associated with Lindane and other HCH Isomers.
  • "Nomination Dossier for Lindane: Submission by the United States to the Working Group of the Sound Management of Chemicals (SMOC) to consider lindane as a candidate substance for development of a NARAP" (National Regional Action Plan). Submitted to the Council on Environmental Cooperation, January 15, 1999.
  • Letter from Condoleeza Rice and Stephen L. Johnson to Senator Bill Frist, July 22, 2005.
  • "U.S. Ratification of the Stockholm Convention: Analysis of Pending POPS Legislation," Center for International Environmental Law, February 28, 2006.

    Chapter 5: Genetic Boomerang

  • Tribunal de Grande Instance d'Orleans, Jugement Correctionnel du 9 decembre, 2005, no. de jugement 2345/S3/2005. The case was between Monsanto ('La Societe Monsanto') and Francois DuFour, a local farmer, and 47 others. Translation by author. Also see, "Activists destruction of GM crops was justified: French court," Agence France Presse, December 9, 2005.
  • I visited Laura Krause's farm in August, 2002 with a film crew from the PBS newsmagazine program NOW With Bill Moyers. The story was broadcast on October 4, 2002, entitled Seeds of Conflict. A print version, "Sowing Disaster? How Genetically Altered Corn Has Altered the Global Landscape," was later published in the October 28, 2002 issue of The Nation.
  • GeneWatch UK's and Greenpeace's resource page on genetically modified organism contamination.
  • "Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.: Corn Varieties and Soybean Varieties," USDA Economic Research Service, 2000-2006.
  • The WTO's official decision was rendered in September '06; a summary of the findings and history of the case is described at:
    "European Communities — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products" 

    There were also numerous press reports of a preliminary opinion issued in February 2006; here’s one from EurActiv, a news service covering the EU:
    "WTO panel rules EU GMO moratorium illegal"

  • Two interesting analyses of the meaning of the WTO's decision come from the Congressional Research Service’s "Agricultural Biotechnology: The U.S.-EU Dispute," a report to Congress on March 10, 2006; and from Friends of the Earth International, "Looking behind the U.S. spin: WTO ruling does not prevent countries from banning GMO’s," February 2006.
  • Forty-nine of sixty major European retailers contacted by Greenpeace in 2005 said they would not sell food containing genetically modified ingredients in their stores, "EU Markets Report," Greenpeace International, February 3, 2005
  • "Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 21 April, 2004, on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage," otherwise known as the Liability Directive.
  • A Friends of the Earth Europe press release on US efforts to pressure the EU to market genetically modified foods and crops.

    Chapter 6: Rise and Fall of the Machine

  • Electronic Waste: Strengthening the Role of the Federal Government in Encouraging Recycling and Reuse, Government Acountability Office, November 2005 [# GAO-06-47]
  • "Electronic Waste and eCycling," Environmental Protection Agency: The Environmental Protection Agency's resource page on electronic waste and eCycling.
  • Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia, February 2002, and The Digital Dump: Exporting Use and ReUse to Africa, October 2005, both by Basel Action Network.
  • "Toxic Tech: Pulling the Plug on Toxic Electronics," Greenpeace International, May 2005.
  • The Basel Action Network's list of countries and their positions on Waste Trade Ban Agreements.
  • WEEE Directive: European Parliament and Council's directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment.
  • "Frequently asked questions on Directive 2002/95/EC on the Restriction of the Use of certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (RoHS) and Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), DG Environment."
  • The Electronic Industries Alliance maintains a comprehensive data base, EIA Track, of global chemical and recycling laws impacting the electronics industry:
  • End of Life Vehicles Directive: This piece of legislation ny the European Commission aims to reduce the volume and hazardous nature of waste of End of Life Vehicles.

    Chapter 7: Chemical Revolution

  • Generations X: Results of WWF's European Family Biomonitoring Survey, October 2005 -- A WWF survey on the extent to which people across Europe have been exposed to man-made chemicals.
  • "Fertile Ground for Inquiry: Environmental Effects on Human Reproduction," Julia R. Barrett, Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114, no. 11, November, 2006.
  • "Body Burden—The Pollution in Newborns," Environmental Working Group, July 14, 2005
  • "A Present for Life," Greenpeace UK, September 8, 2005. This study addresses the concern of hazardous chemicals being passed between mothers and their children.
  • Trade Secrets: A PBS special on chemical companies and the withholding of information pertaining to hazardous chemicals.
  • Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation, Michael P. Wilson, with Daniel A Chia and Bryan C. Ehlers, prepared for the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee and the California Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials by the California Policy Research Center at UC Berkeley, 2006.
  • "Chemical Regulation: Approaches in the United States, Canada, and the European Union," report by the Government Accountability Office for Senators Patrick Leahy, Frank Lautenberg and James Jeffords, November 4, 2005, pg. 2.
  • "OVERVIEW: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Programs," report by EPA, January 2007, pg. 7/ 8.
  • Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA's Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program, Government Accountability Office, (GAO-05-458), June 2005.
  • "Chemical and Related Manufacturing: Top Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties," Center for Responsive Politics.
  • European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), "Facts and Figures." The European Chemical Industry Council's website on all things related to chemicals and Europe.
  • "Roundtable on Transatlantic Standards Issues: Meeting Notes," U.S. Department of State, January 10, 2005.
  • Corporate Europe Observatory: An Amsterdam-based research and campaign group that focuses on corporations and presumed threats to democracy, equity, social justice and the environment posed by the large firms.
  • U.S. Representative Henry Waxman launched an investigation into the Bush administration’s lobbying against REACH and released a report with his findings: "A Special Interest Case Study: The Chemical Industry, the Bush Administration, and European Efforts to Regulate Chemicals."
  • "Comments of the United States on Notification G/TBT/N/EEC/52 Regarding European Commission Regulation COM(2003) 644," a complaint by the United States to the WTO's Technical Barriers to Trade Committee on REACH, submitted June 21, 2004.
  • "Response from the European Communities to Comments Submitted by WTO Members Under G/TBT/N/EEC/52 (Regulation Concerning the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals, Known as REACH)," submitted to the Technical Barriers to Trade Committee on October 28, 2004; also, "The History of REACH," Power Point presentation by the European Commission.
  • Courting Influence: The Center for Investigative Reporting's project on federal judicial nominees and their ties to special interest groups. The webpage for "Courting Influence" contains a database of judges and nominees from 2001 to the present, covering Circuit and Federal Claims courts. It also includes biographical data from nominees' Senate questionnaires, and downloadable financial disclosure statements.

    Chapter 8: Transpacific Drift

  • "Implications of REACH for the Developing Countries," by Frank Ackerman and a team of researchers at the Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, in collaboration with the International Chemical Secretariat in Sweden. The study was commissioned by DG-External Policies and submitted to the European Parliament in March 2006.
  • For details on China’s RoHS, see explanation by the American Electrical Association.
  • "The PRC's Evolving Standards System: Institutions and Strategy," by Chaoyi Zhao and John M. Graham, Asia Policy Journal, no. 2, July 2006, pp. 63-87.

    Chapter 9: The New Diplomats

  • "View of US's global role 'worse'," BBC News, January 23, 2007
  • Corporate European Observatory in Amsterdam tracks—and helps to unearth—conflicts of interest inside the European Commission.
  • "Could Try Harder: A midterm report on the European Commission’s environmental record," an assessment by the Green 10, a coalition of leading environmental NGO’s operating throughout the EU.
  • Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation, Michael P. Wilson, with Daniel A Chia and Bryan C. Ehlers, prepared by UC Berkeley California Policy Research Center for the state Senate Environmental Quality Committee and Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, 2006, pg. 44.

Like our content? Help us do more.

Support Us