Working Together on HIV/AIDS: Scientists

Photo courtesy of the NIH

This year marks the 30th anniversary of two mysterious outbreaks in America. One was of a form of pneumonia called Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) and the second was a skin cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma. Both diseases were quite rare, especially considering the patients were all young men in their 20's. These outbreaks actually marked the beginning of our awareness of a new disease we now know as AIDS.

Today’s post is the first in a series about HIV/AIDS, including where we were and how far we’ve come in treating this devastating disease. However, I’m not planning on focusing on the science behind HIV/AIDS since others have already done a great job of explaining this.

Instead, I want to talk about the different groups that were involved in the amazing progress we’ve made in our understanding and treatments. In just 30 years, HIV/AIDS has gone from a death sentence to a manageable chronic disease. Who made that possible?

The first answer that probably comes to mind is scientists and physicians who had to figure out what caused the symptoms they were seeing in clinics and how the disease was spreading. This was a daunting challenge, but with the support of the US government as well as governments around the world, they identified the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and figured out how it was transmitted.

Almost two decades before the emergence of HIV/AIDS, scientists had the idea that cancers might be caused by a special type of virus called a retrovirus. They developed a drug against retroviruses in the hopes that is would cure these cancers. Unfortunately it didn’t work. But, HIV is a retrovirus, so they were able to revisit their old drug. The drug, AZT, appeared to slow the progression from HIV infection to AIDS and represented the first major breakthrough for infected individuals. Not bad for a failed experiment!

Since then, science has produced several other drugs to treat HIV/AIDS and many people are living long and symptom-free lives as a result. But scientists didn’t work alone. In my next post in this series, I’ll discuss the crucial role advocacy groups played in fighting this epidemic.

Star Wars and Whooping Cough?

Found this clip encouraging immunization on Twitter from @sethmnookin about a month ago. What modern classics do you think would be effective for sending public health or research messages today?

Protect your Eyes? Aye.

Where did eye patches originate? You'd probably guess it was an early and low-tech way to conceal an unsightly eye injury. While this may be partially true it is more likely that patches were first used by individuals with two perfectly good eyes. There is speculation that sailors, in order to keep one eye adjusted to seeing in the darkness below deck, used an eye patch. Whether scurrying below deck to modify rigging or reloading weapons, keeping one eye adapted to seeing in low levels of light could save a valuable few minutes in a crucial situation.

Today eye patches are typically used as costume pieces or to protect an injured eye. Research has brought us a variety of innovative treatments for eye maladies, but many visual problems are caused by injury. Here are some of the most common injuries - some of which may earn you an eye patch:

Corneal Abrasion: A corneal abrasion is essentially a scratch on the transparent covering of the eye. Abrasions can occur from walking into foreign objects such as hanging tree branches, or by rubbing the eye when something like dust or sand is present. Abrasions are usually minor but the risk of infection from bacteria can be a serious threat. Antibiotic eye drops and a topical pain reliever is the most common treatment.

Chemical exposure: Being splashed by anything but clean water is a risk to the eyes. Many acids, such as vinegar, lemon juice, and some shampoos, may cause significant redness and burning, but can be washed out with no real damage. Chemicals that are basic (a pH over 7) such as bleach, ammonia, or lye, are a more serious threat but may not seem so as many do not cause immediate eye pain or redness. As soon as possible after exposure the eye should be flushed with warm tap water for 15 minutes. Long term treatment depends on the type of chemical exposure and if tissue damage occurred.

Swelling: What do moving baseballs, flying fists, bathroom sinks, and stepping on a rake have in common? They all can result in some mean black eyes. Being struck in the eye with just about anything causes swelling followed by discoloration. The swelling is the result of simple tissue inflammation, whereas the discoloration is due to swollen or ruptured blood vessels. The best treatment is to put an ice pack over the affected area to reduce swelling. Despite being an old wives tale, placing a steak or a pork chop on a black eye is not an effective treatment.

Eye bruising/bleeding: Being struck in the vicinity of the eye often causes the small, delicate blood vessels under the whites of the eyes to break and discolor the eye. This is called a subconjunctival hemorrhage and looks much worse than it actually is. It is quite common and despite its dramatic appearance, actually poses little risk of any long term visual or cosmetic damage. Other than looking scary for 7 to 10 days and waiting for the blood vessels to heal themselves there is not much of a treatment for this condition. Over time the blood clears on its own and the eye returns to normal appearance.

For more information about eye injuries the National Institutes of Health has a good online resource. This 4th of July be sure to keep the bottle rockets aimed away from your face.

Are You Positive You’re Negative?

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) over 20% of people infected with HIV in the US today do not know they have the virus. This means they are at a higher risk for transmitting the virus to others, because they do not know they have it.

To be completely sure you are not carrying HIV, get tested. Find a clinic near you today. And while you may be thinking, “I don’t need to get tested, I know I’m negative.” Just beware of these facts. The top five states with the most visitors to New Voices for Research are also all high on the list of total cases of AIDS (according to the CDC):

• Maryland, #9 with 31,931 cases
• Pennsylvania, #6 with 35,489 cases
• Florida, #3 with 109,524 cases
• California, #2 with 148,949 cases
• New York, #1 with 181,461 cases

Not all HIV tests require a blood draw from your arm. Some can be much quicker and pain free.

Bottom line: Get tested. Today.

Call to Action

Image credit: A6U571N

The bottom line is that environmental chemicals, such as endocrine disrupting chemicals, are a real concern, but the specific health threats are still poorly understood. Environmental health research is key to improving public health, because it will help us determine how we can prevent rather than treat environmentally related effects.

The ultimate outcome of this research will be information that can be used to guide policy by identify chemicals of concern, determine exposure levels that lead to health effects, and evaluate the effectiveness of prevention efforts. But beyond policy, this data will allow people to make better choices, such as where to live or types of health care they need.

Investment in environmental health research clearly has the potential to improve Americans quality of life and reduce economic and societal costs that result from environmentally-related health effects. As voters, we have the power to encourage investment in this research by telling the representatives we elected that it is how we want our tax dollars spent. The greatest impact you can have is by communicating with your representatives.

I am writing letters to my Senators and Representatives on how I believe environmental health research should be a priority, will you join me?


This is Part 10 in the Chemical Exposures and Public Health series.
Part 1 - From Interest to Passion
Part 2 - An Environmental Health Risk
Part 3 - Lead: A Regulatory Success Story
Part 4 - Something My Body Needs Anyway?
Part 5 - Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals
Part 6 - Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change
Part 7 - Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation
Part 8 - Cleaning Up Our Act
Part 9 - Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money
Part 10 - Call to Action

Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money

Along with public opinion and advocacy, research is another important driver of policy decisions. Research is the an essential tool for the identification of safe alternatives for chemicals in commerce that are a health concern. Efforts by scientists in areas such as green chemistry aim to design new chemicals that have little to no negative effects on our health.

The same research tools can also be used to guide chemical regulatory policy. To encourage regulation of a specific chemical, research needs to prove it poses a threat to human health. To better understand the risk posed by chemical exposures, scientists first needed to develop methods to identify which chemicals are getting into our bodies and at what levels. One technique is bio-monitoring; which involves looking at both the environment a person lives in and samples from the person themselves.

Historically, human exposures were estimated from the concentration of a chemical in the environment, food, water, or consumer goods. But advances have enabled scientists to directly measure the concentration of a chemical or metabolites in specimen, such as blood, urine, or bone. A recent CDC study detected over 212 chemicals in the U.S. population. Even DDT was found at a detectable level in children, despite the fact that it had been banned decades before they were born.

But what does bio-monitoring data mean for public health? The problem is that bio-monitoring studies on their own do not determine the relationship between chemical exposures and health effects. Bio-monitoring is the first step, but can only determine what enters our bodies. In order for regulatory action to be taken, these chemical exposures must be linked to specific effects, as was done for children's lead exposure and mental deficits. Unfortunately, for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) many links remain unknown.


To better determine links between environmental exposures and health effects, a multi-agency collaboration is conducting a national research effort called the National Children’s Study . The study will track 100,000 children from before birth to the age of 21 collecting data on their chemical exposures and potentially related health effects. Then, researchers will analyze the data to learn how environment influences health, including evidence identifying which chemicals in our bodies are making us sick.

The study is focusing on children because research has documented their unique vulnerability to chemicals, and how exposures during development can set us up for chronic health problems and the development of diseases later in life.

Because of the sheer size and length, the National Children’s Study will be expensive. To get the full benefit, it is critical that funding is maintained. This study is about prevention, we need to try to stop environmentally related health effects before they start. Investment in environmental health research is important because of the clear potential to save both lives and treatment costs.


This is Part 9 in the Chemical Exposures and Public Health series.
Part 1 - From Interest to Passion
Part 2 - An Environmental Health Risk
Part 3 - Lead: A Regulatory Success Story
Part 4 - Something My Body Needs Anyway?
Part 5 - Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals
Part 6 - Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change
Part 7 - Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation
Part 8 - Cleaning Up Our Act
Part 9 - Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money
Part 10 - Call to Action

Cleaning Up Our Act

Image credit: Method

In my last post, I described some of the legislative hurdles for U.S. chemical regulation. How can Americans encourage positive change? The best ways to influence policy is through public support since legislators respond to their constituents concerns. Advocacy is an effective tool to raise public awareness and is most powerful when backed by research.

A public opinion poll conducted in August 2009 for Safer Chemicals, Health Families showed that Americans are concerned with the way the U.S. currently regulates chemicals. When given a description, 74% say they support the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 87% expressed concern when they learned that chemicals in existence prior to TSCA were simply presumed safe and grandfathered. And 71% were in support of proposed changes for the legislation.

Image credit: Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

This public support is being generated and maintained by advocacy. Advocates try to educate the public about regulatory issues through books, such as Not Just A Pretty Face by Stacy Malkan, which raises concerns about chemicals in personal care products, and Slow Death by Rubber Ducky by Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie, which examines how everyday items we use are polluting our bodies. Advocates also use advertisements to raise awareness about harmful chemicals in makeup, from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, or cleaning products, from Method.

In response to public concern, many companies have already begun to reformulate products, removing specific chemicals without government intervention. Two endocrine disrupting chemicals that have already begun to be phased out are BPA, which is used to make reusable water bottles, baby bottles, and carbonless paper receipts, and phthalates, a group of chemicals used to soften children’s plastic toys and to help fragrances last longer.

However, a specific chemical being removed does not guarantee the new product is any safer. Manufactures simply swap one chemical for another, but just like the initial chemical, the alternatives are not being thoroughly tested for safety. It becomes a game of 'whac-a-mole', with another concerning chemical popping up every time you knock one down. Regulatory changes are critical so that we don’t have to remove dangerous chemicals from products, but instead are preventing them from getting to the market in the first place.

What's the best way to ensure that the environmental chemicals we are exposed to are safe? Research. Stay tuned for the next part of this series on the benefits of Environmental Health Research.

This is Part 8 in the Chemical Exposures and Public Health series.
Part 1 - From Interest to Passion
Part 2 - An Environmental Health Risk
Part 3 - Lead: A Regulatory Success Story
Part 4 - Something My Body Needs Anyway?
Part 5 - Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals
Part 6 - Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change
Part 7 - Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation
Part 8 - Cleaning Up Our Act
Part 9 - Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money
Part 10 - Call to Action

Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation

Image credit: Echoey13

In previous posts, I've shared how research demonstrates a link between endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and negative health effects, such as obesity. Since EDC exposures are a health concern, the government needs to identify chemicals of concern and implement policies to reduce exposures, as was done for lead. Unfortunately, U.S. chemical regulation is not a straightforward process.

Chemical regulation is split between several agencies. Two of the main agencies are the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The FDA oversees chemicals we are exposed to through certain consumer products like pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food additives, while the EPA regulates exposures that are more environmental, such as air pollution.

Some authorities are further split, as is the case for water, with bottled water being regulated by the FDA and tap water by the EPA. As a result, individual contaminants could end having different maximum permissible amounts in bottled vs. tap water.

This fragmented regulation makes it difficult to protect public health. But there were also a large number of chemicals in commerce that were initially unregulated if they were not covered under other existing laws, such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act which regulates pharmaceuticals. In an attempt to close this gap, Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 1976, which gave EPA the authority over all unregulated chemicals.

A major flaw is that TSCA treats new chemicals differently than chemicals that existed before the act. Existing chemicals were not evaluated and were just presumed safe. At the time TSCA passed, there were already about 62,000 chemicals in commerce. Regulation of new chemicals isn’t much better and has limited requirements. Companies are only required to submit available data and don’t have to test for toxicity. It is estimated that only 15% of new chemicals have complete health and safety data.

TSCA had the potential to unify regulatory authority, by giving the EPA authority over chemicals of unreasonable risk to health or the environment. For example, BPA is approved by the FDA as an indirect food additive, but because of concerns for human health, the EPA is using its authority under TSCA to investigate BPA.

However, the phrase “unreasonable risk” created another major hurdle, because it places the burden of proof on the EPA, and requires a significant level of evidence prior to regulatory action that can take years to develop. As a result, chemicals are only regulated when proven harmful rather than requiring they are proven safe to enter the market.

TSCA was introduced over 30 years ago. Today, there are over 80,000 chemicals approved for use in the products we use, such as household cleaners, shampoo, and makeup. But to date, the EPA has only been able to regulate 5 chemicals and require testing for about 200. I feel the numbers clearly show that TSCA has failed to protect Americans.

Image credit: Abeeeer

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO), the agency that evaluates the effectiveness of government programs and policies, also believes TSCA has not given the EPA the necessary authority to protect human health and the environment. U.S. GAO put the EPA's process for "assessing and controlling toxic chemicals" on its "high-risk" list in 2009. The list includes federal programs, policies, and operations that should be a top priority for reform

Currently, Congress is considering legislation to reform TSCA. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced a bill called the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 in the Senate. Representatives Bobby Rush (D-IL) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) have released a discussion draft of the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 in the House. Only time will tell if these bills will provide Americans with meaningful reform that will improve public health.

This is Part 7 in the Chemical Exposures and Public Health series.
Part 1 - From Interest to Passion
Part 2 - An Environmental Health Risk
Part 3 - Lead: A Regulatory Success Story
Part 4 - Something My Body Needs Anyway?
Part 5 - Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals
Part 6 - Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change
Part 7 - Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation
Part 8 - Cleaning Up Our Act
Part 9 - Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money
Part 10 - Call to Action

Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change

Exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) are a particular concern for children. Because children are developing rapidly, hormone disruption can have a greater impact; resulting in chronic health problems or making children susceptible to the development of illnesses later in life.

Research has shown that chemicals in a mother's body are able to cross the placenta, and therefore, children are being exposed to environmental chemicals even while they are in the womb. As infants, they are exposed to chemicals at higher levels because consume more food relative to body weight, but also because their immune systems are less developed, and therefore, less able process and remove chemicals from their bodies.

For lead, proper regulation took several decades because we initially had a poor understanding of its health effects. We face the same problem today with EDCs.

The famous adage the "dose makes the poison" describes the assumption toxicologists use when determining safe chemical exposure levels. Toxicology studies currently assume that a greater dose, or exposure level, will produce a greater effect.

To determine safe exposure levels, animals are exposed to varying amounts of a chemical and a dose that does not produce observable effects is identified. Then, a series of uncertainty factors are applied to that dose in order to calculate an acceptable level for human exposure. The uncertainty factors account for different sensitivities between the animals studied and humans but also to account for varying sensitivities between humans.

So, what is wrong with the current approach?

Scientists who study the endocrine system have recognized for a while that hormones have a different relationship between dose and effect. Hormones and hormone mimicking chemicals, like EDCs, can produce opposite effects at different exposure levels. A low level exposure can turn a process on, while a high level exposure could shut the process off.

Since EDCs have a different dose-effect relationship, the current assumptions used in toxicology studies are outdated. High-dose experiments can not be effectively used to predict low-dose results for EDCs, and therefore, safety testing needs to be adapted to make sure that potential low-dose effects are investigated. In order to address our evolving understanding of endocrine disruption, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program was established by the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a battery of tests to properly identify EDCs, information that will enable us to update the way we conduct toxicology studies.

The scientific understanding of how endocrine disruption can be identified and measured is still in the early stages, and research will be our best chance to close these knowledge gaps and identify chemicals that are a real public health threat.


This is Part 6 in the Chemical Exposures and Public Health series.
Part 1 - From Interest to Passion
Part 2 - An Environmental Health Risk
Part 3 - Lead: A Regulatory Success Story
Part 4 - Something My Body Needs Anyway?
Part 5 - Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals
Part 6 - Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change
Part 7 - Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation
Part 8 - Cleaning Up Our Act
Part 9 - Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money
Part 10 - Call to Action

Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals

Today, obesity is the fastest rising health concern in the U.S. Obesity is a problem that people have tried to use both diet and exercise to combat, yet a growing body of research is suggesting there is another component of this problem, our exposure to environmental chemicals.

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are a public health concern because they mimic natural hormones and interfere with our endocrine system. Research shows a potential link between children being exposed to EDCs during development and the increased burden of chronic health problems, such as obesity.

One EDC you may have heard about recently is Bisphenol-A (BPA). BPA has been used for years in the production of reusable water bottles and baby bottles, but now many companies are now offering BPA-free products.

The reason BPA is becoming a public health concern is that research has demonstrated a link between children's exposure to BPA during critical developmental windows - such as in the womb or as infants - and obesity. For example, Nikaido et al. exposed pregnant rats to BPA to determine the effects on fetal development [1]. The results showed that prenatal exposure to BPA at human-relevant doses accelerated weight gain of the female offspring compared to offspring of the mothers not exposed to BPA.

This study is one of many that demonstrate chemical exposures could be a factor, changing our bodies in ways that make us obese.


References
1. Nikaido, Y. et al. Reprod. Toxicol. 2004; 18: 803-811.


This is Part 5 in the Chemical Exposures and Public Health series.
Part 1 - From Interest to Passion
Part 2 - An Environmental Health Risk
Part 3 - Lead: A Regulatory Success Story
Part 4 - Something My Body Needs Anyway?
Part 5 - Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals
Part 6 - Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change
Part 7 - Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation
Part 8 - Cleaning Up Our Act
Part 9 - Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money
Part 10 - Call to Action

Something My Body Needs Anyway?

Image Source: Time Magazine

The impact of environmental chemicals on health is becoming a defining concern of this century. I’m sure you’ve seen the increasing number of articles published by the mainstream media questioning the safety of chemicals in consumer products, like plastics. Research has shown that these chemicals are getting into our bodies and can mimic our hormones.

Hormones are signals that regulate biological processes by communicating messages to cells. Hormones bind to a receptor like a key fits into a specific lock, which tells the cell to carry out a specific action.

One example is human growth hormone. As children, growth hormone is released in our body to tell limbs and organs to grow. But when we become our adult size, our body stops releasing the growth hormone, so the cells are no longer receiving the message to grow. Hormones are regulated by a group of glands called the endocrine system.

Image credit: Principles and Explorations, Teaching Transparencies.

Copyright 1996 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Certain unnatural chemicals entering our bodies can mimic our natural hormones. They are called endocrine disrupting chemicals (or EDC) because of their ability to interfere with our endocrine system.


The problem with EDCs is that they are not made by your body, and therefore, your body is not able to regulate EDCs like it regulates your natural hormones. But at the same time, EDC’s (green) can bind to the receptors (purple) of specific natural hormones (orange), initiating the same cell response. Research suggests that EDCs artificially switching processes on and off and at the wrong time is contributing to the rising burden of illness in America.

I am particularly interested in EDCs because we are just now discovering the sheer number of chemicals that have the ability to act this way, but we don’t yet know which chemicals, or at what exposure levels, are linked to which real public health threats.

The government again needs to decide if regulatory action is necessary, a decision that depends largely on whether the chemicals pose a threat to U.S. health.


This is Part 4 in the Chemical Exposures and Public Health series.
Part 1 - From Interest to Passion
Part 2 - An Environmental Health Risk
Part 3 - Lead: A Regulatory Success Story
Part 4 - Something My Body Needs Anyway?
Part 5 - Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals
Part 6 - Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change
Part 7 - Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation
Part 8 - Cleaning Up Our Act
Part 9 - Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money
Part 10 - Call to Action

How Clean is Your Air?

Yesterday, Sarah wrote about how removing lead from gasoline decreased air pollution and improved health. While lead is no longer a threat, there are still plenty of chemicals in the air. Interested to see how your city and state are doing? Check out this project by the American Lung Association, which details (and grades!) cities and counties based on ozone and particle pollution.

Based in the DC metro area, I knew New Voices probably weren't breathing the cleanest possible air, but it's interesting to compare our air to the city immediately next to ours and see notable differences. How did your city do? And if you live in a failing area (as I do), what are you going to do about it?

How about sending a note to your member of Congress about the value of research:

With continued investment in research and the work at the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other government agencies, we can continue to find the answers we need to improve the quality of air we breathe.

Thanks to Jennifer Chow for her help constructing this post.

Lead: A Regulatory Success Story

Research!America's former chairman, the Honorable Paul G. Rogers recognized that environmental factors played a major role in health effects and was a consistent advocate for changing environmental policy to improve public health. His work to pass the Clean Air Act is actually part of a larger story about how research played a major role in the 20th century guiding policy to successfully regulate lead.

Today, we know that lead exposure is a problem for children’s health, but this wasn’t always the case. Research evolved the scientific understanding of lead poisoning, which can be broken down into four stages [1].

1. Children assumed not to be affected by lead
2. Cases of acute lead poisoning were identified but were thought to result in either death or recovery
3. Lasting mental deficits only occur when children had clinical symptoms of lead poisoning
4. Children without clinical symptoms can still have mental deficits in language, IQ, or attention

In response to research, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) adjusted its definition of a safe blood lead level for children, which prompted regulations to reduce lead exposure.

Image credit: K. Sexton, et al. "Human Biomonitoring of Environmental Chemicals." American Scientist 2004; 92: 38.

There were two major sources of lead exposure for children: leaded gasoline and lead paint.

Lead was a standard additive in gasoline, but in 1965, research demonstrated that the increased lead concentrations in the air were the direct result of human activities, like burning leaded gasoline. This clear link between air quality and health was why Paul Rogers led the fight to pass the Clean Air Act. Passage of the Clean Air Act paved the way for the phase-out of lead in gasoline by 1996.

Lead based paints were commonly used in homes in the early 1900s. Research linking lead exposure to children's health effects prompted a 1978 federal limit on the lead content in paints used in residential buildings.

Image credit: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)

Together, these policy actions were extremely successful at reducing lead exposure. Banning leaded gasoline reduced the average air lead concentration by 94%. This ban, in conjunction with the limit on the lead content in paint, reduced the average blood lead level in children more than 7 times below the 1970s level.

This reduction in the United States is estimated to have resulted in an economic gain between $110 and $319 billion dollars for children born in a given year [2]. This economic gain was calculated using the increased worker productivity that will result from the improved cognitive ability of children with lower lead exposures.

Lead regulation is a great example of how research can lead to policy changes that can benefit public health and save money.


References
1. H. Needleman. Annu. Rev. Med. 2004; 55: 209-222.
2. Grosse, S.D. et al. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002; 110: 563-569.


This is Part 3 of 10 in our Chemical Exposures and Public Health series.
Part 1 - From Interest to Passion
Part 2 - An Environmental Health Risk
Part 3 - Lead: A Regulatory Success Story
Part 4 - Something My Body Needs Anyway?
Part 5 - Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals
Part 6 - Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change
Part 7 - Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation
Part 8 - Cleaning Up Our Act
Part 9 - Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money
Part 10 - Call to Action

An Environmental Health Risk

Image credit: Echoey13

How often do you think about the chemicals in products you buy and if they could affect your health? We use a number of products every day from shampoo to cleaning products and we expect that the government regulates these products to make sure they are safe.

Unfortunately, in the past, certain chemicals have been discovered to affect our health only after they reached the market, as was the case for lead paint. Today, this is happening again with a group of compounds called endocrine disrupting chemicals, which mimic our hormones.

WWII increased demand for products, resulting in the development new uses for natural chemicals, which exposed us at higher levels, and the acceleration of the production of chemicals not previously found in nature. But no one thought about potential effects on our health, until Rachel Carson published Silent Spring. Her book raised awareness that chemicals could interact with our bodies.

Image credit: Beverly & Pack

Carson published evidence that the pesticide, DDT, had put the bald eagle on a path towards extinction, and if it was hurting wildlife, it could potentially be harmful to humans as well. DDT was considered a miracle pesticide and was used for everything from combating malaria to protecting cotton. However, Carson's book spurred national action that ultimately led to a ban of DDT.

Silent Spring was the beginning of an environmental movement, which I'll share some results of in more detail tomorrow.


This is Part 2 of 10 in our Chemical Exposures and Public Health series.
Part 1 - From Interest to Passion
Part 2 - An Environmental Health Risk
Part 3 - Lead: A Regulatory Success Story
Part 4 - Something My Body Needs Anyway?
Part 5 - Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals
Part 6 - Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change
Part 7 - Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation
Part 8 - Cleaning Up Our Act
Part 9 - Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money
Part 10 - Call to Action

From Interest to Passion

As a kid, I was always vocal about my concern for the impact of pollution on the environment. Back in March, I wrote a more detailed post about my interests, but here is a recap:

I wrote a letter to President Clinton when I was eleven, on U.S. international environmental policy. In seventh grade, we were required to conduct a science fair project, and clearly my project focused on an environmental problem. I investigated the effects of chemicals in products we use, like antifreeze or detergent, on plant growth. As I expected, my research findings showed that nearly all the plants were less healthy than the unpolluted plants (I've included a photo of one of the posters as proof). Looking back, I now like to think of this project as foreshadowing.

Shortly after, I became interested in the clear connection of environmental pollution and human health. I studied chemistry to gain an understanding of how chemicals interact with our environment and our bodies. While my doctoral research was not directly environmental, I took every liberty I had to learn about current environmental problems. My graduation requirements included designing a research project outside of my field. I used that opportunity to learn about bioremediation, or using nature as a tool to remove contaminants from the environment. Specifically, I was looking to solve the problem of the estrogen from our birth control getting in the water, since research was showing it was causing developmental problems for male fish.

Here at Research!America, my policy project continued the theme and had an environmental focus. I examined the intersection of Chemical Exposures and Public Health, which is becoming a defining concern of the century. Environmental health research is on of the most direct ways the U.S. can use research and prevention to save both lives and treatment costs.

Over the next 9 posts, I will share with you my research results, tell you about the things I believe we need to be concerned about, and finally what actions we can take to make a positive change.


This is Part 1 of 10 in our Chemical Exposures and Public Health series.
Part 1 - From Interest to Passion
Part 2 - An Environmental Health Risk
Part 3 - Lead: A Regulatory Success Story
Part 4 - Something My Body Needs Anyway?
Part 5 - Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals
Part 6 - Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change
Part 7 - Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation
Part 8 - Cleaning Up Our Act
Part 9 - Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money
Part 10 - Call to Action

Advocating for the Intersection

Now that we’ve seen intersection between medical research and public health, what should our advocacy messages be moving forward in order to support this collaboration?

Increased funding for health research is vital. We are currently spending about five and a half cents on the dollar for health research, and approximately 70% of Americans believe that we should be spending more. By increasing funding we can support the discovery of new treatments and therapies for health problems such as childhood obesity and HIV.

In order continue public health’s work moving forward, it’s also important to increase funding for the CDC. By supporting the organizations that focuses on health promotion and disease prevention, we will help to find non-biomedical ways to combat health problems within the general public.

So, speak out! Talk to your congressman and senator about the importance of medical research and public health.

This is Part 5 of 5 in our Intersection of Medical Research and Public Health series.
Part 1 - The Intersection of Medical Research and Public Health
Part 2 - Research and Public Health Tackle the Flu Together
Part 3 - Today's Epidemic: Childhood Obesity
Part 4 - HIV/AIDS: From Death Sentence to Chronic Disease?
Part 5 - Advocating for the Intersection