CANCER POR TEFLON, HIELO SECO QUEMADO O EXPUESTO A MAS DE 200 GRADOS CENTIGRADOS, ESTIRENO, BENCENO, BISFENOL A ( BPA

AND PHTALATES ). The Truth About EPS

The Problem: Expanded polystyrene foam (EPS, often referred to as Styrofoam) is pervasive in the environment. It is extremely damaging throughout its lifecycle and is rarely recycled. The environment is inundated with polystyrene. It is lightweight and breaks apart easily. EPS escapes litter cleanup and is widely dispersed on land and in waterways. It is often mistaken for food by birds, fish and other wildlife. EPS comprises 15% of street and storm drain litter. It causes flooding in storm drains. Foam degrades neighborhoods, parks and beaches. Workers in polystyrene products manufacturing are exposed to many harmful chemicals, including Styrene, Toluene, Xylene, Acetone, Methyl Chloride, and Methyl Ketone. Occupational exposure to Styrene increases risk of lymphoma, leukemia, lung tumors, pancreatic cancer, urinary bladder cancer, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer. High rates of neurotoxicological effects have been reported in workers. Public health is threatened by the use of polystyrene. Styrene migrates from the containers into food and beverages when heated or in contact with fatty or acidic foods. Styrene residues are found in 100% of all samples of human fat tissue. Every American is exposed through food and packaging. According to the federal government, Styrene is a carcinogen in lab animal testing, a probable human carcinogen and a neurotoxin. Local jurisdictions spend millions cleaning litter. Caltrans spends approximately $60 million a year to remove litter and debris from roadsides and highways, The County of Los Angeles (L.A.) spends $18 million annually on litter cleanup and education. Southern CA jurisdictions that have to comply with state storm water regulations to get their trash discharges to zero have already spent billions of taxpayer dollars controlling, capturing, and removing trash. As a founding member of the Bay Area Green Supply Chain Forum, PulpWorks is leading the effort to replace toxic EPS with molded pulp products in California, in the U.S.A. and worldwide. Thursday, May 16, 2013Last Update: 8:04 AM PT Styrene Carcinogen Listing Survives Challenge
By DAN MCCUE

ShareThis
WASHINGTON (CN) - The U.S. government can classify styrene as a carcinogen, a federal judge ruled, rejected a challenge from the product's friends in the industry. In a sometimes withering opinion, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton concluded plaintiffs The Dart Container Corp. and the Styrene Information and Research Center had "taken a scattershot approach in attacking the Secretary's listing decision, with little discussion of the actual justification for the decision set forth in the substance profile for styrene. "Insofar as the plaintiffs do attack that document, though, their arguments fall flat," Walton wrote. Derived from petroleum and natural gas byproducts, styrene is used to make a variety of consumer goods, including food containers. The National Toxicology Program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services nominated styrene for inclusion in its biannual report on carcinogens in 2004. Ultimately, the expert panel voted 8-2 to recommend that "styrene ... be listed in the [Report on Carcinogens] as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen base on limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence in animals." Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius signed the final report, which listed styrene, on June 10, 2011. The plaintiffs sued that day, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to withdraw the report and its conclusions based on alleged violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, the Public Health Service Act, the Information Quality Act, and the due process clause of the Fifth

Amendment. Judge Walton ordered HHS to release some records on its classifying of styrene as a carcinogen in April 2012, but rejected a request for other records. The court's latest ruling, filed Wednesday, meticulously unravels the plaintiffs' request for summary judgment, finding that most of their claims lacked merit, while concluding others had simply been abandoned and were therefore null and void. "The plaintiffs assert, for the first time in their opposition brief and without citing any case authority, that HHS's listing of styrene is entitled to no deference because (1) the recommendations of the scientific review panels were not binding on HHS; (2) the listing process is biased toward approval; and (3) the scientific review was fractured and limited," Walton wrote. "Setting aside that these arguments were likely waived since they were not first presented to the agency ... none of the arguments present legal grounds for withholding deference to HHS's scientific judgments." "For instance, the plaintiffs contend that the substance profile for styrene misconstrues a 2006 study of men employed in the synthetic rubber industry conducted by Dr. Elizabeth Delzell and others ('Delzell Study') as supporting the proposition that humans exposed to styrene face an increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma," Walton continued. "Yet, contrary to the plaintiffs' assertion, the Delzell Study's abstract explicitly states that '[s]tyrene' was 'associated positively with NHL [non-Hodgkin's lymphoma].'" Consistent with this finding, "the report cites the Delzell Study along with two other studies in observing that '[i]ncreased risks for leukemia, lymphoma, or all lymphohematopoietic cancer were found among styrene-exposed workers in both the reinforced-plastics and styrene-butadiene rubber industries,'" according to the ruling. "The court does not discern, nor do the plaintiffs explain, how this statement misconstrues the Delzell Study," Walton added. "And even if it did, that misconstruction would not be fatal to the Secretary's listing decision because the substance profile cites several other studies (which the plaintiffs do not address) showing '[e]levated risks of lymphohematopoietic cancer' among workers exposed to styrene." (Parentheses in orginal.) Because the report provides an independently sufficient basis to list styrene in the report under the listing criteria, the secretary's listing decision can be upheld on this ground alone, according to the ruling. The plaintiffs further asserted that Health and Human Services had arbitrarily applied the listing because the scientists who participated in the expert panel and the board of 28 scientific counselors each relied on the data in his or her field of expertise in evaluating styrene. Walton disagreed that this evidence proved that there was "no true consensus" on the ultimate decision to list styrene. "There is nothing arbitrary about having experts review only the data that they are qualified to analyze," Walton wrote. "And although the plaintiffs claim this process led to a lack of consensus regarding the ultimate listing decision, that argument overlooks the bifurcated nature of the Listing Criteria, which allows listing based on either 'limited evidence' of carcinogenicity in

humans or 'sufficient evidence' of carcinogenicity in animals. "Given these criteria, it was not arbitrary and capricious for HHS to have different scientists reviewing different sets of data during the listing review process."

Styrofoam Cups, Containers Cancer-causing chemical: Styrene Threat level: 1 Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to ban Styrofoam from the Big Apple because of what it isn't: biodegradable. Ban it from your body because of what it's made from: styrene, which may generate a chemical that can damage your DNA. Its "reasonably anticipated" to be a human carcinogen, a National Toxicology Program report notes. Shield your cells: Stay away from styrene in all forms, including coffee cups and their lids. "Avoid heating food in Styrofoam or polystyrene containers, especially fatty foods, which can leach styrene," says David Andrews, of the Environmental Working Group. How can you tell if a plastic container contains polystyrene? Look for a "6" on the bottom.