[House Hearing, 111 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] ENDOCRINE-DISRUPTING CHEMICALS IN DRINKING WATER: RISKS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ FEBRUARY 25, 2010 __________ Serial No. 111-99 Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce energycommerce.house.gov ---------- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 76-011 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RALPH M. HALL, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia FRED UPTON, Michigan FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BART GORDON, Tennessee NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri GENE GREEN, Texas STEVE BUYER, Indiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado GEORGE RADANOVICH, California Vice Chairman JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania LOIS CAPPS, California MARY BONO MACK, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANE HARMAN, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska TOM ALLEN, Maine MIKE ROGERS, Michigan JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma JAY INSLEE, Washington TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana JOHN BARROW, Georgia BARON P. HILL, Indiana DORIS O. MATSUI, California DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands KATHY CASTOR, Florida JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California BETTY SUTTON, Ohio BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa PETER WELCH, Vermont (ii) Subcommittee on Energy and Environment EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania RALPH M. HALL, Texas JAY INSLEE, Washington FRED UPTON, Michigan G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BARON HILL, Indiana JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona DORIS O. MATSUI, California STEVE BUYER, Indiana JERRY McNERNEY, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon PETER WELCH, Vermont SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma RICK BOUCHER, Virginia MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey ELIOT ENGEL, New York GENE GREEN, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California JANE HARMAN, California CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE ROSS, Arkansas JIM MATHESON, Utah JOHN BARROW, Georgia C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachussetts, opening statement.............. Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, opening statement.................................. Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, opening statement.................................... Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement.................................. Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, prepared statement...................................... Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, prepared statement...................................... Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, prepared statement............................. Witnesses Hon. James P. Moran, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia....................................... Prepared statement........................................... Linda Birnbaum, Director, National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences................................................ Prepared statement........................................... Answers to submitted questions............................... James Jones, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency.............................................. Prepared statement........................................... Answers to submitted questions............................... Gina Solomon, Senior Scientist, National Resources Defense Council........................................................ Prepared statement........................................... Answers to submitted questions............................... Christopher J. Borgert, President and Principal Scientist, Applied Pharmacology and Toxicology, Inc....................... Prepared statement........................................... Answers to submitted questions............................... Submitted material Statement of American Water Works Association.................... Statement of American Chemistry Council.......................... Statement of Hon. Louise M. Slaughter............................ ENDOCRINE-DISRUPTING CHEMICALS IN DRINKING WATER: RISKS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2010 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:34 a.m., in Room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. Members present: Representatives Markey, Inslee, McNerney, Green, Capps, Matheson, Barrow, Moran, Stearns, Shimkus, Burgess, and Scalise. Staff present: Jackie Cohen, Counsel; Tracy Sheppard, Counsel; Melissa Cheatham, Professional staff; Michael Freedhoff, Professional staff; Peter Ketcham-Colwill, Special Assistant; Caitlin Haberman, Special Assistant; Earley Green, Chief Clerk; Jerry Couri, Minority Professional Staff; and Garrett Golding, Minority Legislation Analyst. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Markey. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Lately not a day goes by where the public is not reminded of the presence of toxic chemicals in the air we breathe and in the water we drink, and the potential harmful effect that these chemicals can have on public health and the environment. Just last week, a local newspaper warned that the Potomac River and other Mid- Atlantic rivers are awaste with toxins that may be responsible for bizarre deformities in fish, frogs, and other wildlife that come in contact with the contaminated water. This includes male fish that have begun growing female sexual organs and female fish that can no longer reproduce. W.C. Fields once said I never drink water because of the disgusting things that fish do in it. Well, today people wonder whether they should be drinking the water that comes out of their taps because of the disgusting things it is doing to the fish and possibly to them. There are serious concerns that the same chemicals that are responsible for these deformities in wildlife may also have similar effects in humans. They may be the culprit for the widespread increase in human disorders such as infertility, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. These contaminants which fall under a class of chemicals called endocrine disruptors are pervasively showing up in our Nation's waterways including in water that millions of people rely on for drinking. For example, Dispenol-A BPA, which is used in many plastic containers and as a lining in canned food is associated with developmental and reproductive disorders in humans. To this end, the FDA recently announced that it is concerned about these health effects and I have got a bill to ban its use in food and beverage containers in hope that we can finally stop limiting our exposure. Tyclasin is another example of an endocrine disruptor which is used as an anti-microbial in hand soaps. Tyclasin has been shown to interfere with the development of the brain and nervous systems of laboratory animals, and I am concerned about the consequences on human health. I have asked both FDA and EPA what they plan on doing about evaluating and regulating Tyclasin's widespread use. Perchlorate used as an ingredient in rocket fuel is pervasively showing up in drinking water all across the Nation. We are looking for that extra boost in the morning, but I would personally rather stick to a large cup of coffee. Massachusetts is one of the few states that regularly monitors perchlorate and has also set a statewide water standard for the contaminant. Exposure to this chemical during pregnancy can cause serious neurological deficits and could be one of the contributing causes of increased attention deficit disorders and other cognitive problems in our Nation's children. All of these dangerous chemicals along with others whose health effects are less well known have been found by government scientists to be contained in our Nation's surface water, ground water, and drinking water. In 1996, The Food Quality Protection Act and Safe Drinking Water Act amendments authorized EPA to screen for endocrine disruptors in sources of drinking water. In response to that statute, the EPA established the endocrine disruptor screening program designed to evaluate the safety of chemicals that might cause adverse health effects to the body's endocrine system. EPA's progress with this screening program has been slow, but late last year the first 67 chemicals designated for screening were announced, and the process of collecting information has finally begun. Given the advancements in science and technology that have occurred over the last decade, it is appropriate to reevaluate what we know about endocrine disruptors and assess the effectiveness of EPA screening program in identifying and evaluating the safety of endocrine disruptors found in sources of drinking water. I thank you for coming here today to the witnesses, and let me turn now to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns, for an opening statement. Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I ask unanimous consent that all members have 5 days for submission of their opening statements. Mr. Markey. Without objection. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Stearns. And thank you for having this important hearing. Examining the science and the regulation of endocrine disrupting chemicals that I think all of us are concerned about. We all take this subject very seriously. There are some substances in the water that can pose real problems, and I want to know more about it. I think most members do. I would particularly like to welcome a constituent. Not oftentimes you have someone from your congressional district here. Dr. Christopher Borgart, the president and principal scientist at Applied Pharmacology and Toxicology Incorporated, which is located in my congressional district at the home of the University of Florida in Gainesville. Applied Pharmacology and Toxicology is one of the leading consulting firms that specializes in the pharmacological and toxicological effects of chemicals on living systems. And so I am honored to have a constituent with that kind of broad-based experience with us this morning. As the chairman mentioned, endocrine disrupting chemicals are natural chemicals that interfere with or mimic the hormones responsible for growth and development of an organism. Endocrine disrupting chemicals can be found in commonly used products such as personal care products, obviously soaps and cosmetics, industrial by-products, plastic, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals. As testing has become more sophisticated, minute traces of certain chemical substances suspected to be endocrine disruptors have been detected in surface water and drinking water supplies. These chemicals enter into our environment from various sources, obviously including industrial and municipal discharges, agricultural runoffs, and hospital residues. And while many researchers agree that field and laboratory studies of animals providing compelling evidence of the effect of these chemicals, the scientific community remains sharply divided of whether organic chemicals are responsible for increases of certain human cancers, diseases of the human reproductive system, the immune system, and the thyroid glands. Nevertheless, environmental advocates have increasingly pushed for the aggressive federal regulation of the substances. In 1996, Congress recognized that arbitrary, legislatively mandated regulation can bog EPA down and delay urgent public health needs. So to address this, the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996 replaced mandatory drinking water regulations with directions to EPA that it use simply deliberative rigorous and objective science in making any further rules on drinking water contaminant levels. EPA and the scientific community need to continue to study the occurrence and movement of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in our environment, and then EPA, not Congress, should set a standard that best protects the public health. So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this hearing, and we look forward to the witnesses this morning. Mr. Markey. We thank you. We thank the gentleman, and we have with us the gentlemen from Virginia--I am sorry. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for an opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We need to just make sure that when we go down a route that that is--we are using high quality science whose results are repeatable, whose objective is not to answer questions for which we already have decided the answer. We have a tendency of doing that. We made some precautionary decisions in the toy bill, and that has just been one disaster after another. The whole debate on climate has just been a great exercise in how this climate- gate thing all unfolded. Science wanted the data to see if the projections by scientists were relevant and true. These scientists withheld data. They would not provide those. Under the Freedom of Information Act, we finally started getting the data. And guess what. Are the Himalayan glaciers melting in 35 years? We made a mistake. What about sea levels? That was a miscalculation. We have people walking away from or leaving the IPCC. We have the U.N. guy now stepping down. And why? Because we didn't use science. We didn't use the scientific method to put the bats on the table, put data on the table, and do the research to replicate these assumptions. So we have to be very, very careful that we don't go down a route. This is the ``Washington Post'' Tuesday, February 23, ``Replacing BPA cans gives foodmaker fits.'' At the end of this, it says--they are talking about tuna. They spent thousands of dollars. Is it in the cutting board? Is it in the fish? Is it in the tuna itself? We don't know. We are trying to figure it out. Let us use real science. Let us be able to replicate the data. Let us just don't go on an emotional rollercoaster to impinge on our ability to create jobs in this America which increased regulations always does, and I yield back my time. Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps, for an opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing on the growing pandemics of endocrine related health disorders. Like you, I am very concerned about exposure that may be occurring through drinking water supplies. I am particularly concerned given the very pervasive nature of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which are everywhere in our environment. Many of these chemicals are either unregulated or underregulated and include toxics, pesticides, even pharmaceuticals. As many of you, I spent my early professional years as a public health nurse. It is from this experience that I have been very mindful of threats to human health. While the Safe Drinking Water Act was successful at controlling some substances, it is clear that today's contaminants of concern are not the pollutants of yesteryear. For example, there are currently 80,000 chemicals in use. This is a threefold increase from 1941 to 1995. 8,000 of these are known to be carcinogens. One would hope that all of these 8,000 cancer-causing chemicals are somehow addressed under federal and state laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act. Shockingly, this is not the case. It seems that less than 300 chemicals have permitted limits. Today's hearing provides us with an opportunity to ask why this is the case. It is not as if endocrine-disrupting chemicals are new issues of concern for either Congress or EPA. Through the Safe Drinking Water Act, Congress instructed EPA to develop a screening program to determine if certain chemicals disrupt hormones in humans. In the 14 years since this mandate was put in place, EPA has begun to test few chemicals under the program, despite the potential for these chemicals to cause great harm to individuals, especially to children and pregnant women. Today, I hope to hear about where these chemicals are coming from, what the impact to human and ecological health is, and what should and can be done to protect us from harm. So I do look forward to the testimony from our witnesses today on this very important hearing. And again I thank you for calling it to order, and I yield back. Mr. Markey. Thank you. Thank the gentlelady. We see no other members of the subcommittee seeking recognition for the purpose of making an opening statement. So we will turn to our witnesses, but we will begin first with our friend Congressman Jim Moran who has worked for many years on this issue and who has joined us here this morning. We welcome you to the committee, and we look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much, and thank you for your leadership on this issue. And it is good to see my colleagues and friends Ms. Capps and Mr. Stearns. I first came to be concerned about this when we looked at the fish in the Potomac River. Now, this is just between northern Virginia and Washington, D.C., and almost 100 percent of the fish--they are small-mouth basses--are intersex. They are both male and female sexual organs. There is something wrong with that, and so we looked into what might be the cause. And invariably, we came back to endocrine disruptors. The problem is that the scientific research is inadequate to give us the kind of determination that we need to get, but we have the authority. Back in 1996, the amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act call for EPA to ensure testing of chemicals with endocrine-disrupting effects. Congress directed the EPA to develop an endocrine-disruption screening program as part of the Food Quality Protection Act, as Ms. Capps suggested. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons--I will mention some of them--this program has not been effective. It has been deliberately delayed. Here we are 14 years later, and over $100 million has been put into this program. And it wasn't until October of this past year, just a few months ago, that EPA announced the availability of the national SAs and its testing guidelines for a limited number of chemicals. Chairman Markey, you have been monitoring the progress of the EPA and performing these studies, and you have been expressing your concern about the public's exposure to these chemicals while the issue continues to be studied. We can't study it forever if we know that people are really suffering because we haven't been able to come up with determinations on what is causing it. What is especially frustrating that, despite slow progress by the EPA, the science has continued to evolve through robust research by the scientific and academic communities through basically no help from the EPA who is charged with this work. And the work that the scientific community has done convincingly demonstrates a link between synthetic endocrine- disrupting chemicals and a number of disorders of the human endocrine system. It has seriously undermined the health of our Nation. It is costing hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, it is autism, hyperactivity disorder, asthma, juvenile and adult diabetes, juvenile cancer, osteoporosis, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's. What we know is that these disorders began to increase noticeably in the early 1970s when the first generation was exposed in the womb to post World War II synthetic chemicals. And they reach maturity, and that is when we see this phenomenal increase in these kinds of disorders. The endocrine disruptors were a fringe concept a decade ago. Now, they are accepted by the scientific community. But think of this, asthma rates have tripled in the past three decades. One in six American children has a developmental disorder. One in 59 boys has autism. Cancer is the leading cause of death among children now. Primary brain cancer has increased by nearly 40 percent. We know about childhood obesity. One in two minority children develop diabetes. Testosterone levels have declined dramatically over the last 20 years. We have to be concerned about this. Something is happening, and it is happening on an accelerating pace. The scientific community is telling us that there is very likely a link to these dramatic increases in diseases in EDCs. What is happening, according to an environmental working group, that analyzed the umbilical cord blood that was collected from minority infants, they identified industrial compounds and pollutants that there were complex mixtures of compounds in each infant. And it shows that industrial chemicals cross the placenta in large numbers and contaminate babies in the womb. And it is that synergistic effect of these chemicals that is likely causing the problem. In November of this past year, the AMA said that the federal government needs to minimize the public's exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. So this is no longer a fringe issue. This is a very important issue for the entire Nation. But despite the profound improvements in scientists' knowledge, the chemical industry, because of legislation that said that basically all the stakeholders have a veto if they choose to use it. The chemical industry, being one of those stakeholders, has been able to manipulate the process that has been undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency so that they could produce results that were contrary to all of the research conducted by qualified endocrinologists that have found health consequences from EDCs. And through the process of buying up the stakeholders, EPA has been prevented from using the most appropriate modern protocols. That is the problem. EPA has not been able to conduct these experiments in the way that they know they need to. They have been conducting them in an outdated way. I won't go into all the details because I suspect your speakers will describe it. But basically they use this dose response method. The dose establishes the poison. At higher doses, the effects are often nullified causing organs to stop producing more hormones and receptors. It is in low doses where the damage oftentimes occurs, but I will let the experts explain that. We have to be using modern, 21st century testing paradigms that recognize the unique subtle and complex properties that affects EDCs. I know that is what you want to be doing, Mr. Chairman. We need to be guided by the scientific community instead of stakeholders who we know have a major financial interest in not allowing EPA to be able to pursue the authority and charge that the Congress gave it. I don't think I am going to get into the fact that EPA hasn't done these studies properly, but the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences has the expertise and the objectivity. And you are going to hear from them. We strongly support them. For what it is worth, we have some role in the Environmental Appropriations Subcommittee. We want to do everything we can to support your efforts, Chairman Markey. This is a very important issue. It is affecting tens of millions of children across the country, and it is more than past time that we started doing the right thing in finding out the real impact of these EDCs and how we can get them out of the bloodstream of American society. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much for your leadership. I really do appreciate it. I appreciate the opportunity to add my two cents this morning. [The prepared statement of Mr. Moran follows:]*************** COMMITTEE INSERT *************** Mr. Markey. Well, it is more than two cents, and since you are on the Appropriations Committee, you have a chance to put in a few more than that too. We thank you so much for your leadership on this issue over the years, and we thank you for coming here today. And I would like to partner with you as we go forward between our two committees to try to find a way that we can properly fund and properly regulate this incredible lies in disease that we know is related to something that we are doing to ourselves would cure most of the diseases that over the years have afflicted people. Now we have to deal with issues that we do it to ourselves, you know, that we just make decisions with regard to chemicals, with drugs, with alcohol, with overeating. These are things that here we have a chance, you know, just with preventative measures to protect against the diseases, and your leadership has been fantastic. The gentleman from Florida. Mr. Stearns. You know I would ask the staff about your opening statement, and my good friend has been on this issue for some time. And I have heard you before, and I think many of us have gone down to the Chesapeake, and so we are a little bit aware of what happened. And then, of course, we look at the Potomac occasionally and see what happened there. Many of us sometimes go fishing on the Potomac, either part of fundraising events or just social events. And so it is disturbing. I live in Old Town. I go down to King Street where you were mayor of Alexandria, and sometimes you get alarmed. So I think it is an important issue. For all of us, I think the idea is there hard, repeatable science that can show this? Because we are asking the federal government to step in. So I think, Mr. Chairman, that is probably the crucial aspect to see that there is hard, repeatable science. Thank you. Mr. Markey. And we thank you again. We very much appreciate your work and your staff's work on this issue. Now let us turn to our witness panel, and first of all, the subcommittee has received several letters and documents related to the subject matter. And I ask unanimous consent that the materials be included in the record without objection. [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]*************** COMMITTEE INSERT *************** Mr. Markey. We will turn to our first witness, Dr. Linda Birnbaum. She serves as the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program. She is a board-certified toxicologist and has served as a federal scientist for nearly 30 years. Dr. Birmbaum previously served for 16 years as director of the experimental toxicology division of the Environmental Protection Agency. We welcome you, Doctor. Whenever you feel comfortable, please begin. STATEMENTS OF LINDA BIRNBAUM, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES; JAMES JONES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; GINA SOLOMON, SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; AND CHRISTOPHER J. BORGERT, PRESIDENT AND PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST, APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY, INC. STATEMENT OF LINDA BIRNBAUM Ms. Birnbaum. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members, I am pleased to present testimony on our current understanding and ongoing research on endocrine-disrupting chemicals or EDCs. My name is Linda Birnbaum. I am director of the NIEHS and the National Toxicology Program. Some endocrine disruptors are naturally occurring, but many are manmade substances that mimic or interfere with hormonal signals in the body and therefore alter the normal functions of tissues and organs. NIEHS has had a long-standing interest in these chemicals with its support for research dating back to the beginning of the institute in the 1960s. Over the past 50 years, we have seen increases in health problems such as breast and prostate cancer, ectopic pregnancies, undescended testicles, and a 42 percent decrease in sperm count. These findings along with observations of abnormal sexual development in frogs and fish and the widespread detection of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in our bodies lead NIEHS to increase its research on the effects of these chemicals on human health. The detection of numerous pharmaceutical agents and chemicals with endocrine-disrupting potential in surface waters around the country has raised concern about drinking water as a significant route of human exposure. I would like to emphasize four things about endocrine disruption. First, low dose. Our endocrine system works on tiny amounts of hormones that have significant biological effects. As a result, some chemical exposures, even at low doses, may disrupt the body's delicate endocrine system and lead to disease. Second, wide range of health effects. Endocrine signals govern every organ and process in the body. That means when chemicals interfere with endocrine signaling, effects can be seen in many different conditions and diseases. Third, persistence of biological effects. We are finding that the health effects of exposure to endocrine disruptors can be observed long after the actual exposure has ceased. This is especially true when exposures occur during growth and development, processes that are very sensitive to endocrine regulation. Fourth, ubiquitous exposure. Because of widespread use as drugs and components of consumer products, chemicals with endocrine-disrupting activity are widely dispersed in our environment often at biologically effective levels, and exposure to humans is common. This is well-documented by the CDC National Exposure Report. I will give you a few examples regarding low dose. For some endocrine disruptors, biological changes can be seen at low but not at high doses. This is different from the usual dose response curve which shows continually increasing responses with increases in dose. Low doses of BPA and EDC changes brain structure, function and behavior in rats and mice exposed during critical periods of development. Regarding the broad range of health effects, early work on endocrine disruption focused on health problems such as reproductive cancers that were known to be hormonally sensitive. More recently, the universe of potential health effects has grown to include immune function, metabolism, brain development, and behavior. Animal studies have identified how exposure to environmental endocrine disruptors such as tributyltin, genistein and diethylstilbestrol can cause weight gain later in life. EDCs have also been linked to cancers, altered behavior, diabetes, immune dysfunction, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular disease. Regarding the persistence of biological effects. Exposure to endocrine disruptors during development can result in profound changes in later life. Animal researchers recently discovered that EDCs can produce these latent effects by subtly altering the structure of the DNA molecules and chromosomes. These changes may affect gene expression for several generations. NIEHS is also conducting human studies on the latent effect of EDC exposure including studies of children showing behavioral, mental, and physical abnormalities who were exposed to phthalates or flame retardants before birth. Regarding ubiquitous exposure. The NTP is conducting a study of triclosan, an antimicrobial that is one of the most frequently detected water contaminants. Our understanding of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals has lead to new approaches for studying EDCs including research on whether mixtures of chemicals known to occur in drinking water impact development. Other novel approaches are being developed to characterize the potential for environment agents to perturb endocrine function. NTP's high throughput screening initiative and Tox 21 partnership with EPA includes assays designed to assess activity of chemicals as hormonal targets. Initial results have shown that EPA and triclosan are among the most active of hundreds of chemicals tested so far. Such novel screening tests can be used for a basis for deciding whether to conduct more intensive animal studies. To ensure that our science is shared with those who need it, we are partnering with the agencies that use our research, and we are sponsoring scientific forums for sharing this information with affected communities and stakeholders. For example, our breast cancer and environmental research program distributes fact sheets for clinicians and the public on likely sources of EDC exposures. In conclusion, I believe this area of environmental health sciences to be of utmost importance. Our endocrine systems keep our bodies in balance, maintaining homeostasis and guiding proper growth and development. With NIEHS's leadership, we are all learning more about how these finely-tuned systems are sensitive to unanticipated effects from chemical exposure. This information is critically important for creating effective strategies to ensure safe drinking water and the health of the American public. I welcome your questions. [The prepared statement of Dr. Birnbaum follows:]*************** INSERT 1 *************** Mr. Markey. Thank you, Dr. Birnbaum, very much. Our next witness, James Jones, who is Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances at the Environmental Protection Agency. He is responsible for managing the daily operation of the office which oversees the Nation's pesticide, toxic chemical, and pollution prevention laws. He previously served as the director of the agency's office of pesticide programs. We welcome you, sir. STATEMENT OF JAMES JONES Mr. Jones. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Markey. Move that microphone in a little bit closer please. Mr. Jones. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Jim Jones, the deputy assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Prevention of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to provide an update on EPA's endocrine- disruptor screening program and plans for its future implementation. The implementation of the EDSP is part of one of Administrator Jackson's top priorities. To make significant and long-overdue progress in assuring the safety of chemicals. Issuing test orders for the generation of data to better understand potential endocrine effects is an important step in improving our ability to protect the public health and the environment from chemicals. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 required EPA to develop and implement a program to screen all pesticides for any effect in human that is similar to effects produced by naturally-occurring estrogen and such other endocrine effects as EPA may designate. Upon the recommendations of our advisory committee, the EDSP was expanded to include the assessment of androgen and thyroid hormone systems and effects on wildlife. The EDSP is a two-tiered screening program. Tier one is composed of a battery of 11 invitro and short-term invivo assays to identify chemicals that have the potential to interact with estrogen, androgen and thyroid systems. Chemicals that are positive in tier one would be subject to the tier two testing requirements. The purpose of the tier two test is to provide information that can be used as a risk assessment such as identification and characterization of adverse effects resulting from the interaction of the chemicals with the hormone system and exposure levels required to produce them in assays involving developmental life stages in whole animals. The validation of the tier one assays took far longer than anyone in EPA anticipated. Because of the many complexities of methods developed in the validation for such a large number of assays, validation of tier one assays took 10 years and is still ongoing for tier two assays. Validation of the tier two assays will be complete in 2012. The good news is that the EPA has begun to issue test orders. The first list of chemicals for testing consists of 67 chemicals, 58 pesticide active ingredient and 9 inert ingredients that are also high-production volume chemicals. EPA began issuing its first EDSP test orders in October of 2009, and it will issue the last test orders for list one chemicals this week. A total of 750 plus test orders will have been sent to manufacturers of these 67 chemicals. EPA has created a database of the initial pesticides chemicals to be screened in the EDSP and has made this information available on EPA's Web site. In addition to the EPA provisions that require the screening of all pesticide chemicals, the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996 provide EPA with the authority to test substances that may be found in sources of drinking water, to which a substantial population may be exposed. Right now, EPA is preparing a second list of no less than 100 chemicals, a draft of which will be released in the near term. The list two chemicals will be drawn from three sources: national primary drinking water regulations, the Contaminant Candidate List, CCL 3, and pesticides that are on the registration review schedule in the near term. The CCL 3 list is a list of contaminants that are currently not subject to any proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water regulations that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, and which may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The CCL 3 list includes pesticides, other chemicals used in commerce, and disinfection byproducts and degredates. In summary, EPA is on track to obtain tier one endocrine screening data on several hundred chemicals within the next several years. Although it has taken a long time to develop the tests necessary for this program, we have begun to meaningfully implement the EDSP and allow to expand the universe of chemicals for testing beyond pesticides to include drinking water contaminants. Thank you for your continued interest in this program, and I would be happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]*************** INSERT 2 *************** Mr. Markey. We thank you, Mr. Jones, very much. Our next witness is Dr. Gina Solomon, who is a senior scientist in the health and environmental program of the National Resources Defense Council, and is a specialist in adult internal medicine, preventative medicine, and occupational and environmental medicine. Dr. Solomon also serves as an associate clinical professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco where she is the director of the occupational and environmental medicine residency program and the associate director of the ECSF pediatric environmental health specialty unit. So we welcome you, Doctor. Whenever you are ready, please begin. STATEMENT OF GINA SOLOMON Dr. Solomon. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. You introduced me very well, but I also want to mention that I was on the EPA's endocrine disruptor screening and testing advisory committee from 1996 to 1998 and was therefore involved in the early stages of the EDSP program. I now serve on the EPA science advisory board drinking water committee, and as such, have been involved in reviewing EPA's efforts on drinking water contaminants. Some years ago, I was invited to speak at the Riverside County Medical Association. It is in southern California in an area where a chemical called perchlorate had recently been detected in drinking water. The local physicians were concerned, and I went and gave them a talk about the health data at that time on perchlorate, including the fact that perchlorate was known to block uptake of iodine into the thyroid gland and thereby disrupt the thyroid's ability to create normal thyroid hormones. And I also reviewed the science on how subtle disruption of thyroid function in fetal or early neonatal life can permanently alter normal brain development. Finally, I described the multiple sources of perchlorate pollution in clean water contamination from rocket fuel and fireworks manufacturing, and I closed by sharing some of the latest monitoring data, which showed that 402 public water systems serving 40.8 million people in 27 states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories had perchlorate in their treated water or in their water sources, and California had the largest number of systems with perchlorate detections, over 180 at that time. After my talk that day, an elderly physician in the audience stood up and explained that he had spent his entire career treating patients with thyroid disease in this community. And he said now we learn that something in the water supply may be contributing to this problem. What am I supposed to do about it? And more importantly, what am I supposed to tell my patients about it? He said should I tell them not to drink the water? And he further went on to say that he wasn't a fan of big government, but in this case, he said, we need to get government involved to deal with this problem. And I agree with him because this is not something that health care providers and their patients can deal with alone. This is EPA's job. Over 5 years have passed since the day when I spoke at that medical society, and although California and other states have taken some action on this known endocrine disruptor, EPA has still failed to act. Meanwhile, there are other chemicals that are known or suspected endocrine disruptors that have been turning up with increasing frequency in water. Studies by the U.S. geological surveys toxic substances hydrology program have revealed that an unsavory mixture of pharmaceuticals, steroid hormones, unregulated pesticides, flame retardants, rocket fuel chemicals, plasticizers, detergents, stain repellents in both surface water and ground water that we rely on for drinking. For example, the USGS surface water study found a median of seven and as many as 38 chemical contaminants in any single water sample. And among the chemicals that were most commonly detected in this national survey were many known and suspected endocrine disruptors, some pesticides, triclosan, alkylphenols and alkylphenol polyethoxylates, bisphenol A, phthalates and steroid hormones. And unfortunately so far, the response to these water findings has tended a bit more toward killing the messenger rather than acting on the message. Over the most recent years, funding for the USGS water monitoring programs, already small, has been reduced, resulting in major cutbacks in water quality sampling and less data to inform science-based decisions. Meanwhile, over a decade has passed since EPA has promulgated a single regulatory standard for a chemical contaminate in drinking water. Now there is a large and growing backlog of chemicals like perchlorate that still have no regulatory standard, and then there are others that were regulated over a decade ago whose standards are outdated and in need of revision. For example, one endocrine disruptor ethylate known as DEHP, which stands for dyethol hexophthalate, does have a maximal contaminate leveler in MCL in drinking water, but it is terribly outdated. Now, these phthalates like DEHP are used in an enormous range of products such as cosmetics, personal care products, vinyl, medical devices, inks and adhesives, and they are also used as inert ingredients in pesticides and until last year, were in plastic toys. National monitoring studies have reported phthalates in about 10 percent of surface water samples taken. And these chemicals cause lower testosterone levels, decreased sperm counts and lower sperm quality in animals, and exposure to phthalates during development can cause malformations of the male reproductive tract and testicular cancer. Preliminary studies in humans also show abnormalities in male reproductive development. Mr. Markey. If you could sum up please. Dr. Solomon. Sure. The MCL for DHP was set in July of 1992 and was based on gastrointestinal disturbances, nausea, and vertigo. It is not likely to protect against endocrine disrupting effects. Other chemicals like bisphenol A also have no MCLs at all. So in summary, there are numerous steps that EPA should be taking to implement testing under the endocrine disruptor screening program for priority drinking water contaminants, implementing aspects of the endocrine disruptor screening and testing advisory committee report that have been ignored, and improving wastewater and drinking water treatment. So thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Dr. Solomon follows:]*************** INSERT 3 *************** Mr. Markey. Thank you, Dr. Solomon, very much. And our final witness, Dr. Christopher Borgert is the president and principal scientist of Applied Pharmacology and Toxicology Incorporated, a consulting firm that specializes in assessing the pharmacological and toxicological effects of chemicals on living systems. Dr. Borgert received his doctorates in medical science from the University of Florida College of Medicine. We welcome you, sir. STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. BORGERT Mr. Borgert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Markey. If you can turn on the microphone and move it in closer please. There we go. Thank you. Mr. Borgert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide you my perspectives on this important issue. I come to you today speaking for myself. I don't represent any particular entity, but I do come to you as a father and as a consumer, as a taxpayer, as an operator of small business, and a scientist with considerable background on this issue. And I too am very concerned about the chemicals that we use in commerce. I want to make sure that my family and my children and the people of Florida and all the people that come into contact with those chemicals are protected. That is a very big concern to me. That has been a large part of my work over the years. But I am most concerned that when we act, we do it based on solid science, science that is reliable and relevant for the purpose to which we put it. And what I would caution you about is that many of the decisions that are being urged to be made are being urged to be made on the basis of someone's latest pet theory on what is causing certain human diseases, rather on solid, repeatable data. Let us remember that the diseases that were touted to be due to endocrine disruption a decade or so ago have shifted. So as some theories fall by the wayside, new theories replace them. These are theories. We don't know what the punitive results of endocrine disruptors will be in a few years, and so I think it is very important that we use solid science. What do I mean by solid science? I mean science that comports with three very common sense tenets: that we know what we are measuring unequivocally and we know the precision of that measurement. These are very common sense rules. Number two, that we know our measurements are taken under controlled conditions that are relevant for the purpose we are putting them to. And third, that they are repeatable in independent hands. Now, the endocrine screening program that is at issue here has been through such a validation exercise, but let us be clear. That validation really was able to address only the first of my three tenets. So we now have some confidence that those assays measure what we believe they are measuring and we know something about the precision. But for some of the assays, that isn't even entirely clear. Two of the assays, for instance, failed to produce negative results in a wide array of chemicals that we might expect to be negative. So we are not really sure that the results are relevant to the use we are going to put them to. We don't know that they won't simply move everything forward with positive results and a screen that doesn't differentiate between what should be moved forward to tier two testing and what is a very low priority for tier two testing is rather useless. The EPA has issued test orders for 67 chemicals. Its science advisory panel back in 1999 advised that it do this, and we just heard that that will be complete in 2012. That will hopefully complete the validation exercise so that we will know the controlled conditions under which our measurements have to be made and whether they are relevant and useful for actually deciding which chemicals need to be tested and which are a lower priority. So my recommendation is to allow that science to occur, allow EPA the time, to give them the resources they need to formulate the criteria for moving chemicals forward based on the data, not based on the level of emotion and the latest concern, but based on the data. We don't know what those data will be until they are collected. Allow that process to go forward, and I think that then we may emerge with science that we can rely on. And remember there are consequences to getting it wrong. Decisions about which chemicals are in commerce, if they are made based on a false notion of what the risks, the real risks are, can be the wrong decisions and actually not be precautionary. Bad decisions can imperil the public health and the environment rather than protect it. So there are consequences to getting it wrong. I urge you to give EPA the time to get it right. And thank you for your attention. I very much appreciate being able to provide my perspectives. [The prepared statement of Mr. Borgert follows:]*************** INSERT 4 *************** Mr. Markey. Thank you, Dr. Borgert, and thank you for being here. That concludes testimony from our panel. Now we will turn to a question-and-answer period. The chair will recognize himself for a round of questions. I have introduced a bill to ban BPA in food and beverage containers in the past two Congresses, and recently the FDA announced that it had concerns about its health effects. It has also been found in 30 percent of groundwater sites sampled nationally. Dr. Birnbaum, the endocrine-disruptor screening program is intended to screen chemicals to see whether they are endocrine disruptors, but it seems to me that we already know that BPA qualifies. Do you agree with that? Ms. Birnbaum. I certainly support the recent decision of the EPA to suggest that they have some concern about the effects of BPA, which are based in large part upon the plethora of information that is being produced demonstrating that BPA is an endocrine disruptor and is associated with, at least potentially associated with a wide range of health effects. Mr. Markey. Dr. Jones--Mr. Jones, do you generally agree that if there is enough scientific data showing that a chemical is an endocrine disruptor that causes adverse health effects, that EPA shouldn't have to screen it again and could use its authority to move straight to regulation? Mr. Jones. Well, I would generally agree that the agency would not need to do screening level assessments to determine whether it is an endocrine disruptor, BPA being a perfect example. We don't think that that requires screening to understand whether it is. I don't believe as a general matter we necessarily will therefore have enough information to go to regulation. I think that is the situation where we need to make sure we understand we can characterize the adverse outcomes of a compound before we can go to regulation. Now, that may not be true in all cases, but I think it would be an overstatement for me to say I think that we can go from we know it is a disruptor to regulation as a general matter. Mr. Markey. Dr. Solomon, since BPA is a known endocrine disruptor that is known to be in drinking water, do you think EPA should have included BPA on its list of chemicals to evaluate to consider whether a drinking water standard should be set for it? Dr. Solomon. Yes, I do. Mr. Markey. Could you expand on that briefly please? Dr. Solomon. BPA fits the criteria--clearly fits the criteria for a priority substance for regulation in drinking water because it is, a, known to be present in drinking water source waters, and, b--and actually in some studies in drinking water at the treatment plant, and, b, is a chemical that has very strong data on health effects at levels that are actually not that far off from what people are being exposed to today. Drinking water is not the only source of exposure, but it is certainly something that EPA can and should be controlling. Mr. Markey. OK, a recent press article, Dr. Solomon, suggested that EPA did consider including BPA on its list of chemicals of concern, which would put it into the regulatory process. But it was pulled off the list shortly after the chemical industry met with OMB. Do you think that EPA should decide which chemicals to evaluate using a process that is more transparent and gives more opportunities for all stakeholders to participate? Dr. Solomon. Yes, I believe it is extremely important for EPA to have more public involvement in the process, and the candidate contaminant list was not vetted until it was pretty much almost a done deal. And there were some significant concerns raised by members of the public and by the drinking water committee about the list itself and the chemicals that were not on and were on that list. Mr. Markey. Mr. Jones, what can you tell us about why BPA was not included on EPA's list of chemicals of concern? Mr. Jones. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out it is a public record because what we submit to OMB is made public, and what comes back out of that process is public as well. And BPA was not on the list when it went to OMB, so a characterization that it was removed through that process would just not be accurate. My understanding is that BPA, when the agency did the CCL 3 list, did not meet the criteria we had in terms of our understanding related to the known health effects associated with it. It is found in drinking water, but that the knowledge we had related to known effects associated with the compound, it did not meet the criteria that we use for listing chemicals under CCL 3. Mr. Markey. And back to you for a final question, Dr. Solomon. We often hear that the European Food Safety Authority thinks that BPA is safe and that we therefore don't need to worry about it in this country. However, just a few days ago, the Danish parliament voted to ban BPA in children's products, and a spokesperson for the European commission indicated it is looking at new scientific evidence. Do you agree with the European Food Safety Authority's current policy on BPA? And if not, what did it get so wrong? Dr. Solomon. The European Food Safety Authority's review of BPA was based on a fairly limited review of the data that focused on a number of the studies done by industry, and it unfortunately did not include many of the most important independent studies done by academics. And so, I am very pleased to see that the Danish authorities and that others, such as the Canadian government, have been reevaluating the science more fully, that the FDA is doing so as well because there is really a very extraordinary amount of science showing a serious concern related to health effects at low levels. Mr. Markey. Thank you, Dr. Solomon. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Borgert, the chairman brought up this BPA, and he has made quite significant statements on it. In your opinion, should BPA be totally banned? I know it is omnipresent in very small quantities in everything from eyeglasses to liners in cans and everywhere. So I mean I will just give you a chance to respond since he has asked these three witnesses, what your opinion is. Mr. Borgert. Well, thank you, sir. I have not formally reviewed all of the data on bisphenol A, but I know that it is still controversial among some. But I know that a number of well-qualified groups that have determined that at the levels people are exposed to and that are in the environment in the food supply, et cetera, are present at levels that are unlikely to pose any significant human risk. And they do that not based on limited studies. They do that based on studies on comport with generally those three tenets that I explained. It is important not only that we look at the quality of the data, but we look at the quality of the methods we are using to select the relevant data. And so when you select the relevant data that are of high quality, you don't come out with an answer that BPA is a significant health concern. You come out with a different answer, and many well-qualified groups have done that. So no, I think it would be a mistake to rush to regulation. I think we need to use the best science, and that science needs to be vetted not on the basis of stakeholder opinions but on good science. Mr. Stearns. So in your opinion right now there has not been the scientific study done to totally ban it? Is that---- Mr. Borgert. I don't think the science would support that. Mr. Stearns. OK, so it is your opinion that science would not support the total banning of the BPA as the levels we are using it today in America? Mr. Borgert. Correct. Mr. Stearns. Is that your opinion? And has there been any demonstrable evidence that in the levels we are using it, any science to show that it is harmful in the levels we have? Where is the people that are saying for the ban? Where are they getting their evidence to say it needs to be banned? You have a Scandinavian country saying they are banning it. So there must be some scientific evidence somewhere to back it up? Mr. Borgert. Well, there are many, many studies conducted on BPA that can be used to raise concern. Mr. Stearns. As well as to raise not concern. Mr. Borgert. As well as to raise questions. Mr. Stearns. Yes, so there are all studies across the spectrum is what you are saying? Mr. Borgert. That is correct, but when we select the highest quality studies that are most relevant for the question, we don't come up with the answer that it poses a risk and that it should be banned. Mr. Stearns. Why do we use it so omnipresent everywhere? It is because it works in an efficacious way? Mr. Borgert. Well, it is a plasticizer that enhances physical properties of the plastics. I am not a chemist who could---- Mr. Stearns. No, I understand. Mr. Borgert. --explain that to you fully. But there are benefits to the products that are in the marketplace, and if we choose different alternatives, they may not confer the same benefits. We may actually incur real risks like bacterial infections, et cetera, if our products are less effective. Mr. Stearns. Let me go to the heart now, the hearing we have here. So far, what chemicals are classified as proven endocrine disruptors in human? I mean that have been scientifically proven to be disruptors in humans? Do you know? Mr. Borgert. Well, I haven't prepared a list, and so I would hesitate to go on the record and provide one, but---- Mr. Stearns. Sixty-seven are being studied by the EPA. And then some of those have been pulled off. But I mean do you have a list in your own mind's eye of the number of disruptors that actually could be classified? Mr. Borgert. Well, no, and I think that is a large unknown at this point. Mr. Stearns. So it is still unknown. I mean regardless of what we hear, testimony and so forth, but there is nobody that scientifically has classified as proven endocrine disruptors in any studies that affect humans. Is that true? Mr. Borgert. Well, it is not that there are no chemicals that I think we could call endocrine disruptors. I think diethylstilbestrol is a classic example. I think that many of the drugs that we use today are used for their hormonal activity and that at that certain doses in certain people are certainly going to disrupt the endocrine system. I think that other chemicals in very high doses may be able to do that, but we have to consider two things: the dose and the potency. In other words, how much of it there is and how strong it really is. So doing animal studies where we give doses that may not reflect the human situation or the human physiology are not able to tell us whether a compound is an endocrine disruptor in humans. And I want to clarify that the endocrine disruptor screening program won't do that for us either. It is a screen. It simply tells us which chemicals really deserve a close full- fledged definitive test and which are of lower concern. We don't even know that the battery is going to be effective for that yet until the data from this first 67 comes in and we have time to digest it. Mr. Stearns. OK, my questions are over. Based on what you are saying, we don't--also the dosage at which they are damaging is very crucial is what you are saying. And that is part of this whole difficult challenge is to get a hold of, oK, this chemical is bad, but at what dosage is it bad? And that is probably what you are alluding to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Markey. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps. Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned in my opening statement my background as a public health nurse. And working so many years as I did with my local public health department--and I know this to be the case amongst many public health agencies throughout our local communities across the country--this is a very important topic to our local health directors and facilitators. I want to ask several of you short questions, if I could, back and forth way. Mr. Jones, starting with you. I am concerned that the screens that EPA is using to test a very short list of possible endocrine disruptors will not even begin to capture the long list of chemicals being reported in drinking water supplies today. This is a bit of a repeat to what the chairman has already asked you, but I want to get it clearly on the record. Once an endocrine disruptor is identified through your screening, will that be adequate to regulate it? Mr. Jones. The first step in the process is to screen for potential interactions with the endocrine system. Chemicals that come out of that process as positive will then go into a more in-depth testing regime that it is that information, a tier two test, that will give us the information that is necessary for regulating. Mrs. Capps. So after tier two, then you can regulate? Mr. Jones. That is correct. Mrs. Capps. How long does that process take usually? Mr. Jones. Going from today the 67 chemicals that have been tested up through having the results of the tier two test is going to be about five plus years. Mrs. Capps. Five years? Mr. Jones. That is correct. Mrs. Capps. That is remarkable. Dr. Solomon, what steps are necessary to determine if regulation is needed once an endocrine disruptor is identified through screening? You talked about this in your statement. Dr. Solomon. When an endocrine disruptor is identified, you know, I think there is a public health imperative to take action. Mrs. Capps. Immediately? Dr. Solomon. And so, you know, the EPA moves at its own pace, but it really needs to move quickly on these chemicals. And the ones that are known endocrine disruptors, that have been sort of sitting in the queue---- Mrs. Capps. Yes. Dr. Solomon. --or even put back into the queue, for example, numerous phthalates that I would already classify as known endocrine disruptors are now going through the first tier of screening, entering 5 five-year process at a point when they actually should be gainfully heading toward regulation. Mrs. Capps. Well, you know, and the interesting thing is when the public knows, when the parents of the school kids I used to work with understand that there is a problem, they don't want to wait 5 years. Their children will be adults by then, and the damage will have been done. So I hear your urgency. Back to you, Mr. Jones. Does the Safe Drinking Water Act provide EPA with the necessary mechanisms to regulate the chemicals being identified as endocrine disruptors? Mr. Jones. The Safe Drinking Water Act provides the necessary tools to do that. I will point out that the testing for endocrine disruption under the Safe Drinking Water Act was discretionary authority, which, I think, probably explains why it has not been---- Mrs. Capps. Do you believe it should be discretionary? Mr. Jones. I will leave that up to---- Mrs. Capps. OK. Mr. Jones. --Congress. We are now exercising our discretion, but it was discretionary in that we---- Mrs. Capps. I hear you. Back to you, Dr. Solomon. Do you think EPA has an effective mechanism to regulate the chemicals being identified as endocrine disruptors? And if you don't, what should that mechanism be? Dr. Solomon. One of the problems with endocrine disruptors that came up was this issue of low doses, and EPA's regulatory mechanisms in general are not very good at dealing with the kind of unusual data where a chemical may have one set of effects at a high dose and a different set or even more severe effects at low doses at key periods of infant development. And this is really where we, you know, where the regulatory system stumbles. Mrs. Capps. And where groups like yours and Dr. Birnbaum's can be perhaps useful in updating some of the procedures? That was a question kind of. Dr. Solomon. Yes, I certainly hope and believe that EPA is starting to look at these issues more seriously in all of the environmental media. Mrs. Capps. Dr. Birnbaum, I want to make sure that--because you have been nodding as I have been asking other questions. Does NIEHS have the capacity to provide the science and the protocols needed to regulate the chemicals being identified as endocrine disruptors? Ms. Birnbaum. NIEHS has a long-standing program in studying endocrine disruptors. In fact, in 2007, we convened a panel of over about 35 different experts from across the country and across the world looking, for example, at the issues of BPA. And the consensus of that panel was that BPA was an endocrine disruptor and was causing effects in multiple different animal species, not just rats and mice, and that there was evidence that there was at least the potential to cause those effects in humans. Since that time, the NTP Seer Panel has issued the report which again was an extensively peer-reviewed report involving many experts, which concluded that there was some concern for a number of developmental and reproductive endpoints including development neurological effects following exposure to BPA. At the same time, we have continued to fund additional work to look at the issues not only of BPA, but of many other endocrine-disrupting chemicals. So I would say that there are demonstrated endocrine-disrupting effects of a number of chemicals in humans. There are now several epidemiology studies that cannot prove causality but can demonstrate associations between, for example, BPA and developmental neurobehavioral changes in children between cardiovascular effects, between diabetes, for example. Again associations, but they are backed up by our animal studies. I think one point I would like to make is that we need to be careful when we talk about low dose. What I think many of us should be meaning when we talk about low dose are what are the levels that are present in people. So the epidemiology studies I referred to BPA, for example, are being seen in the general population. These are not necessarily high levels of exposure. And when you do animal studies, what you really need to understand is not how much you give the animal, not how much is in the drinking water, but how much is in the animal if you want to compare the effects in animals to the effects in people. And under those conditions, we often find that the puditive high-dose animal studies in fact are not high dose at all. Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing this to go forward. It appears to me, if I could just put these comments that the three of you have made together, that the scientific community in many resources in many settings has done a lot of studies that could be very useful to the EPA in terms of perhaps updating or looking in more depth at what the sciences has out there and that would be very valuable for the public to have the benefit of. Thank you very much. Mr. Markey. The gentlelady's time has expired. The chair recognizes Dr. Burgess from Texas. Dr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, just for a point of clarification, have you introduced a bill to ban the EPA or BPA? Because I was almost ready to sign on to your bill---- Mr. Markey. I know that the governor's race in Texas is turning on that question, oK. It is amazing watching it from afar. Dr. Burgess. Thank you for that clarification. Dr. Borgert and perhaps Dr. Solomon as well, Mr. Stearns was questioning you just a moment ago. We were kind of getting into the questions between dosage and potency, Dr. Borgert. Dr. Solomon, you were either nodding your head or shaking your head while that was going on. Did you have something you wanted to add to that discussion about the discussion of potency and dosage? We all know anything in the wrong dosage, water intoxication can happen. Water is generally regarded as safe, but there are people who are injured, and in fact, there have even been deaths from overdoses of just simply water. So what about this issue of dosage and potency? Dr. Solomon. Hormones are almost unique in the way that they act in our bodies because there are receptors on our cells that are basically sort of scanning our bloodstream for even minute traces of these hormones. And those receptors are primed basically hugely magnify the cellular and organ system response in our bodies to even slight hormonal fluctuations. So actually it is almost like a megaphone into the cells in our bodies when even a trace amount of a hormone enters our bloodstream, and that is true of natural hormones. It also is true of many endocrine disruptors. Dr. Burgess. I don't mean to interrupt, but I have only a short period of time. And you know how testy the chairman is with the person who sits immediately to his left. There is also a question of how rapidly that compound is metabolized in the body. Some are metabolized rapidly. Some will tend to have a cumulative effect. That may have been what Dr. Birnbaum was just referring to, that there are some things that will just sequester in the body and leave only more slowly. And, in fact, there may be populations where this behaves differently as we learn more and more about medicine. There may be people who are--I think this is some of the things we have learned about Gulf War syndrome and how quickly people are able to metabolize or not metabolize some of these organic phosphate compounds. So that is a lot of stuff to have to put into the equation. Dr. Borgert, did you want to say something about that? Mr. Borgert. I do. Thank you. Potency is important, but it is potency at the receptor. And the hormone system is not unique in utilizing receptors. The neurological system uses the same concept. So the receptor-based physiology, receptor-based pharmacology is actually, you know, a cornerstone of the way we understand many systems work. And it is the potency of the molecule of the drug or the chemical at that receptor that is important. I want to put this into perspective for you. A very fine study by a scientist, the group Katsenel and Bogens Group, not working on endocrine disruptors per se, but looking at steroid hormone receptors showed that testosterone can activate the estrogen receptor. Now, testosterone is the basic male hormone. It is not an estrogen, but at its very low potency at the estrogen receptor, but it can activate it. And so we need to consider these potency issues, and we need to remember that these low-dose theories are theories. In some instances, they may tell us that compounds are having adverse effects. In other instances, the import of those low- dose effects may be compensatory and adaptive and merely tell us that the system is working well to manage the tens of thousands of chemicals that we experience in our natural environment as well as the synthetic chemicals. Thank you. Dr. Burgess. It has been a while since I have dealt with the biochemical aspects of this, but there are also places in the body where, in an extraglandular way, hormones can be produced in fat cells, for example. Estrogen can be--under the right circumstances, fat cells, adipose cells can produce estrogen if they are given the right precursors in the right setting. The reason I am bringing all this up is we passed a bill in the last Congress, H.R. 4040, the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act, and the unintended consequences of that. The bill passed for the best of reasons. I voted for it. We passed that bill, and the unintended consequences have just been extremely disruptive for the American people that have to live under the legislation that we passed. I have motorcycle dealers who sell motorcycles that are designed for young people, youth motorcycles, which they are now not sure that they can sell because of the battery is taken out of the motorcycle and ingested, the lead levels, of course, would be horrendously high. And under the language of the bill, the lack of flexibility that we built into the language of the bill, I have motorcycle dealers in my district that tell me they have vast quantities of inventory that they can do nothing with. They can't send it back. They can't sell it. They can't even sell parts to people who have previously purchased devices and come in for help. So it gets to your point, Dr. Borgert, about being so careful about this not wasting resources on chasing things that may be of minimal to no impact. But also then the downstream consequences of legislation are significant. There are some crystals that might have lead in them only if you pulverize them to a fine powder and ingest them. And, of course, the molars of a very young child are not capable of that level of grinding even if they were to ingest the rhinestone. There are multiple examples, and I have people through my office all the time who come and tell me about the bad things I did while I was trying to be protective of the public good with the CPSIA through this committee. You like you wanted to say something to that. Mr. Borgert. Well, I just wanted to agree, and I wanted to summarize, I think, what you are saying is, you know, there is always time after we realize we have made a mistake to go back and correct it. We have to do that. It is a shame there is often not enough time to be deliberative and get it right the first time. And I think we want to take that lesson here. Dr. Burgess. Well, the other part of the lesson is with the change of administrations and the change of people at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, we haven't made those changes. And we have left people hanging with either inventory that they cannot sell, resale shops that don't know because of the level of lead testing we have required is not even available in some areas. Can we resell these books or toys? Libraries that don't know if they can leave vinyl-covered books on their shelves. It is a huge problem that we created in this committee, and 2 years later, we are not even talking about fixing any of those problems. And the agency now with a different head--and not that they are not good people--but the agency is focusing on new things and not looking at correcting the problems that we caused. This is one problem the Bush Administration didn't cause. Yes, he signed the bill, but we caused the problem. And it has not been fixed. Can I just ask one additional question? With all the stimulus money we spent on computer IT, and you referenced a lot of the data, Dr. Birnbaum, that you have. Are you getting that stuff electronically in a place where you can search it and where those databases are actually going to be useful to you? Because you have collected a lot of data. You are continuing to collect a lot of data. But is it in a format that will actually be useful to us? Ms. Birnbaum. Thank you very much for the question. All the, for example, published studies are available electronically on the Web site. All the approximately $10 to $15 million that we are funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, all the information about what those studies are, who has conducted them, what these objectives are of those studies, are available on the usagovernment.recovery Web site as well as on our NIEHS Web site. And those results, as they come to fruition, will all be available for the general public. Dr. Burgess. What sort of backlog do you have with putting data in there? Ms. Birnbaum. Excuse me? Dr. Burgess. What sort of backlog do you have with putting the data in there? Ms. Birnbaum. It goes on almost as soon as it becomes available. Dr. Burgess. The historical that has been collected. Ms. Birnbaum. All the historical data is currently available right now. Mr. Markey. OK, the gentleman's time has expired. We thank the gentleman for identifying a problem that was not created during the Bush Administration. That is also very helpful, I think, historically. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney. Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am recovering from laryngitis so I don't know if I have 8 minutes of voice or 9 minutes to compete with the gentleman from Texas, but I will give it a shot. I am glad that he was as concerned about your testiness on this issue as he is. Mr. Jones, we have a town in my district, Morgan Hill, that has a large perchlorate spill in the region. Now, California has set pretty good standards for perchlorate, but there is no national standards in place. Do you think that would be a good idea to move forward with a national standard for perchlorate and other endocrine disruptors? Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. The agency is going to make a determination this year as to whether or not we feel it is appropriate to establish an MCL, maximum contaminant level for perchlorate. That is referred to as a regulatory determination under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and in 2010, that decision will be made. Mr. McNerney. Then your opinion is not to be given this morning? Mr. Jones. I am sorry. We are trying at EPA to coordinate better across our offices. I am actually not in the office that manages the Safe Drinking Water Act. I am in the office that manages the endocrine disruptor screening program, so although I am familiar with where the office of water is with respect to that determination. Because I am not intimately familiar with the facts around perchlorate, I think it would not be wise for me to offer an opinion on that. Mr. McNerney. OK, thank you. Dr. Solomon, do you think the Safe Drinking Water Act worked effectively in regulating hazardous chemicals in drinking water? And if not--and I suspect that you are going to say that you don't--do you have specific recommendations? Dr. Solomon. The Safe Drinking Water Act as amended in 1996 required the creation of these various candidate contaminant lists. We are now on the third iteration, and in each case, EPA has gone through an extensive exercise to create the list and then has actually not taken any action to regulate any of the chemicals on these priority lists and has simply moved on to create another priority list. And so I am very much hoping that, you know, EPA will take action and start setting some regulatory standards on these chemicals. There is now well over 100 chemicals that have been identified as priorities, and, you know, on the CCL 3 as potential priorities. And a number of those really do need to move forward. Mr. McNerney. So in other words, you don't think they have been that effective so far and could be more effective? Dr. Solomon. Yes, EPA does have the authority to, you know, take the action that it needs to, but it is, you know, since it just needs to make a determination, it can, you know, on each of the previous CCL lists, the determination has just been that various chemicals did not need to be regulated. So it is very easy for the agency to avoid taking any action if it doesn't want to take action. Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Dr. Borgert, good morning. Mr. Borgert. Good morning. Mr. McNerney. You know I was a scientist or a mathematician in a past life. So I appreciate your comments about having repeatable science; however, I think the people in Morgan Hill would say there should have been precautions taken before they put the perchlorate in the ground even though they didn't know it was an endocrine disruptor and a cancer-causing agent at that time. So my point is that when human health is at risk, when human health is on the line, we shouldn't wait for permanent or absolute certainty. Absolute certainty in science is very, very hard to come by, and if we wait for absolute certainty, we are going to be dying from all kinds of problems. So I think we need to put some sort of risk into the consideration in making these kinds of decisions even though absolute certainty has not been achieved. Do you have a comment? Mr. Borgert. Yes, I do. I couldn't agree with you more that we need to be precautionary when we actually know what the risks are. But let me give you an example of what can happen when you think you know what the risks are and, in fact, you don't fully appreciate them. Now, I think you gave us an example with perchlorate in the drinking water. And certainly I am not an engineer, but if there were good and valid methods, engineering methods for protecting against that, maybe those precautions should have been taken. But on the human health side, I want you to consider the example of dietary fat. There was a day when we thought fat was, you know, across the board a bad thing, and we tried to eliminate, many of us did, tried to eliminate fats from our diet. Today many of us take fish oil, which is a fat. With a little more reliable research and a little more understanding, we recognize that what we thought was a precautionary approach may actually have been harmful. It is not good to remove all the fat from your diet. Some are very beneficial. So sometimes you act with very good intentions to do what you believe is precautionary, and because you have rushed to judgment, you actually have done the opposite of what you intended. Mr. McNerney. Well, I don't know that we need to rush to judgment, Dr. Borgert, but I think we need to be precautionary when there is evidence, even association, that there is risk. I think we need to be precautionary and take steps ahead of time before the city of Morgan Hill has a $100 million cleanup on their hands and no company left again to do the cleanup. And I think across the board when there is evidence and associations of risk, we need to act accordingly. Mr. Chairman, I don't have another 3 minutes of voice, so I am going to refer back to you. Mr. Markey. Thank you. William Shakespeare said that brevity is the soul of wit, and I think you got right at the heart of the matter, and we thank you for that. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask unanimous consent to place a statement in the record. Mr. Markey. Without objection, it will be so ordered. [The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]*************** COMMITTEE INSERT *************** Mr. Green. Dr. Solomon, this is for you and I would enjoy hearing other on the panel that has an opinion. Some have suggested that the present endocrine disruptors in drinking water isn't really that alarming because the levels at which they are detected are so low. First, are there adverse health effects associated with low-dose exposure to these chemicals? Dr. Solomon. There are a few reasons why I am concerned about these chemicals in drinking water. One was actually raised by the chairman and other members of the committee, which is the fact that wildlife populations exposed to some of these source waters in which various low doses of endocrine disruptors are present are showing abnormalities such as the intersex fish seen in the Potomac River and in many other rivers and streams across the United States. I am also concerned because there are quite persuasive data showing that multiple chemicals can actually act together to create greater effects as mixtures or at least additive effects. And there are complex mixtures of various endocrine disruptors. As I mentioned in my testimony, up to more than 30 chemicals in a single water sample have been reported by the USGS. And in addition, I am concerned because of the remarkable sensitivity of hormone systems, not so much in the adult, where, as Dr. Borgert mentioned, there are some ability to sort of almost, you know, respond or buffer some alterations in hormones that occur, you know, transiently or even longer term, but in fetuses and infants where short-term alterations in hormones can actually have long-term effects on normal development. And so it is really those populations that I am most concerned about. Mr. Green. My second question, and again open it to the panel. What you are saying then is when someone is exposed to low doses from several different potential endocrine disruptors has a problem, so you answered the second question. Dr. Borgert or anyone else have a response to that question? Mr. Borgert. Yes, I do. I think it is on point and raises an issue of one of the things that Dr. Solomon said. Mixtures are definitely an important area of research. I have devoted a large portion of my career to that, have several publications on it. About a year ago in December, I addressed the National Research Council on the issue of mixtures of pharmaceuticals in the water supply. And here again my message was similar. We need to rely on demonstrated scientific methods, and it hasn't been demonstrated by any stretch of the imagination that these very low levels of chemicals with low potency actually have synergistic effects or even additive effects at the levels in the environment at which we encounter them. At higher levels, perhaps, but one of the rules of mixtures is what happens at one level and one ratio of components is not predictive of what happens at other levels and other ratios of those components. So we can't make those extrapolations. And one of the things we know is it is incorrect to do that, so it is best not to do that. Mr. Green. Obviously we have a difference here from both our doctors. Ms. Birnbaum. I would like to comment on that, if possible. Mr. Green. In fact, let me actually get you a question though. Obviously it has been suggested that although endocrine-disrupting affects animals, it has been demonstrated humans are better able to deal with low doses of chemicals without suffering adverse effects. Can you talk about the low dose issue earlier? And along with that, are humans any different from other animals that may consume drinking water? Ms. Birnbaum. Nature is inherently conservative, and the endocrine system is well conserved across from fish to amphibians to all the way up to mammals, and that includes us. There are numerous effects of endocrine effects in wildlife, not only fish, but for example amphibians, bird, and mammalian wildlife as well as beginning, we are seeing effects in people. I have to say that there is a great deal of data on mixtures at low environmentally-relevant concentrations for a number of different endocrine kinds of effects, effects on estrogens, effects on the androgen system, effects on the thyroid system, which demonstrate in animal models that additivity--at low concentrations again I am talking about. I am not talking about high levels. I am talking about low levels--appear to act in an additive fashion. So I think we have a real issue when we look at one chemical at a time instead of looking at multiple chemicals at low levels in the body at a time. Mr. Green. And again is there research being done now on the low level for multiple exposure? Ms. Birnbaum. Yes, there is. We are funding a great deal of research in that area, and I should mention that I have published extensively myself in this area of mixtures, and it is very important that you work at low levels because if you go to very high levels, I agree with Dr. Borgert that different things can happen. But you need to work at low levels. And we are funding work. For example, we are actually funding some studies right now at the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development to look at the interaction of multiple phthalates which have been shown to interact additively in blocking androgen action. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other response from anyone on the panel? Mr. Borgert. Just one. I think we are using qualitative terms like low doses, and I think we have probably a difference of viewpoint on what is low. And I don't think that it has been demonstrated that the levels of these chemicals to which humans are exposed are acting in an additive fashion. That is an unresolved question, and again my caution I think have stated. Mr. Green. Well, and again no matter what level we make the low dosage, the concern and the question was low dosage of a multiple number of endocrine disruptors in low dosage because we may not have a high dosage. But because of our lifestyle, we have multiple opportunities to have that. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I have run out of time. Mr. Markey. Gentleman's time has expired. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of questions. First for Dr. Birnbaum. I think you had spoken or there was something written about your agency a few months ago that there were a number of research grants to university professors and others as part of the stimulus bill that, I think, totaled somewhere around $30 million. Primarily they were supposed to be used to conduct additional research on BPA. Can you tell me what processing criteria you used through the agency for the awarding of the grants and then also if you can give us an idea of how many new jobs were created by that stimulus money? Ms. Birnbaum. The stimulus money, we funded somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 to $15 million worth of research on BPA. The process that was used by NIH to give the stimulus money as part of our usual very, very extensive extramural peer review process. So some of the BPA work was funded under a special program coming from funding partly directly from our agency and partly from the office of the director, which is called the Challenge Program and the GO Program. And these were for high-priority needs to address health effects in the Nation. So that there was a request made for innovative research to address projects. The GO projects, known as the Grand Opportunity, were for projects. And in our agency, one of the topics that we put out was for understanding and expanding our knowledge base on BPA. We have funded 11 specific grants that are looking at the effects of BPA. These are effects looking at cancer, both prostate and mammary, but looking at the immune system, looking at developmental neurological effects, looking at cardiovascular effects and a variety of animal models. In addition, BPA has been in our sites for a number of years and in our regular extramurally-funded and peer-reviewed grants programs. We are looking at effects of BPA in human populations as well, and as I mentioned, one of the first results from that was recently published in the peer review literature, clearly needs to be repeated, but demonstrates an association between the mother's exposure of BPA during her first trimester and neural behavioral effects in her children of 2 years of age. We are also funding ongoing studies with FDA to look at long-term effects in both rats and mice to BPA. We are also funding some studies in our intramural program in collaboration with outside investigators. Mr. Scalise. I apologize for pulling back because I am limited on my time. Ms. Birnbaum. I was going to mention the---- Mr. Scalise. But I did want to ask--and I don't know if all those grants you were talking about, how much was stimulus money versus just regular department money. Ms. Birnbaum. About $10 to $15 million. Mr. Scalise. So all that $10 to $15 million of stimulus money which was supposedly brought forward to create jobs, how many jobs were created with the $10 to $15 million of stimulus money? Ms. Birnbaum. Specifically with the BPA, I can tell you with the approximately $168 million of funding that NIEHS was allotted to send to the extramural community with the stimulus money, that that has funded about 300 different grants. And we know that new jobs--I am not talking about continuation of jobs--but new jobs was about 436 new jobs. Mr. Scalise. OK, and if you can get us the information on those new jobs. Ms. Birnbaum. We can get you more specifics. Mr. Scalise. And specifically with the stimulus money portion, not your regular department. Ms. Birnbaum. I am just talking about--the 430 plus jobs-- -- Mr. Scalise. Right, but we were told during the passage of the stimulus bill that there would be transparency in actually tracking the jobs created with that money, not with other money, with the stimulus money. I am just asking you for that transparency if you could get that to me. Ms. Birnbaum. I would be happy to provide it. Mr. Scalise. Thanks. Ms. Birnbaum. I believe that is available---- Mr. Scalise. Next question because I only have a minute left. During your written statement, you had mentioned that you try to ensure that focus on doing high-quality science or ensuring that its work adheres to the basic tenets of good objective science. Your statement didn't mention that. What I am asking you is would you give us a pledge that when you are doing this work that you would only adhere to the basic tenets of good objective science since that wasn't in your testimony? Ms. Birnbaum. Peer-reviewed science stands the nature of time, and our studies are undergoing extensive peer review both in the funding of studies, in the conduct of studies, and in the actual publication of studies. The NTP studies, which are funded are considered the gold standard for traditional toxicity kinds of testing. I think it is very important to understand that science is moving on, and the best studies of 20 and 30 years ago may not be the best studies. Mr. Scalise. But would you base the decisions on the best science? Ms. Birnbaum. My studies are always based on the best study of all the peer-reviewed science. Mr. Scalise. Thank you, and I yield back. Mr. Markey. Gentleman's time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I am just looking at an article from the Seattle Times. I am from Seattle. In 2007, it talked about fish, English sole, carrying something in their bodies not supposed to be there, a protein usually found only in female fish with developed eggs. And we found these chemicals, and the article quotes sources of suggestion that birth control pills, plastic bottles, detergent, makeup, and more chemicals from various sources may be associated with that protein. Dr. Birbaum, first of all, I don't understand this biology as well as I should. Is that protein that this article is referencing the chemical itself, or it is an expression or result of the presence of a chemical that causes that protein to be there where it shouldn't be? Ms. Birnbaum. You are talking about fatelegenin, which is a protein that is normally only present in female fish, and if the females are exposed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, then in fact the males begin to produce fatelegenin. So just like in the Potomac River and parts of Puget Sound and many other waterways in our Nation, we are finding male fish that have eggs in their testes, and they are producing fatelegenin. Mr. Inslee. And what is that mechanism? I don't understand. You said if the female is--you mean the mother of the male? Ms. Birnbaum. No, these are the fish, female fish produce fatelegenin, which is a protein that actually goes into making the egg. It goes into the egg and provides nutrition for the baby, you know, the developing embryonic fish. Males, when exposed to environmental endocrine disruption, they begin producing fatelegenin, and they also begin making eggs. Mr. Inslee. They pick it up from the water? Ms. Birnbaum. No, they get the endocrine-disrupting chemicals from the water or food particles in the water. But then they make--that is their response to the disruption. Mr. Inslee. So is there a question about whether that is in fact occurring in our waters or not? Is that subtle science? Ms. Birnbaum. I think there is extensive evidence for the presence of male fish producing female responses. Mr. Inslee. And is there any other hypothesis been suggested that it is other than endocrine disruptors that are causing this? Ms. Birnbaum. I don't know of any. Mr. Inslee. Does anybody in the panel have any other hypothesis as to what is causing this other than endocrine disruptors? Mr. Borgert. I think it is important to understand what we mean when we say endocrine disruptors, and Dr. Birnbaum mentioned this, I believe, in her answer. But we don't know exactly which chemicals might be doing that, for instance, and there have been instances where we again rush to judgment on similar findings of fatelegenin in male fish in the U.K. And based on those preliminary suspicions, a number of products were taken off the market because they were suspected endocrine disruptors. Turns out the most likely culprit was simply female hormones from human beings, and the water treatment plants were not up to snuff. They were not state-of-the-art, and they were not properly breaking down those compounds. Some of the compounds also may have been birth control pills. So it is important to recognize that when you see an effect, that doesn't automatically tell you which chemicals might be involved. And so I think that is one of the critical questions. Mr. Inslee. So is it---- Mr. Borgert. Brings up another--well, I just wanted to make a quick point is that our analytical techniques are now thousands if not ten thousand-fold better than they were a decade or so ago. So what would appear to have been a perfectly clean water sample a decade ago now looks very contaminated, and that is simply because our analytical techniques are so much better. Mr. Inslee. Well, I guess---- Mr. Borgert. Finding what the cause is is not always easy. Mr. Inslee. What I am trying to get at is it relatively clear that the presence of maybe not specifically identified but generally defined as endocrine disruptors in our waterways are causing the presence of proteins in male fish that are not normally there. When I say normally meaning absent an industrial base that pollutes our water. Is that fairly well established, Dr. Birnbaum? I will just ask your opinion about that. Ms. Birnbaum. Absolutely. Mr. Inslee. OK, Mr. Jones? Mr. Jones. Yes, I would agree with that. Mr. Inslee. Dr. Solomon? Dr. Solomon. Yes, I would agree with that. Mr. Inslee. And Dr. Borgert? Mr. Borgert. Yes, I would agree that it can happen. I would have to disagree though that that is always the case. We don't know of all the factors that might affect that, and in some instances, their habitat alterations for other effects that cause other effects that may lead to the same thing. I don't think we have unraveled the story completely. Mr. Inslee. But we don't think it is sunspots, right? I mean we would agree we don't think there are sunspots? That is a rhetorical question. Mr. Borgert. I haven't heard sunspots. Mr. Inslee. Well, we have heard sunspots blamed for a lot of significant global activity. We just wonder if this is another one of them. Mr. Jones, can you give me sort of a lay answer that I can convey to my constituents on what percentage of chemicals that in the realm of possibility could be considered endocrine disruptors will be adequately tested by X date that we can tell our constituents that will have been receiving an appropriate level of the screening to determine whether or not they present a human health risk? Could you give me percentages by certain dates on the current track that we are on? Mr. Jones. The current track that we are on will take many years to tell you what that percentage is. The universe of chemicals in front of us include a thousand pesticides, and people throw around the number of 80,000 industrial chemicals. It is probably actually more in the range of 40,000. So we are talking about tens of thousands of compounds. Under current techniques, it will take many years to evaluate them all. We are working very hard with our colleagues in NAHS and some other agencies within the executive branch to develop alternative methods that will allow us to test thousands of chemicals in very short periods of time. That work, however, is not quite ready up to the task that we are seeking and that you are asking for. So I am hopeful that within the next 5 years those kinds of methods are available which will allow us to test thousands of chemicals in a matter of weeks as opposed to hundreds of chemicals in a matter of years. But that is still developmental. Under the existing framework that we have, it takes quite a while to even do the screening test, and we are talking about a universe of, as I said, upwards of 40,000 chemicals that you would need to screen to be able to tell you which percentage---- Mr. Inslee. Very quickly. Probably be a decade before we have 50 percent of these tests---- Mr. Jones. Absolutely. Mr. Inslee. --concluded? Thank you. Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time has expired. And just for clarification, Mr. Jones, earlier you told me that BPA was not on the list of chemicals that EPA was using to examine the purposes of setting drinking water standards. But I had asked you why EPA didn't put BPA onto its chemicals of concerns action plan despite the data and the administrator's statements regarding her concerns about the chemical. Can you clarify? Mr. Jones. Yes, and thank you for asking that. Going back to the CCL list part of my answer. Mr. Markey. What does CCL mean? Mr. Jones. The chemical contaminant list. That is the list of potential drinking water contaminants for regulation that was released last summer. It is not on that list; however, the work that is going on right now at the Food and Drug Administration, which we are working with them on, could ultimately lead to a different conclusion. So that work will inform future CCL lists. As it relates to BPA as an industrial chemical as opposed to a drinking water contaminant, the agency is planning on in the not-too-distant future--and the administrator has spoken to this, and I think she actually testified yesterday at the appropriations hearing. That action plan is with the Office of Management and Budget right now going through interagency review, and we are hopeful that it will be publicly released in the very near future. So it could be on that last. Yes, it will be on that list. Mr. Markey. OK, it will be on that list. OK, that is important. OK, so we thank you all for coming here today. It is a very important hearing, and we thank anyone who has been watching this hearing on C-SPAN today. The endocrine system for human beings is really just our computer system. It is just a computer, and like a computer, if someone hacks in to a computer and drops in a new virus, it can cause a tremendous disruption to a computer. And there is one thing no one wants in America or in the world is for someone to hack in to their computer, for someone to add in a virus that can begin to disrupt it. No matter how small that virus might be, it is a big change in your relationship with the computer. Well, the endocrine system is the computer system, and that is why we are so concerned about it, that the more that the water, other avenues, that are used in order to disrupt the endocrine system, the computer system for human beings, you start to get these very significant or even minor changes in the body. And it can have very significant changes in the way in which people live. And so that is why it is so important, and since we are seeing significant changes over the last 30 or 40 years, whether it be, you know, autism or you go down the whole list, we are wondering what is happening? Why are we seeing so much larger identification of these problems in human beings? And so, you know, scientists are like the detectives. They look around. They see what could have hacked in to the human being. What is different? What is going into human beings that weren't going into human beings before especially as they affect children because that is when the system is most vulnerable? That is when a computer is most vulnerable, when it is brand new. You know it hasn't quite developed all of its defenses yet. You haven't added in all of the software packages that can defend, and so it is much more vulnerable to changes, oK. So that is why we are so concerned about it, and that is why I am concerned about BPA as it affects especially things that are close to children. That is what my legislation would be most concerned with, the kinds of things that children would be putting into their bodies because obviously that would have a more profound effect on the computer system of the body. So we thank you so much for your testimony here today, and in the weeks and months ahead, we are going to be pursuing this very aggressively. And I want to make sure that the right things are done in order to protect against the things which we think have a higher likelihood of having an impact especially upon children in our country. So we thank you all for your testimony, and I tell you what I am going to do. I am going to give each of you 1 minute to summarize what it is that you want us to remember about your testimony and would ask you to put it in as simple a language as is possible. And try to use as many monosyllabic words as you can in order to make it possible for us to in 1 minute understand what you are trying to tell us. We will go in reverse order of the opening statements, and Dr. Borgert--I am sorry as you are, I am sure, that Humphrey Bogart ever lived. That your name is constantly mispronounced. But we thank you, sir, for being here. Whenever you are ready, please begin. One minute. Mr. Borgert. Well, thank you for that opportunity, sir. I would just leave you with one admonition, and that is to make sure that the information we gather is based on repeatable science, that is based on reliable science, that is based on relevant science, and that the data be evaluated for themselves for the relevance and reliability and repeatability and not merely over what can be suggested or hypothesized from that data, but what the data actually show. And I think that is very important in any decision-making process that will involve regulation because we risk actually imperiling ourselves rather than protecting ourselves with faulty information. Mr. Markey. OK, thank you. Dr. Solomon. Dr. Solomon. Yes, as was the case around the health effects of tobacco, there were many, many years through questions being raised and, you know, claims that the science was not totally clear yet. And it is always easy to do that kind of thing because science is never 100 percent crystal clear. But we do need to act based on the information we have, and major medicine societies such as the Endocrine Society and the American Medical Association have concluded, I actually quote ``the evidence for adverse reproductive outcomes in fertility, cancer, malformations, from exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals is strong.'' So we need to look at the conclusions of these important medical organizations and move to take action to protect human health. Thank you. Mr. Markey. Thank you, Dr. Solomon. Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones. EPA is very worried about endocrine-disrupting chemicals not only in drinking water but in other media, and we are moving very aggressively in our testing program. Although, we are as frustrated as the committee is and many others of the public about how long it took to develop a testing schematic to evaluate chemicals for endocrine disruption. We have done that now, and that testing schematic is ready to be deployed. And we will be deploying it aggressively I think as evidenced by the first orders that have gone out in the last three months and our commitment here today to begin using the discretionary authority in the Safe Drinking Water Act to begin screening chemical contaminants in drinking water in the very near future. Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Dr. Birnbaum. Ms. Birnbaum. Fish, frogs, birds, and mammalian wildlife are our canaries in the coalmine when we talk about endocrine disruption. The doses that are causing these effects when you look in the animals are many times comparable to the effects that we actually are measuring in humans, and we are finding that essentially the entire American population has these chemicals in their body. These chemicals are not associated with one health effect. They are associated with a multitude of health effects because what the hormones do is integrate everything in our body. They control development, and they control our normal way of life. Thank you. Mr. Markey. Thank you, Dr. Birnbaum, very much. So we thank all of you for being here. I think the lessons that were learned is that in order to ensure that drinking water is safe that we must make sure that the endocrine disruptor screening program robustly and aggressively tests chemicals to see which ones cause endocrine-disrupting health effects and that the screening program adapts its tests to take advantage of new scientific advances and that we move in a way that does so in a very rapid process because the EPA additionally must move forward to regulate known endocrine disruptors without conducting redundant and duplicative tests. When we have enough information, we are going to have to move because clearly there are families all across the country very concerned about the impacts, especially upon children. And as soon as we reach that level where we have enough evidence, I just think that we should err on the side of caution because some very significant things are happening amongst children in our country that we have not seen in previous generations. And we know it is related to this endocrine-disruptor issue. So we thank you all so much. We are going to be working very closely with you in the months ahead. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]