The only thing worse than learning that U.S. companies released 38 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air and water that are known or suspected to cause reproductive disorders is discovering that companies won’t have to self-report that data as thoroughly as before.

The 38-million figure comes from Colorado Public Interest Research Group (CoPIRG), which on Monday released the Toxic Pollution and Health report (PDF).

But as Wendy Norris writes, the report “may be the last complete analysis of its kind since the Bush Administration drastically reduced the standards by which companies will now self-report emissions data on more than 600 toxic chemicals.”

Alarmingly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified the basic toxicity of only seven percent of the most frequently manufactured chemicals in the U.S.

Citing the most recently available data from the EPA’s 2004 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), the citizen activist group found that Tennessee, Texas and Illinois, respectively, ranked highest in the release of reproductive toxicants primarily due to their concentration of chemical, rubber, petroleum, and related industries. More than 70 percent of reported toxic pollution affecting reproductive health is produced by these three states alone. These emissions, in sufficient quantities, are known to cause spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, birth defects, and sterility in both men and women.

The reason for the reduction in reporting? It will save businesses paperwork and money.

And, of course, any worry or concern.

Apparently if we don’t know there’s a problem, well, there is no problem.

There are bills pending in the House and Senate to restore the public’s right to know about the release of toxic chemicals. Find out more from PIRG here (PDF).

ForeignPolicy.com takes a look at everyday beauty products that aren’t worth the risk, including skin whitening cream, which may contain mercury or hydroquinone, a chemical used in photo processing. “Extended exposure to hydroquinone can backfire, leaving large dark patches of skin, or possibly worse: It has been shown to cause cancer in lab animals. In 2005, a pair of Dutch researchers referred to the widespread use of hydroquinone in skin whiteners as ‘a potential time bomb.’”

Meanwhile, a biochemist who researches cosmetics and toiletries says women who use make-up daily are absorbing almost 5 lb of chemicals a year into their bodies and the combination of chemicals “could be much greater than the sum of the individual parts.” (Via the F-Word.)

And E Magazine reports on the political battle to ban certain chemical compounds from children’s toys and feeding products. Of particular concern are phthalates, which are also present in some cosmetics.

“Environmentalists and environmentally minded legislators are beginning to worry about long-term exposure to the chemical compounds,” writes Brita Belli. “Specifically, they worry about diisononyl phthalate or DINP, a plasticizer commonly used in soft vinyl products made for babies, such as bath books, rubber ducks and teething rings as well as bisphenol A (BPA), a building block for polycarbonate plastic used in shatter-resistant baby bottles. Studies have linked BPA to hormone disruption in rats, to increased breast cancer and prostate cancer cell growth, to early onset puberty and obesity; studies with phthalates have linked the chemicals to rodent cancers and genital abnormalities, especially in males.”

Earlier this year we pointed to this Women’s eNews story on the public relation efforts by the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association to reassure consumers that its products are safe.

Yet In 2002, writes Kara Alaimo, “researchers in Chicago tested 72 brand-name cosmetics and found that 52 contained phthalates, but none listed the chemical on their label.”

In August 2005, researchers including University of Rochester epidemiologist Shanna Swan published the first study to examine mothers’ prenatal exposure to phthalates in relation to the genital development of their baby boys. The small study found subtle changes suggesting the development of the genitals of boys whose mothers had high levels of phthalates was less complete than in those whose mothers were exposed to lower levels of phthalates.

Swan says determining whether exposure to phthalates is contributing to increasing rates of male infertility and testicular cancer–as studies on rodents currently suggest — is “one of the most important items on the research agenda.”

Wondering what’s in your cosmetics? Check out Skin Deep — a cosmetic safety database brought to you by the Environmental Working Group. And just in time for summer, here’s a look at safe and effective sunscreen products.

Last month we pointed to a study in the journal Pediatrics that found increasing rates of childhood obesity in the United States may be contributing to an earlier onset of puberty in girls.

Writing in Women’s eNews, Molly M. Ginty looks more closely at the Pediatrics study and at another March study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, that found girls’ girth is also likely responsible for earlier onsets of menstruation: The average age of first menstruation, writes Ginty, declined from 13.3 years in girls born before 1920 to 12.4 years in those born during the early 1980s.

Though research linking weight to puberty dates back for centuries, the recent Pediatrics paper was the first to peg which comes first. It indicated weight gain triggers early puberty, instead of early puberty triggering weight gain.

In the United States in the early 1800s, breast buds and menarche arrived around ages 13 and 16 respectively. Those changes now come around ages 9 and a half and 12 and a half.

Scientists say girls are eating more food and putting on pounds, which is causing their bodies to boost production of the hormone leptin.

“Leptin is made in fat cells and is necessary for normal reproductive function,” says Paul Kaplowitz, chief of endocrinology at the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington and author of “Early Puberty in Girls,” published in 2004 by Random House. “There’s an evolutionary benefit to this. You don’t want to get pregnant if there isn’t enough food for you to carry a pregnancy successfully. You would risk the baby’s life and your own.”

Ginty also covers other factors that can accelerate puberty, including exposure to chemicals, birth weight, genetics and home environment — researchers have found that absence of a father and the presence of an unrelated male, such as stepfather speeds up the process.

A large-scale study is in the works:

To better track the physical causes of puberty, the Bethesda, Md.-based National Institutes of Health has launched a study of 14,000 children born in 2001 that is “longitudinal” and will follow its subjects over time. The results of this research will not be available for 10 years or more.

A two-part series in Women’s eNews explores the dangers of exposure to toxins and synthetic chemicals and the potential impact on reproduction and human disease. In part one, writer Molly M. Ginty writes about signs in the animal kingdom that could portend health problems for humans:

In California, female sea lions are spontaneously aborting their fetuses.

In the Great Lakes area, mother gulls are sharing nests and raising eggs together because their male partners have forgotten how to parent.

In upstate New York, female frogs have as much testosterone in their bodies as males.

Scientists say these aberrations all share a common link: exposure to toxic chemicals called “endocrine disruptors,” which pollute the air, soil and water.

“At the rate this pollution is going, we will likely have population decreases in many wildlife species, especially amphibians and fish that are more susceptible to toxins because their skin is constantly exposed to these chemicals in an aquatic environment,” says Sarah Janssen, a science fellow at the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council.

“These animals serve as canaries in the coal mine for human females, teaching us how synthetic chemicals might affect our nervous system development, immune function, fertility and other health outcomes.”

It was quite frustrating to read that in 1996 Congress called on the EPA to step up its study of endocrine disruptors, but the EPA has yet to do so because of complications setting up the research.

In part two, Ginty discusses two studies slated for 2007 about the relationship of synthetic chemicals to disease. California will be the first state to measure chemical contaminants in people an attempt to discover which pollutants are most common. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development will begin a $2.5 billion study to track children’s exposures to chemicals, from birth to age 21.

Plus: Read an earlier story by Molly M. Ginty on women pushing for more eco-friendly products. From the Environmental Working Group, the “Body Burden” — findings of studies on pollution in people. And from “Our Bodies, Ourselves,” a comprehensive discussion on environmental health and the Precautionary Principle. There’s also a separate section on environmental pollution and breast cancer.