ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
New York Times' Kristof Lays Out the Case Against Endocrine Disruptors
Baby, Meet Frog; Frog, Meet Baby
Ryan Gosling and Dirty Cleaners
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Toxins in our Kids' Foods: Where is the FDA?
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Fluoride in Your Water: How much is too much?
Borax: Not the Green Alternative It's Cracked Up to Be
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
Our 6th Annual Sunscreen Guide
When I spoke with EWG senior analyst Nneka Leiba about this year's sunscreen database she had mixed feelings.
"On one hand, we can recommend 25 percent of sunscreens on the market," she said. "On the other hand, we can recommend 25 percent of sunscreens on the market."
After five years of advocating more effective and safe sunscreens, we're excited to see some progress in the marketplace. Last year we could recommend 20 percent of sunscreens, and the year before only eight percent.
Why is that? Well let us walk you through it -
Sunscreens are not required to provide meaningful full-spectrum protection: A good sunscreen will protect you equally from both ultraviolet-A rays (linked to aging, cancer) and ultraviolet-B rays (linked to tanning, cancer). Even sunscreens that claim "broad spectrum protection" won't have to prove they are effective against both rays until December of this year. Even of those that prove worthy of the "broad spectrum protection" label aren't necessarily dependable. Our analysis found half of the products that would earn U.S. certification would not be sold in Europe, where sunscreen manufacturers abide by voluntary European Union standards.
The U.S. is in the Stone Ages of sun protection: Manufacturers can use any of 27 sunscreen chemicals in Europe but only 17 in the U.S. Seven compounds that absorb UVA radiation are approved for use in Europe, but only three in the U.S. Most of the sunscreens available in Europe are more than three times more protective than avobenzone, the most common UVA filter available in the States.
Bad ingredients are plentiful: Remember when EWG publicized government testing on a common sunscreen ingredient that was, according to federal studies, linked to expediting the growth of skin legions and tumors? Well that ingredient, retinyl palmitate, a form of vitamin A, is still found in 25 percent of sunscreens. The good news? Manufacturers are catching up with the science. Last year vitamin A was in about a third of sunscreens we researched.
Tricky marketing gimmicks: Those FDA regulations that take effect in December will ban the use of certain misleading terms including "sweatproof," "waterproof" and "sunblock." The agency is also looking into super-high SPF claims. Studies have found that users of high-SPF sunscreens have similar or even higher exposures to harmful ultraviolet rays than people relying on lower SPF products.
What to do?
Consult EWG's sunscreen guide. We highlighted top-performing products that also score low on toxicity. This year we featured a price rating, since some sunscreens are expensive and not necessarily better.
Don't forget our sun safety tips. Sunscreen is only one part of a sun-protection routine. Seek shade, wear protective clothing along with a hat and sunglasses and avoid the sun during peak hours.
Image via
Late Thursday EWG found out the Food and Drug Administration was going to delay their sunscreen regulations by six months, at the request of the cosmetics industry. EWG replied with a statement that called out the agency's foot-dragging and highlighted the disservice to consumers. USA Today, Forbes, Mother Jones, Los Angles Times and E&E News all ran stories.
From the natural resources department, Dusty spoke with a Reuters reporter about Vermont's prospects of being the first state to ban fracking. Read on for more tidbits of EWG's news coverage from this week:
Sunscreens
USA Today: Sunscreen manufacturers get more time to update labels
The delay is "incredibly frustrating," says Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group which has pushed the FDA to pass even stricter sunscreen regulations.
Forbes: FDA Delays Implementation Of New Sunscreen Regulations Until After Summer
Concerned consumers can find plenty of recommendations in the annual EWG sunscreen report as of May 16th, including the addition of many more child- and baby-safe sunscreens to the Skin Deep database, which includes information on some 1800 sunscreen products.
Los Angeles Times: FDA delays implementing sunscreen rules
"FDA just gave consumers 1,800 more reasons to turn to our sunscreen database," said Sonya Lunder, senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group...
Mother Jones: FDA Delays Sunscreen Rules. Again.
But as Environmental Working Group pointed out, the new rules continue "to allow oxybenzone, retinyl palmitate and several other ingredients in sunscreens despite scientists' concerns about their toxicity."
E&E News: FDA delays enforcement of new sunscreen-labeling rule
"We are baffled that FDA deems it necessary to delay such weak regulations," analyst Sonya Lunder said. "The agency has caved to industry pressure every step of the way."
Dallas Morning News: Fun in the sun? Better read this first....
The problem with vitamin A is that according to researchers at the Environmental Working Group, it may actually speed the growth of skin cancer that it is intended to prevent!
Natural Resources
Reuters: Vermont poised to be first state to outlaw fracking
"The drilling industry has shrunk EPA's enforcement power down to the size of a matchbox," Horwitt said. "There's not a lot the EPA can do."
Chemicals
Palm Beach Post: With Toxic Cleaners, Make a Clean Break
"The rest of the product can be a complete mystery to the consumer, Brown said.
Fox News: How to Breathe Easier at Home
At least 74 million Americans in 42 states drink tap water containing chromium (a metal that in some forms can cause cancer), a study from the Environmental Working Group reveals.
Huffington Post: Household Cleaners Hall of Shame List Highlights Hazardous Products
...consumer watchdog organization Environmental Working Group (EWG) has just released a veritable rogues' gallery of the most noxious, nasty household cleaners on the market, and it's certainly worth a look.
Huffington Post: Give the Best Mother's Day Gift Ever: A Real Spring Cleaning
Get rid of the most toxic cleaners from the Environmental Working Group's hall of shame.
Refinery 29: Juice Cleanses: Fad Or For Real?
In 2003,The Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York conducted a study with the Environmental Working Group on the toxins found within the fetal umbilical blood.
Cosmetics
Mother Jones: Is "Meat Glue" As Gross As It Sounds?
Environmental Working Group's "Skin Deep" cosmetics database lists it as an ingredient in six hair-care products and categorizes it as a "low hazard" substance.
Triple Pundit: It's biodegradable! Or is it?
So, if you are looking for safe cosmetics, then the EWG's Skin Deep database is the place to go
Examiner: How to choose a moisturizer
EWG, the Environmental Working Group, has created Skin Deep ®, a cosmetic database including product and ingredient safety ratings designed to educate consumers about products in the marketplace.
Chemical Agriculture Goes to the Mattresses
The U.S. Department of Agriculture began testing fruits and vegetables for pesticide residues in 1991 after the public became concerned about their potential risks to children. Remember Alar? In 1993, at the request of Congress, several top public health experts released a seminal report, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Three years later, Congress responded by passing unanimously the federal Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which required the Environmental Protection Agency to implement health-based standards for all pesticides used in food, with special safeguards for infants and babies.
This flurry of activity grew out of one overarching conclusion embraced by scientists, physicians, policy makers, parents and the public interest community: Pesticides used in the cultivation of fruits and vegetables can cause serious and lasting harm to young children.
That didn't stop conventional agribusiness interests from trying hard to water down or remove provisions of the proposed law designed to protect infants and children. The industry argued that it would cut into their profits if they had to take children's health into consideration.
They lost that fight, but in the years that followed chemical agriculture has repeatedly enlisted its allies in Congress to try to dismantle the food safety law. And they're still trying.
In 1999, former Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) introduced legislation that would have amended FQPA and effectively kept the EPA from protecting children from harmful levels of toxic pesticides. It turned out that Pombo's bill was a word-for-word copy of a proposal written by the "Implementation Working Group" (IWG) - a front group formed by pesticide manufacturers and agricultural trade organizations. Pombo offered the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999 following a meeting with California produce growers.
Fortunately, the defenders of the Food Quality Protection Act rallied to its defense. "The Pombo bill would be a major step backward," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.). "It would guarantee that the law we passed would never be implemented."
Conventional agriculture's campaign pulled out all the stops to try weaken or repeal the new pesticide law, marshaling its publications to disparage both it and the EPA.
As a Washington Post story by George Lardner Jr. and Joby Warrick noted in May 2000:
"Articles and editorials in the farming trade press predicted that continuing with the current law would produce economic disaster for growers and mean less fresh fruit and vegetables for children, who would suffer more illnesses and deaths as a result. One November (1999) article in the magazine The Packer even likened EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner to infamous mass murderer John Wayne Gacy."
Chemical agribusiness' spokesmen predicted that the safety standards implemented under FQPA would destroy American agriculture. The trade publication InsideEPA (subscription required) reported in May 1999) that:
"If the conservative default assumptions allowed under current law (FQPA) are used, some of the pesticides farmers now rely on will likely be pulled from the market, one industry source says. American farmers would be less competitive in the international market and could potentially be driven out of business, this source adds."
In the end, however, the Pombo bill failed, and more than a decade later, there is U.S.-grown food in abundance in every supermarket in the country.
In the years that followed, a number of pesticides that had been considered safe by conventional agriculture were found to be anything but, and EPA banned or restricted their use. And in virtually every instance when a pesticide came under the microscope of public health officials, chemical agribusiness went to the mattresses, fighting to try to block any action by EPA.
In 2006, for instance, EPA completed its FQPA-mandated review of the pesticide carbofuran, concluding that it harmed the nervous and reproductive systems and was too risky for consumers and workers:
"All products containing carbofuran generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment and do not meet safety standards, and therefore are ineligible for reregistration."
In December 2009, the agency officially revoked its earlier approval of carbofuran on U.S. food crops. .
Chemical agriculture fought that decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where five years later the Roberts court refused to hear the case (National Corn Growers Association et al v. EPA).
There are plenty of other example's of the industry's deny and delay tactics.
In 2010, when environmental and community groups pressed EPA to restrict chlorpyrifos (aka Lorsban or Dursban), one of Dow AgroSciences' popular products, industry ran this scare-tactic ad to try to persuade consumers that fresh produce would disappear if that chemical were no longer in produce growers' toolbox.
The battle goes on. Also in 2010, another agribusiness front group calling itself The Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF), which represents many of the same interests that fought the 1996 pesticide law, enlisted the unwitting assistance of American taxpayers when it secured a U.S. Department of Agriculture grant to attack the Environmental Working Group's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce. Members of The Alliance also lobbied the Obama administration to change how USDA releases the annual pesticide residue tests that EWG uses to produce the Shopper's Guide.
When the Alliance for Food and Farming or any representative of chemical agriculture tells consumers pesticides in food are perfectly safe and there is nothing to worry about, remember this history of what they've done, or not done, where public health is concerned.
USDA should be releasing its latest round of pesticide residue tests soon. When it does, EWG will do what we always do: Give eaters the best available list of fruits and veggies that carry the highest and lowest levels of pesticides - even if the AFF wishes we wouldn't.
"Environmental Working Group (EWG) to the rescue."
As we change gears from the Hall of Shame and begin to focus on the upcoming annual EWG Sunscreen Database, EWG research was mentioned in a number of consumer health stories. The Washington Post ran a story on preserving the quality of the Potomac River, reminding readers to chose personal care products wisely as they end up down the drain. Forbes, Treehugger and Mother Nature News all mentioned our Hall of Shame, with the line of the week coming from Treehugger: "Environmental Working Group (EWG) to the rescue."
Cosmetics
The Washington Post: The Potomac River, in good health and bad
To find products that are environmentally friendly, go to www.
ewg.org/skindeep.
Shine from Yahoo! Canada: 5 Scary Cosmetic Ingredients Explained
While petrolatum may contain trace impurities of a class of chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) - probable carcinogens - manufacturers can eliminate the contaminants via a chemical process, says Nneka Leiba, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group.
Examiner.com: How to find a healthy alternative to your favorite fine fragrance
According to a study by the Environmental Working Group, it contains 18 secret chemical ingredients not listed on the label.
Chemicals and Cleaners
Forbes: Procter & Gamble Defends Against Claims that Tide Detergents Contain Carcinogens
Similar to the group's popular Skin Deep database for personal care and cosmetic products, the new EWG Cleaners database will enable consumers to search for particular products and find out more about what's in them.
Treehugger: 5 Common Household Cleaners Hazardous to Your Health
Environmental Working Group (EWG) to the rescue.
Mother Nature Network: Group points finger at worst of the worst with Cleaners Hall of Shame list
In anticipation of the release of a comprehensive cleaning product safety database this fall, the Environmental Working Group publishes its Cleaners Hall of Shame list to spotlight all of the lowlights.
KCWY NBC 13 Wyoming: Hidden Dangers of Household Cleaners
The Environmental Working Group created a list called the "Cleaners Hall of Shame".
Consumer Reports: EPA puts Erin Brockovich chemical on drinking water watch list
If you're concerned about chromium-6 contaminating your drinking water, installing a point-of-use water filter in your home could offer protection, according to the Environmental Working Group.
The Sacramento Bee: Integrative Medicine: How to reduce exposure to toxins
For lots of great information on other ways to protect yourself and your family, look up the Environmental Working Group
Patch: Reducing the Risk Of Early Puberty
The Environmental Working Group reports that the plastic bottles used in liquid baby formula may leach excessive amounts of BPA.
Natural Resources
Bloomberg: Drillers May Frack First, Disclose Later Under Draft Plan
The Washington-based Environmental Working Group said in February that some of the chemicals already disclosed by the companies are known to cause cancer or reproductive harm.
New York Times' Kristof Lays Out the Case Against Endocrine Disruptors
In recent years, the incidence of hypospadias, a congenital malformation of the penis, has doubled. Leading health experts blame this surge on a family of toxic chemicals called endocrine disruptors, which attack the hormone system.
Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for The New York Times, has written about the expanding evidence that hypospadias and other birth defects in people and wildlife that may be linked to the daily bombardment of endocrine disruptors in household goods, pesticides and other man-made products.
"Shouldn't our government be as vigilant about threats in our grocery stores as in the mountains of Afghanistan?" Kristof asks.
Yes, it should.
Reforming the process by which the Environmental Protection Agency reviews and approves chemicals for commercial use is an issue that generates passionate advocacy. All Americans are exposed to toxic chemicals every single day - even before we are born. And, as Kristof points out, some of these chemicals have the potential to severely undermine our children's health and their futures.
No wonder concerned customers have lost faith in products that aren't "green." It's virtually impossible to walk the aisles of a large retailer in search of diapers without seeing signs marketing products as "BPA-free" or "phthalate-free". The organic industry now hauls in more than $30 billion a year, largely because shoppers don't want to eat pesticides and other synthetic chemicals mixed into food and food packaging.
You don't have to spend much time online to realize that consumers are increasingly angry that cosmetics, blankets, toys, baby seats, sofas and all manner of everyday goods are impregnated with chemicals with unpronounceable names and dubious or non-existent safety records.
Most members of Congress have probably have heard of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act. But they might be as alarmed as most Americans when they find out more than 80,000 chemicals, including many endocrine disruptors, have been rushed onto the market with no assurances that they are safe for people.
No parent would knowingly choose a toy contaminated with lead. We're certain the same holds true for those parents - of both parties - who are members of Congress.
People are furious with a federal government they perceive to be too badly broken to serve the needs of average Americans. And they are furious with a chemical industry that floods the market with products that may not be safe. Thanks to the leadership of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Congress and the Obama administration have a real chance to address one source of this anger: regulation of toxic chemicals in consumer goods. Congress and the Obama administration should make sure the EPA gives top priority to endocrine disruptors in the nation's drinking water, because when the water supply is contaminated, everyone is exposed.
No matter which party is in power, the White House and Congress should come together on this very serious and pressing public health crisis. A glass of water should be free of carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. So should toys, toothbrushes, countertop cleaners, infant formula and store receipts. That's something we can all agree on.
Baby, Meet Frog; Frog, Meet Baby
Renowned researcher and professor Tyrone Hayes has been studying the effects of the common herbicide atrazine for more than a decade. His findings contributed to the European Union's decision to ban this toxic endocrine disrupter.
Much of his research has focused on how atrazine affects amphibians, especially their processes of metamorphosis and sex differentiation. Be warned - it's not pretty.
In December 2010, Professor Hayes, who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley, gave a talk with mother and filmmaker Penelope Jagessar Chaffer at the TEDWomen conference in Washington DC to discuss what babies (and adults) can learn from frogs. Jenn Savedge at Mother Nature News posted a video of their appearance on her blog post Friday (April 27).
Uncomfortable with a chemical that causes sex-changes in frogs to be allowed in our water and on our farms? Let Washington know. Legislation introduced by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) would ban the herbicide in the U.S. Rep. Ellison's bill - H.R.4318 - would specifically prohibit production, sale, use, importation or exportation of any pesticide containing atrazine.
Ryan Gosling and Dirty Cleaners
The "Hall of Shame" of the dirtiest cleaners from our upcoming EWG Cleaners Database was released Monday evening to our email list and selective media outlets. EWG supporter feedback was impressive - the two posts to our Facebook fans received over 450 "likes." The media took interest too, with Yahoo!, Time, and Good Magazine all running stories. What was one website's way to encourage its readers to use safer cleaning products? Urge them to utilize the help of a popular A-list celebrity.
Time: Is Spring Cleaning a Health Risk?
It's time for spring cleaning, but before you pull out the spray bottles and solvents, researchers at the Environmental Working Group (EWG) say you should double-check what you're using to sanitize.
Babble: Toxic Cleaners 'Hall of Shame' List Released
The Environmental Working Group has released a list of the most toxic household cleaners, some of which claim to be "green."
Examiner.com: Environmental Working Group reveals names
Ken Cook, President of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), has released a sneak preview of their EWG Cleaners Database 2012, to be released this fall.
Good: 'Hall of Shame' Calls Out the Terrifying Chemicals in Your Household Cleaners
EWG, which produces that handy Dirty Dozen list of foods to buy organic, is compiling information about the toxic chemicals in thousands of cleaners...
EmaxHealth: Check your home cleaning supplies: Even 'green' may be toxic
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is again helping consumers weed out toxins in the home.
My Health News Daily: Research Group Releases List of Unhealthy Household Cleaning Products
Household cleaners, including some labeled with claims such as "natural," contain chemicals that are hazardous to human health, according to a new report from the Environmental Working Group.
Toxics
Natural News: Independent research identifies cancer-causing chemicals in food packaging, fabric coatings
...the consumer advocacy organization Environmental Working Group (EWG) is calling for the government to take action and stop ignoring the problem.
My San Antonio: Tips from Living Green S.A.
Use kitty litters made from wheat or recycled newspaper over clay-based litters that come from strip mines, the Environmental Working Group says.
Salon: A new autism theory
Belli cites recent studies by the Environmental Working Group that discovered an average of 200 pollutants in the umbilical cord blood of infants.
ABC 15 Arizona: Could the 'Erin Brockovich' chemical be in your water?
"We're most concerned about chromium-6 and cancer," said Dr. Rebecca Sutton, a senior scientist at Environmental Working Group (EWG).
Patch: Reducing Your Children's Risk of Early Puberty
The Environmental Working Group reports that the plastic bottles used in liquid baby formula may leach excessive amounts of BPA.
Fox News: How to make ourselves, our families and our planet healthier on Earth Day
Babies are being born pre-polluted, meaning industrial chemicals have been found in umbilical cord blood - 200 on average, according to a 2009 report by the Environmental Working Group.
Cosmetics
BlissTree: What Is 'Clean Beauty,' Anyway?
In fact, the Environmental Working Group says that only about 89% of the 10,000-plus ingredients used in cosmetics have been tested for safety by the FDA
The Vancouver Sun: Defining the ingredients
... Skin Deep, a cosmetics safety data-base produced by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a United States environmental group that researches and advocates for better control of toxic chemicals and other concerns.
Examiner: Within Your Skin: 5 Toxic Ingredients Athletes Must Avoid
Women use more products and ingredients (12 products, 168 ingredients) than men (6 prods, 85 ingred.) and are more at risk to developmental toxins.
Gloucester Times: Senior Lookout: The bright and sunny sides of today's sunscreen
According to the Environmental Working Group's rating scale, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide pose less risk than oxybenzone, but oxybenzone is used in many more sunscreen products.
Huffington Post: Burt's Bees, Tom's Of Maine Owned By Fortune 500 Companies
Consumers interested in learning more about the ingredients in beauty products and how to determine whether they are safe can explore Environmental Working Group's database of cosmetics.
Natural Resources
Care2: EPA Steps in on Fracking
... according to the Environmental Working Group, fracking has been taking place in California for over 60 years in six state counties with further development and growth projected.
<< Previous
