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 TODAY
We need you to help 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.
Get EWG widgets & blog badges.
ENVIROBLOG TO YOU
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Conservatives for Conservation
'Wild' Salmon in Stores May Be Farmed
DeLay Targeted Asbestos Firms for Donations
NIH Cracks Down on Scientists' Conflicts of Interest
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Infant formula: How to choose it & use it
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
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.
Monthly Archive
CA City Protects Infants from Rocket Fuel Contamination
April 28, 2005
One California city is taking no chances on a toxic rocket fuel in itsdrinking water. Although neither the EPA nor the state has made a final
decision on safe levels of perchlorate, the Associated Press reports that
Rialto, a working-class Los Angeles suburb, is taking a zero-tolerance
stance and shutting down all wells that have tested positive for the
chemical.
Perchlorate may cause mental retardation, loss of hearing and speech,
abnormal testicular development, and deficits in motor skills by disrupting
the production of thyroid hormones in fetuses, infants, and children.
Recently, the EPA announced a preliminary reference dose for perchlorate in
drinking water – enforceable federal standards are years away – of 24.5
parts per billion. But California has adopted a public health goal of 6 ppb,
while Massachusetts' proposed standard is just 1 ppb. EWG, which has been
investigating perchlorate since 1999, says to fully protect fetuses and
kids, the standard should be no higher than 0.1 ppb. (View EWG Report on Perchlorate)
City officials in Rialto followed the precautionary principle by shutting
down wells even when perchlorate levels did not exceed the EPA's preliminary
RfD or the California public health goal. Other cities and towns in the 36
states with rocket fuel in their water should look to Rialto as a model for
how municipalities can protect their citizens even in the absence of state
or federal regulations.
Critic of “Bottom Feeders” Got $1 Million in Farm Subsidies
April 27, 2005
An Iowa state senator who called public workers requesting better retirement benefits “bottom feeders with their hand out” has been caught with his own hand in the cookie jar. Sen. Mark Zieman was forced to admit that he and his wife have received over $1 million in federal farm subsidies since 1993.According to the Associated Press, an Iowa citizen angered by Zeiman’slur against retirees looked in EWG’s Farm Subsidies Database and found proof of the senator’s hypocrisy. The database, which is free to the public, contains the name of every U.S. farm subsidy recipient from 1995 to 2003, how much they got, and what they got it for. Zeiman, questioned about his farm’s dependence on federal handouts, said he personally opposes farm subsidies but will take them until the program changes because he “knows how to work the system.”
For Zieman and other big recipients of crop subsidies, the current system uses taxpayers’ money to help agribusiness drive small family farmers off their land. EWG analysis of the farm subsidy program found two-thirds of farmers and most ranchers aren’t even eligible for the programs.
Recently, the Bush Administration proposed capping taxpayer money that can go to any given agribusiness at $250,000 and end the lucrative loopholes that allow some producers almost unlimited money. By capping subsidies, more money could be invested in the proven conservation programs for which all farmers and ranchers are eligible. But the Administration recently signalled that, after facing a firestorm of outrage from agribusiness interests and their Congressional allies, it was backing down on the proposal.
Search EWG’s Farm Subsidy Database
Bush Admits Energy Bill Won’t Lower Gas Prices
April 26, 2005
Despite his continuing demands that Congress send him an energy bill by the summer, President Bush has finally admitted it would take magic to make his drill-happy legislation ease gas prices. “I wish I could simply wave a magic wand and lower gas prices tomorrow,” Bush said in a speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, The New York Times reports. But the bill “wouldn’t change the price at the pump today,” he said.
While lamenting his inability to help average citizens, even with a Congress controlled by his own party, Bush clearly still expects Americans to pay for benefits and incentives to oil companies. The magic wand defense is his only explanation for supporting legislation that provides an estimated $22 billion in tax breaks, incentives and potential federal aid to the oil industry—and may hike gas prices up another 3 cents a gallon for taxpayers.
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-NY, bucked the party line, calling it “a tragedy and a farce” that the House bill wouldn’t reduce oil consumption by a single barrel by 2020. Indeed, Republicans touted the energy bill as improving conservation and alternative energy sources, and then defeated a provision on new gas mileage standards and a ban on drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.
Energy Bill Debate Highlights Phantom Restrictions on Domestic Oil and Gas Exploration
April 14, 2005
During debate over the energy bill in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Tuesday, Representatives Hall, Green, Murphy, Rogers, Pickering, and Committee Chair Barton, among others, voiced their opposition to any restrictions on future oil and gas exploration within the United States. The committee majority shot down a number of minority amendments, including an amendment by Rep. Stupak of Michigan to prohibit directional, slant, or offshore oil and gas drilling on the Great Lakes. Although Rep. Rogers of Michigan opposed the amendment because he felt the states had already dealt with the issue, others criticized Rep. Stupak’s attempt to prevent drilling in the first place. “I don’t think we should be closing off areas to production,” stated Rep. Pickering of Mississippi. Rep. Pickering added that oil and gas companies need more access to public lands, not less, in order to increase the energy supply of the United States.According to a recent report by the Environmental Working Group, Rep. Pickering is dead wrong in his assessment of extractive industry access to public lands. This report claims that oil, gas, and mining interests have been gaining access for the past fifty years. Furthermore, when past and current exploration leases are combined, the extractive industry has controlled or currently controls land that is within five miles of 95% of all national parks, wilderness areas, national forests, and other national treasures.
If oil and gas companies already have access, why aren’t energy prices going down? The EWG report shows that the amount of fossil fuels that are economically recoverable from these natural areas is so small that it has had no significant effect on domestic oil and gas prices. Thousands of land leases remain untouched because the prices of oil and gas are not high enough to justify the cost of exploration, from an industry perspective. We can either wait for the extractive industry to destroy our national treasures as energy prices go through the roof, or we can reduce energy consumption and invest in renewable energy sources while simultaneously protecting our most cherished American wildlands.
Conservatives for Conservation
April 14, 2005
Defense and intelligence officials under former presidents Reagan and Bush are joining environmentalists in urging the White House to produce an energy bill that focuses on decreasing American oil consumption, saying the U.S.‘ oil addiction is a growing threat to national security. Former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, former CIA director James Woolsey, and former Pentagon official Frank Gaffney were among prominent conservatives who signed a letter calling for higher fuel efficiency standards on cars and a focus on hybrid vehicles and other alternative energy sources, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
The U.S. imports 60 percent of its oil, mostly from the Middle East, and that number is expected to keep rising. Demand from India and China is also quickly expanding, contributing to price increases. Fierce competition for what is ultimately a finite supply of oil may lead to international conflict.
The current Bush Administration proposes to solve this problem not by decreasing America’s dependence on oil, as these ex-officials wisely suggest, but by decreasing America’s dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, that distinction doesn’t really exist.
That’s because prices in the oil market are effectively set by the Organization of the Petroleum-Exporting Countries (OPEC), an 11-country cartel controlling most of the world’s oil. Because cartels don’t operate on the open competitive market, their products don’t abide by the normal laws of supply and demand—so if America pumps more oil, Saudi Arabia or Iran or Kuwait or any of the other cartel members just pump less. Prices don’t drop, because OPEC limits the number of barrels produced per day.
A good example of this gas-price phenomenon is Britain. Thanks to its coastal reserves, Britain pumps about twice the oil its citizens need, and exports the rest. If oil prices operated the way President Bush and company maintain, a surplus of oil at home would mean that Britain could lower its domestic prices. But the Brits are feeling the same squeeze we are—according to the BBC, petrol prices hit a record high last week.
Those who throw around the “dependence on foreign oil” argument know this. They advocate more drilling, but they know that more oil, whether from ANWR or the Mountain West, doesn’t protect Americans from international energy crises any more than it lowers gas prices.
Environmental Working Group’s new investigation, "Losing Ground," shows that contrary to administration and industry claims, access to public lands in the West is already widespread. The mining and oil and gas industries actively control land in two-thirds of 1,855 of our nation’s parks, wildlife refuges, forests and other natural treasures. And despite that access, in the past 15 years the oil and gas industries have produced just 53 days of oil and 221 days of natural gas (at current consumption rates) from 12 Western states.
As Congress prepares to review its long-stalled energy bill, Americans have two choices. We can continue sticking our heads in the sand, ignoring the dangerous consequences of an energy policy centered on more oil. Or we can focus on policies that help us use less oil, reducing national security risks and lowering fuel costs for Americans while preserving our natural treasures for future generations. If we use less, we get more.
'Wild' Salmon in Stores May Be Farmed
April 13, 2005
Fresh wild salmon is gaining popularity over its farmed cousins for its leaner, tastier, less chemically-laden qualities, but recent studies from the New York Times reveal that even if stores say it’s wild, safety-conscious consumers may be paying top dollar for exactly the fish they’re trying to avoid. The Times had “fresh wild salmon” from eight New York City stores tested in March and found that six of the samples were farm-raised. The “wild” salmon went for as much as $29 a pound, while farmed salmon sells for between $5 and $12 a pound in the city.
The tests were brought on by suspicions that so much wild salmon could be caught and sold in the November to March off-season. Strict quotas on endangered wild salmon populations mean that 90 percent of the salmon sold in America is farmed, but last month, 23 of 25 stores the Times called reported that they had wild salmon available.
Federal regulations requiring country-of-origin labeling took effect April 3.
Farmed salmon are fed artificial coloring to give them the pink hue that wild salmon get from eating smaller seafood like krill, and while the sophisticated palates of NYC chefs could taste the difference between the farmed and wild varieties, they were visually indistinguishable, making it impossible for the even savviest shoppers to choose their poison in-store.
And that’s exactly what they may be doing. Farmed salmon have been shown to have 16 times the levels of toxic PCBs found in wild salmon, largely because the chemicals accumulate in fatty tissue. PCBs are persistent, cancer-causing toxins that were banned in 1976 but continue contaminating food supplies and the environment.
View EWG’s investigation on PCBs in farmed salmon.
DeLay Targeted Asbestos Firms for Donations
April 12, 2005
According to The Associated Press, documents show that fundraisers for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) routinely identified legislative actions that would interest possible donors. Recently uncovered documents show that fundraisers even went so far as to scout out “large companies with asbestos problems” that might be interested in tort reform in Texas. These documents have become public through a civil lawsuit and by the House ethics committee.
Federal law prohibits officials from directly connecting their actions to their donors.
This is not the first time large corporations have successfully influenced DeLay. For the past two years, DeLay has pushed his colleagues to shield Big Oil from MTBE liability, claiming these corporate polluters should not be liable for this toxic chemical getting into drinking water because they were forced to add MTBE to gasoline. In fact, even though Big Oil always knew MTBE was toxic and would leak into drinking water, they aggressively lobbied for it to be adopted as a gasoline additive, as they could then profit over what is essentially a waste product.
Tom DeLay continues to unethically support large polluting industries instead of his constituents. His hypocrisy knows no bounds, as he has also taken part in a personal injury lawsuit – the very type of lawsuit he is now working to restrict.
NIH Cracks Down on Scientists' Conflicts of Interest
April 6, 2005
As of March 7, 2005, National Institute of Health (NIH) employees are no longer allowed to accept consulting fees and stock options from pharmaceutical companies. A group of scientists have formed an association, the Assembly of Scientists, to roll back this commonsensical conflict of interest rule. (L.A. Times March 3, 2005 Home Edition).In 1995, NIH director Harold E. Varmus made it easier for NIH employees to profit from ties to private industry by rescinding a rule barring scientists from accepting consulting fees and stock options from private companies. According the Assembly of Scientists, approximately 40% of NIH employees will suffer financial consequences from the recent ban on these “perks” of the job. Estimated in the tens of millions, the total sum paid by private companies to NIH scientists remains unknown because NIH policy encouraged scientists not to disclose outside sources of income (L.A. Times December 7, 2003 Home Edition).
In response to recent criticism in a 2004 GAO report, NIH for the first time created an official protocol for identifying and avoiding conflict of interest in its medical research. Still, the NIH relies on an “honor system” to prevent its scientists from engaging in research that may pose a conflict of interest. According to new rules published in January 2005, “the peer review system relies on the professionalism of each reviewer to identify to the SRA [Scientific Review Administrator] any real or apparent conflicts of interest that are likely to bias the reviewer’s evaluation of an application proposal.”
The NIH is not the only government agency trying to combat rampant conflict-of-interest problems. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee recently criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for trying to test pesticides’ health effects on poor children by paying their parent $900 each. Pesticide manufacturers partially funded the study, donating $2 million to the EPA in exchange for what they refer to on their website as “leverage.”
Without strict rules prohibiting collusion between government-funded science and private industry, the public now must sift through government-sponsored studies and examine who provided the money for the supposedly “unbiased” research. Shouldn’t the public have the right to government research that’s free from the effects of industry influence peddling?
California Affirms Low Limit of Rocket Fuel in Water Supplies
April 5, 2005
California will keep its recommendation for the legal limit of the toxic rocket fuel chemical perchlorate in drinking water at 6 parts per billion (ppb), despite EPA levels set over four times higher, the Riverside Press-Enterprise reports. California’s level takes into account rocket fuel exposure from multiple sources, including milk, lettuce and other foods. It was adjusted to protect the most sensitive populations, including pregnant mothers, infants and children. California’s goal is not currently mandatory, but the state’s Department of Health Services is expected to set a legal maximum contamination level in the next few months. Canada and Massachusetts have also chosen stricter guidelines for rocket fuel contamination, which seeps into water and food primarily from spills and leaks at defense contractors’ and other industries’ factories.
EPA ratcheted its limit up to 24.5 ppb – more than 20 times higher than the preliminary safe level of 1 ppb it set in 2002 – based on January findings from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that its panel members said were widely misinterpreted. The NAS panel set a reference dose, or a safe amount per unit of body weight, which measures the safe level from all exposure sources. That’s not the same as a drinking water standard, which has to be stricter because a person can be exposed to perchlorate through other sources, such as food.
And because drinking water isn’t the only source of exposure to rocket fuel, setting the drinking water standard at the reference dose will lead to higher levels of the chemical in humans than NAS found to be safe.
Fetuses, infants and children are particularly at risk from rocket fuel contamination not just because of their lower body weights, but also from breastfeeding. A Texas Tech study released in February found rocket fuel in every sample of breast milk taken from 36 women across the country. The chemical, which has also been found in cow’s milk and lettuce, inhibits the thyroid gland’s ability to regulate hormones that govern brain and nervous system development.
View EWG’s most recent updates on rocket fuel contamination in milk and water.
EPA Suppresses Inconvenient Study in Critical Mercury Decision
April 1, 2005
In the wake of weak mercury pollution standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency last week, The Washington Post reported that the EPA failed to include findings from their own study showing stricter protections on mercury emissions benefit human health.Last week, the Bush Administration and the EPA announced federal weak limits on mercury pollution from dirty coal-burning power plants. The proposal would permit industries to trade pollution allowances instead of following stricter pollution standards. The cost to American industry to reduce mercury emissions, the EPA claimed, would far exceed the human health cost of mercury emissions.
However, the Harvard University study, which was commissioned by the EPA and peer-reviewed by EPA scientists, found the human health benefits of the mercury standards to be 100 times greater than those reported last week. Controlled emissions, similar to those proposed last week, would cut nerve and heart damage while saving the US $5 billion per year. Last week, the EPA announced the human health cost would only total $50 million per year, while the cost to industry would exceed $750 million per year.
The EPA suppressed numbers from their own study to justify weak emissions standards and once again put industry interests over pubic health. The study’s findings only enforce EWG’s work to reduce mercury emissions from power plants. EWG investigations have documented high levels of mercury pollution in seafood, especially in tuna and swordfish. Pregnant mothers consuming high levels of mercury can harm brain development and reduce IQ in infants and young children in utero.
EWG is using legal channels to appeal another Bush decision on mercury that puts public health at risk: the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) refusal to change its consumer advisory on seafood for pregnant women. The advisory recommends amounts of mercury-tainted seafood that would be unsafe for women to eat. According to EWG's analysis of FDA data, if women follow FDA's advice on "safe" levels of consumption of mercury-contaminated seafood like white (albacore) tuna, 74 percent of American women will go over the safe level for mercury in their blood.
Already 630,000 babies are born in the U.S. each year with unsafe levels of mercury in their blood. Besides being bad public health policy, that’s simply wrong. View EWG’s work on Mercury and Seafood.