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
Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper
School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!
Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars
Why do blowouts take so long to fix?
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
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.
« New Study Finds Chemical Cocktail in Household Dust | Main | California Affirms Low Limit of Rocket Fuel in Water Supplies »
EPA Suppresses Inconvenient Study in Critical Mercury Decision
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.
Leave a comment