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. Enviroblog is a project of EWG Action Fund. (More. . .)
FEED
An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.
TIPS
Did we miss something? Email Amanda.
BLOGROLL
STAY CONNECTED
Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]
Bush's energy concerns fuel international interest and skepticism
The upside of higher gas prices
FEATURED
BPA in your body: How to minimize your exposure
Caution: These 7 household items may feminize baby boys
BPA in infant formula: This is not a call to panic
7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs
Ask EWG
Is there eco-friendly jewelry?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
SEARCH
Archive
January 31, 2007
Pollan says 'food' over 'nutrients'
In New York Times Magazine, Michael Pollan lays his framework for why Americans are so confused about proper nutrition and what to eat. Pollan argues that confusion about food is job security for the food industry, nutritional science, and journalists. He cites some interesting examples of industry influence over nutrition information, taking us back to 1977 when the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition was bullied by the meat and dairy industries to change the wording of their new dietary guidelines from “eat less red meat and dairy products” to “choose meat, poultry, and fish that will reduced saturated-fat intake.”
It’s a good read so you should check it out for yourself if you have time. If you don’t, Pollan’s recommendations, in brief, are: Eat meat like a side dish rather than as a main course. Eat whole foods, not processed, and stay away from food with health claims on the packaging, as they are a good indication that what you are about to eat is not food. What is "food?" Something that your great-great grandmother would recognize.
Pollan touches on the social and environmental implications of organic agriculture as well, and I particularly like this sentence, which provides a thoughtful counterpoint to the often-heard sentiment that organic foods are elitist because they are not affordable for everyone:
And those of us who can afford to eat well should. Paying more for food well grown in good soils — whether certified organic or not — will contribute not only to your health (by reducing exposure to pesticides) but also to the health of others who might not themselves be able to afford that sort of food: the people who grow it and the people who live downstream, and downwind, of the farms where it is grown.
January 29, 2007
Nanohazard symbol competition
From The Washington Post :
While many scientists believe that most nanomaterials will ultimately prove to be benign, ETC Group -- which has called for a moratorium on the marketing of nanoproducts until more safety studies are done -- believes in erring on the side of caution. That led to the realization that there is not yet a widely recognized way to warn people of the little risks around them. Other toxic hazards have signs and symbols that everyone has come to know (think: The Nuclear Hazard sign, the Biohazard sign, the generalized Toxic Hazard sign with its skull and crossbones). But how to symbolize, in a way that everyone can understand, the potentially dangerous presence of something inconceivably small? "We decided to launch a competition, to get a good design and to raise public awareness," said Hope Shand, ETC's research director. "We thought we might receive a dozen entries or something."Thanks to Matthew at Framing Science for passing this along.
Getting married soon? Consider greening your wedding.
Planning a large event like a wedding is a unique opportunity to make decisions can dramatically reduce your toll on the environment. Joe Carrick and Jessica Randall, newlyweds featured in today’s Independent, greened their big day with conflict-free rings, carbon offsets for all their guests’ travel arrangements, low air-mile flowers and food, and envelope-free recycled invitations. The couple also requested donations to Oxfam in lieu of gifts.
January 26, 2007
What we are up against
Here's a choice excerpt from yesterday's Washington Post:
"No you will not teach or show that propagandist Al Gore video to my child, blaming our nation -- the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet -- for global warming," Hardison wrote in an e-mail to the Federal Way School Board. The 43-year-old computer consultant is an evangelical Christian who says he believes that a warming planet is "one of the signs" of Jesus Christ's imminent return for Judgment Day.Gore Film Sparks Parents' Anger. Washington Post (25 Jan 07)His angry e-mail (along with complaints from a few other parents) stopped the film from being shown to Hardison's daughter.
January 25, 2007
Bush's energy concerns fuel international interest and skepticism
The world watched in awe and excitement as President Bush outlined his new concepts of global warming and strategies to battle it during his State of the Union address Tuesday night. While the responses varied from optimistic to skeptical, the resounding conclusion was “finally!”
“The fact that the American president acknowledges climate change as a problem is definitely a positive sign,” Karsten Voigt, the German government’s coordinator of transatlantic relations told Spiegel Online.
This observation was universal, ranging from Tony Blair’s expected statement of support, stating that Bush’s speech will lead the debate on global warming in a new direction, to the Australian Conservations Foundation’s rebuff of Bush’s global warming recognition, pointing out his “profoundly weak” proposals, as according to the Washington Post.
President Bush called for the reduction of the national’s gasoline consumption by 20% over 10 years, relying heavily on ethanol and creating stricter mileage standards for cars and light trucks. The next day, he ordered the federal government to begin replacing the federal transportation with hybrid-powered vehicle to reduce governmental impact.
This approach, however, has international governments and environmental groups pointing out the many problems with such a plan. Not only did the President neglect to comment on binding caps for greenhouse-gas emissions, but he is also endorsing a fuel that “can have either a negligible or a very substantial effect on greenhouse gas emissions” according to California Air Resources Board Chairman Robert Sawyer.
Premier Jean Charest, Quebec’s head of government, spoke up on Wednesday at an international economic forum in Switzerland saying “I believe that in regards to climate change, the American people have shown they are more concerned about the issue than their federal government.”
Truer words were never spoken. With luck, the American government will heed our concerns and create some much needed change.
The upside of higher gas prices
Two years of record-high gasoline prices have forced auto-crazed Americans to do something they haven't done in more than two decades: Drive less.
To avoid getting robbed at the gas pumps, stay away from them!
U.S. motorists cutting back a bit by Elizabeth Douglass. LA Times (25 Jan 07)
More reactions to Bush's ethanol plan
Today North Jersey's The Record highlights some salient observations illuminating the reality behind Bush's ethanol proposal.
Eric DeGesero, executive VP of the New Jersey Fuel Merchants Association, wants to remind us that putting more corn into fuel production could raise the cost of America’s corn-intensive diet (though something tells me Mr. DeGesero should visit a nutritionist).
"You'll pay more for Twinkies or Coca-Cola or Frosted Flakes, which are sweetened with corn syrup, because of the demand ethanol will put on the price for a bushel of corn."
Bush "20 in 10" plan calls for a 20 percent reduction in the amount of gasoline consumed in the country within 10 years.
But, the fine print called for reducing the "projected" amount of gasoline to be used in a decade, not the amount that's currently being used.
Which would explain why:
Environmental groups argued that Bush's proposal was too weak when it came to requiring automakers to increase fuel-efficiency standards, and the alternative fuels proposal might sound popular but was environmentally questionable, if not unfeasible.And why the Sierra Club takes this position on ethanol:
"The Sierra Club opposes ethanol because it takes more energy to create than you get from it," said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey chapter of the national environmental advocacy group. "It's really a subsidy for agri-business."Not to mention that:
Ethanol also provides less mileage than gasoline, requiring more fuel to be purchased.
New Jersey's not buying Bush plans for ethanol, Herb Jackson. The Record (25 Jan 07)
January 24, 2007
Bush's 'biofuel boosterism' boondoggle?
In the State of the Union address, in addition to tougher mileage standards, President Bush called for increased reliance on renewable fuels, namely ethanol. The corn-based fuel additive, which has gained notoriety as of late, is far from a panacea for the environment or oil independence. Bloomberg’s Jack Kaskey writes of the high fertilizer diet corn requires (30 times that of soy) and the likelihood that this year will see the greatest increase in farmland used to grow corn since 1949 – an increase that doesn't bode well for the Gulf of Mexico.
Forbes' Jonathan Fahey warns that the “corn rush” creating ethanol distilleries all over the U.S. may boost supply well above demand, raising corn prices, lowering ethanol prices, and sending investors into the red. On top of that, energy analysts quoted in the New York Times warn that “corn-based ethanol, which accounts for virtually all of today’s production, will not be able to produce more than about half as much alternative fuel as Mr. Bush envisions by 2017.”
On Mulchblog.com, EWG President Ken Cook notes that Bush's "surge" of "unrestrained biofuel boosterism" is far more ambitious than his calls for increasing fuel economy standards for cars and trucks.
EWG supports the development of the biofuels industry. But we do not support its expansion at all cost--to water pollution, wildlife, trade, food prices here and abroad--and with no thought given to these impacts, much less to mitigating them.
Bush's omissions not omitted by Washington Post
The Washington Post will not let President Bush off the hook for his omissions in last nights State of the Union address:
... what was most significant -- and disappointing -- was what Mr. Bush left off his agenda. Once again, he did not offer a sustained and broad-scale effort to address climate change, instead choosing to treat progress on the issue as just a fortuitous byproduct of his effort to cut gasoline consumption.
Tests reveal high lead levels in multivitamins
A new report by ConsumerLab.com finds only 10 of 21 products tested meet the claims on their labels. Several of the multivitamin products tested contained high levels of lead, including one women’s multivitamin that contained 15.3 micrograms of lead per daily dose--more than 10 times the amount of lead allowed without a warning label in the state of California.
via Scientific American / Reuters Health
January 23, 2007
Grist spotlights farm bill debate
Like a barnyard sow basking in attention at a county fair, the farm bill -- that monstrously complex five-year plan for federal agriculture policy -- has suddenly gained a high profile.Tom Philpott gives some reasons for the farm bill's increased profile as well as a basic overview of how the current farm policy is antithetical to the model of supply and demand.
Paying the Farm Bill; Why federal farm support deserves a fresh look. Grist. (23 Jan 07)
January 22, 2007
With 2007 comes a cleaner House
The House has taken a strong step toward cleaner energy by passing the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act. The CLEAN Act will shift nearly $14 billion in tax breaks for oil and natural gas companies to renewable fuels and energy efficiency programs. This quick action promises a Congress with an ambition to confront climate change and renewable energy issues with zeal. Hopefully, this momentum will continue as the bill advances to the Senate for vote.
'Firefighter' blows smokescreen at fire retardant legislation
According to Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a man claiming to represent the Fallen Firefighters Foundation gave testimony against a PBDE bill. It was revealed that he worked for Ameribrom, a PBDE manufacturer. Shameless!
Twist in effort to ban fire retardant. Chris McGann, Seattle PI (12 Jan 07)
Flame retardants ingested through household dust
New research confirms that people can take up brominated flame retardants (PBDEs) from the dust in their homes.
via Environmental Science & Technology.
January 19, 2007
Rock group looks after their mother
If you’re a major rock band playing 30 shows in four months, your carbon footprint can get pretty big. Barenaked Ladies knows this and has taken big steps to lessen their footprint.
Through collaboration with Reverb, an organization dedicated to greening musicians’ tours, BNL has been:
- operating its tour buses and trucks on biodiesel
- inviting local and national enviro groups to each show so that fans can learn about issues in their area and get engaged.
- recycling and using compostable materials backstage
- purchasing wind offsets from Native Energy to help neutralize the carbon emissions for the power consumed at each show. Also available at shows are are bumber stickers—the proceeds of which go to offsetting fans’ travel to and from the show.
In the news: January 19, 2007
Are Wal-Mart's 'organics' organic?- A year after Wal-Mart laid out ambitious plans to become a much bigger player in the organic foods business, the giant retailer is running into trouble over its organic effort with consumer activists and government regulators.
How cellphones are getting greener- Cellphones that contain toxic chemicals are still being sold in Latin America and other developing regions. But thanks to strict European regulations, there are progressively fewer phones being made with cadmium, lead and other dangerous materials.
Ex-workers ask HLL to accept liability for mercury deaths- The death of a man who had worked for a Hindustan Lever thermometer factory for 18 years brought hundreds of ex-employees, who had also been exposed, to the streets. The factory has been ordered shut and 300 tonnes of mercury waste sent back to US.
Global warming emerges as 2008 election issue-Presidential candidates for 2008 mostly agree that global warming is a problem that merits government action, a signal that debate on the issue will be more practical than conceptual.
American weather forecasters do battle over mankind's role in global warming- A leading climatologist on the Weather Channel in the United States has caused a squall in the industry by arguing that any weather forecaster who dares publicly to question the notion that global warming is a manmade phenomenon should be stripped of their professional certification.
Study on Nicotine Levels Stirs Calls for New Controls- A Harvard study concluding that cigarette makers have for years deliberately increased nicotine levels in cigarettes to make them more addictive led to renewed calls Thursday for greater federal oversight of the industry.
January 18, 2007
Society seeks support for "peculiar" animals
The Zoological Society of London highlighted 100 species – ranging from the spiny long beaked echidna to the potentially already extinct Yangtze river dolphins – for their new program EDGE: Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered. Although these species, selected because of the “peculiarity of their genetic backgrounds and the degree of danger they face,” represent animals found nowhere else on the planet, two-thirds are receiving little to no conservation effort.
Not only does Jonathan Baillie, a ZSL scientist, believe that EDGE will gain a larger international support for these rapidly decreasing mammals, but he also projects that a younger crowd will give increased support. "The younger generation is more interested in the weird and wonderful," he said to the Associated Press.
Whatever generation you’re from, check out the list of peculiar animals and show your support.
Wall Street Journal story of the day:
Organic Foods
From Buz Livingston at Motley Fool:
Yesterday's most popular article on The Wall Street Journal's online edition (www.wsj.com) was not Intel's (Nasdaq: INTC) 39% drop in earnings, nor was it homebuilder Lennar's (NYSE: LEN) continuing woes as it copes with the soft real estate market. You would think that the Dow notching another record close would be the top story, but surprisingly, that honor goes to a column on the increasing popularity of organic foods.(Subscription needed to read complete articles.)
As Americans become more health conscious, organic food purveyors -- once the denizen of the counterculture -- are becoming more mainstream. The Journal mentioned how Dean Foods (NYSE: DF) and Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) are part of the burgeoning organic food industry, which is currently posting 20% annual growth on top of annual sales of more than $14 billion. How could they forget the big boy on the block, Whole Foods (Nasdaq: WFMI)? It's estimated that 70% of Americans buy some organic products mainly for perceived health benefits and to avoid pesticide residue.To be labeled "organic," crops have to be grown without chemical pesticides and can not be genetically engineered. Meat, poultry, and milk must come from animals fed organic diets. Antibiotics and growth hormones are also not allowed.
However, according to industry watchdog Environmental Working Group, many foods already have low levels of pesticide residue -- some examples are broccoli, asparagus, avocados, and onions. Conversely, apples, peaches, strawberries, bell peppers, spinach, lettuce, and carrots have higher levels of pesticide residue. It is important to note that even these levels are well within government guidelines.
Paying extra for organic foods is probably worth it if you eat a lot of produce that has higher levels of pesticides. There have been few studies that examine the effects of low levels of various pesticide residues. Meat and dairy products produced without antibiotics or growth hormones may also be worth the extra costs. You can find milk that is not organic but still from dairies where they eschew growth hormones, plus it is often cheaper than "organic" milk. Dean Foods, in fact, produces both types of dairy products.
On the other hand, foods you don't consume often or ones where the peel is tossed (think bananas or oranges) are probably not worth the extra cost. That's because the incremental health benefits are not necessarily worth the incremental costs.
Sticking with the heath-conscious theme, the article warned to carefully examine the contents of processed foods labeled organic because they may be as unhealthy as their conventional counterparts due to higher fat concentrations and less stringent requirements for the percentage of organic ingredients.
So what's my bottom line? If you are really serious about organic food, grow your own. It takes a little work, but there's a lot more reward.
For more on the organic food business, check out:
* Panic in Organics?
* Dean's Organic Dilemma
Intel and Wal-Mart are Motley Fool Inside Value recommendations. Whole Foods is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor selection.Fool contributor Buz Livingston, CFP, appreciates your feedback and is proud of his degree in agriculture from the University of Georgia.
January 17, 2007
Offset project leads to violence in Uganda
A report by the World Rainforest Movement details the violence villagers in eastern Uganda are subjected to just for trying to access their own land which is “protected” by armed park rangers guarding a carbon offset project for a Dutch company. Villagers have been beaten and shot at “in defense of” FACE Foundation’s project, the credits of which are sold to Amnesty International, the Body Shop, and others.
As Grist’s Julia Olmstead points out, this is another example of the questionable efficacy of offset projects and the misconception that we can neutralize our carbon emissions by throwing money at a third-party business.
I mean really, whether it's carbon offsets, biofuels, coal-to-liquid, whatever, how long will we continue to think that we can buy our way out of this mess? The cost of our refusal to make actual changes to our lifestyles is beyond our imagining.
January 12, 2007
AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH to be adapted for young adults
Publishers Penguin and Rodale have announced today a joint effort to publish an adaptation of Al Gore’s book AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH: THE CRISIS OF GLOBAL WARMING for young readers.
Penguin Young Readers Group President had this to offer on the impetus for the project:
As I sat in a theater watching Vice President Gore deliver his message on film, it struck me that if we are to make an impact on the problem of global warming in the near future, we must find a way to bring the message to a younger audience; to the generation that has the opportunity to effect real change. These books are our attempt to do just that.Al Gore will be donating all of his profits from the young adult book to fight global warming.
Today's global warming editorials:
Al Gore documentary gets air time at Assembly, Kristen Wyatt (Baltimore Sun)
Begin global warming fight at home, Pat Murphy (Idaho Mountain Express)
U.S. is still in denial over global warming, Joel Connely (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
January 11, 2007
Does carbon offsetting work?
When Tony Blair says that he will be 'offsetting' his family's recent Florida trip, he is referring to a system in which an individual pays a [usually for-profit] company to zero out all or part of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of a party, by reducing the emissions—or increasing the CO2 absorption—of another party. While some applaud the offsetting industry others see it as creating the false impression that some can buy their way out of a carbon footprint. Today, the The Independent (UK) explores wether carbon offsetting really helps in the fight against climate change. The article is worth a read, especially if you're unfamiliar with offsetting. Here are The Independent's conclusions in brief:
Yes...* The offsetting industry is funding diverse projects in the developing world that make real reductions in greenhouse gases
* Offsetting is a "gateway" to encourage consumers to take fewer or shorter flights, and raising their awareness of carbon emissions
* The aviation and travel industries are increasingly ready to offer offsets to passengers and engage in the climate change debate
No...
* Offsetting does not cut total CO2 emissions and is a distraction from deciding how to reduce CO2 at the inter-governmental level
* Forestry projects do not offer guaranteed carbon sequestration as trees eventually die and release their carbon as they decay
* Offsetting leads air travellers to forget their flights are still emitting CO2, rather than considering not flying at all
January 10, 2007
Plant a tree for your new PC
Dell has a new program to plant a tree for each computer it sells, saying it could offset CO2 emissions from the machines. I’m not sure who did the math on that, but the program is commendable nonetheless. More impressive is Dell’s free recycling of all computers, monitors, printers, and other gadgets without requiring the purchase of a newer model.
Apple lags on this account, only recycling machines that are replaced with a new Mac. Its poor environmental policies have given rise to a Greenpeace campaign to pressure the company to reduce their use of PVC and brominated fire retardants and step up their recycling efforts.
Dell’s tree planting program is unveiled on the heels of this year’s MacWorld expo, which has Macheads oogling over the new iPhone. The iPhone may be able to surf the web with the ease of a desktop computer, but can I recharge it while riding my bike to work like this new Motorola gadget?
And, as encouragement to you out there fighting the good fight and keeping companies on their toes, here's Michael Dell on the inspiration for his company's policies: “I am personally interested in the environment, but I have to give credit to our customers who have encouraged us in this direction.”
New York Times: Dell Says Plant a Tree, Help the Environment (10 Jan 2007)
Inconvenient Truth 2 with Cameron Diaz?
Al Gore’s Nashville-based Climate Project expects to train well over 1,000 volunteers to be effective messengers of climate change science through slideshow presentations. Al's use of the slideshow turned into a film you may have heard about. According to Gannett, a recent training included teachers, doctors, a meteorologist, ministers, Wal-Mart employees, architects, retirees, veterans, financiers and actress Cameron Diaz.
January 9, 2007
Study: Hybrid cars save money in long run
An Intellichoice.com study finds that hybrid cars, whose fuel efficiency alone may not justify their higher initial purchase price, are in fact more economical in the long run. When you factor in financing, fuel, insurance, state taxes and license fees, repairs, maintenance and depreciation, over five years a Prius will cost $13,408 less than a similar-size non-hybrid sedan.
Hybrids retain their value better than conventional cars, have moderate maintenance and repair costs and, of course, there are those lower fuel costs. Hybrids also benefit from federal tax credits, which this year can range from $250 to $1,950.
Straight to the source:
Hybrid autos save money in long run, study finds (LA Times)
Additional links:
HybridCARS.com
January 8, 2007
UPDATE: EPA to deny 'Brokovitch' carcinogen for residential use
After pressure from EWG and an ABC News story, EPA has announced it will “deny all applications for registration of acid copper chromate, known as ACC, as a wood preservative pesticide intended for residential use.”
Previously:
EPA may allow 'Brockovich' carcinogen in wood preservative. (4 Jan 07)
Update 1/9/07: Washington Post covers EPA decision
DEBATE: The future of U.S. chemical regulation
In Chemical & Engineering News’ Point/Counterpoint an American Chemistry Council (ACC) representative and a University of Massachusetts professor debate the adequacy of current chemical regulation in the U.S. One of the most shocking facts in the article comes right in the introduction:
The Environmental Protection Agency oversees commercial chemicals through a statute signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). That law has remained substantially unchanged for 30 years.
January 5, 2007
UPDATE: Combating Autism Act of 2006
Just before Christmas, President Bush signed the Combating Autism Act of 2006. On December 21st, a largely supported act that will give more money to research and education on autism was enacted. The bill authorizes nearly $1 billion for research and education on autism over the next five years, a more than 50% increase.
The bill was sponsored by Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT).
Learn more about autism and its triggers here.
UPDATE: Learn about why this bill is revolutionary with Dan Olmstead's recent article.
January 4, 2007
EPA may allow 'Brockovich' carcinogen in wood preservative
On January 19, EPA will decide whether to allow unrestricted use of a potent human carcinogen in lumber sold at hardware and home improvement stores. Hexavalent chromium–the "Erin Brockovich" chemical–is a key ingredient in a wood preservative the chemical industry is lobbying hard to keep on the market, before release of a major cancer study on the chemical expected later this year. Twenty years ago the EPA made the wrong decision with arsenic-treated lumber, allowing the compound to stay on the market, exposing an entire generation of children to unsafe levels of cancer causing arsenic. Today, millions of schools, parks, and backyards have decks, picnic tables, and play structures made with this carcinogen-laden wood. Environmental Working Group urges EPA not to register the preservative until the cancer risks to exposed children are fully understood.
NY Times: Less is more when it comes to skin care
The New York Times' most emailed article of the day reports on the absurd marketing claims for cosmetic skin creams and the high prices the products demand. A Manhattan dermatologist recommends reducing your daily skin care routine to two simple ingredients: gentle soap and sunscreen, and a third product only for specific skin needs like acne or pigment spots. Avoid the high-priced brands, because no research suggests more expensive products are any better. For more information on the products you are currently using, or to find recommendations for facial cleansers and sunscreens, check out EWG’s Skin Deep Cosmetic Database.
The Cosmetics Restriction Diet. NY Times. (4 Jan 07)