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
EPA proposes new smog standards; environmentalists wheeze their disapproval
Sunscreen: what about nanoparticles?
Ask EWG: Do flame-retardant chemicals on furniture accumulate in breast milk?
Ask EWG: Why is there Teflon in clothes? Is it safe?
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
Growing Organics in the blogosphere
You may have heard a thing or two about a little bill that the House is scheduled to vote on at the end of July. Of $76 billion in subsidies in the current Farm Bill, organic farmers would receive less than one percent (Who is getting all that money? Have a look at the Farm Subsidy Database).
EWG Action Fund has created a petition asking Congress to include fair funding for organics in the Farm Bill. We want them to level the playing field for organic farmers and expand access to safe, healthy organic food. We set the bar high -- we're looking to get 30,000 signatures by July 15th. On July 17th, EWG Action Fund will deliver the petition to Congress to let them know that we want them to vote for organics.
What can you do? For starters, sign the petition. Then, tell your friends -- link it from your Myspace page, send out an email, share it on Facebook, and tell that nice lady you buy lettuce from at the farmer's market. Post about it on your blog -- and while you're at it, post a badge!
This week, EnviroLove goes out to Katrina at Kale for Sale, Caroline at FarmGirl's Adventures, Jennifer at Eco Child's Play, the friendly folks at What's Organic, Diane and her Big Green Purse, Caroline at Culinate, the Blue-Green Marble blogger, Organic Mama, Krista at the cleverly named Livin' la Vida Verde, Marc at Eat Local Challenge, Granny Miller, the author of Stories in America, the Organic Connection blog, and the inimitable Sam Fromartz at both Chews Wise and Gristmill. A special shout-out to Tabetha at Think Bigg, who also posted about the awesome tote bag you can get by donating $65 or more to the Grow Organics campaign!
Post about the petition on your blog, and next Friday I'll make sure you get some link lovin' from Enviroblog!
UN report: Urban sustainability must be a priority
In 2008, half of the world's entire population will live in cities. That number is expected to keep growing, according to a report from the United Nations Population Fund, and as the world's urban population swells -- to almost 5 billion by 2030 -- so will the population of urban poor.
There is hope in these numbers, the report reminds us, noting that "Cities concentrate poverty, but they also represent poor people's best hope of escaping it."
Just tell that to people -- to the billion people, a sixth of the world's population --
already living in overcrowded, dangerous urban slums without proper sanitation or clean water. The official response to urban growth has generally been to try to curb it rather than work with it, and this UNFPA report makes clear that reacting to the problems of population growth as they arise will no longer suffice. It's time, say the report's authors, for "analysis and pre-emptive action."
"But Amanda," you ask, "if urban slums are already such a big problem, how can we even begin to prepare for the future?"
The answer lies in one of those Big Ideas: sustainable development. The definition that gets the most airplay is a simple one, attributed to the UN: development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Packed into that single sentence are a host of theories and plans -- renewable energy, gender equality, urban land planning, clean water and sanitation initiatives, family planning, and, says the UNFPA, recognizing the rights of the world's urban poor.
Organizations like the Center for Global Development and Citizens for Global Solutions offer a ton of information and ways you can get involved. Thinking of going back to school? SustainUS has a list of academic programs in Sustainable Development. Green.tv has a clip about Dongtang, which is being developed as the first carbon neutral city. Many US cities already have sustainable development programs -- Portland, Oregon's Office of Sustainable Development must be doing a good job, because SustainLane ranked them #1 on their list of the country's Most Sustainable Cities. How did your city do?
Another one bites the dust
Glen Martin, one of the best environmental reporters in California, has written his last story for the San Francisco Chronicle. Glen was one of EWG's favorite journalists. He dug deep into our Farm Subsidies Database and found that billionaire stockbroker Charles Schwab received more than half a million dollars in 2000 – for a rice farm he used as a private duck-hunting club. He reported on a secret chemical industry memo we obtained that outlined a scheme to spy on California activists. He got a story on the front page about our tests that found rocket fuel in California milk. And his stories on our investigation of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal water subsidies to the Central Valley Project were just part of his authoritative coverage of the state's water wars.
Like most reporters, Glen griped about his bosses and his business, but he loved his work. He's leaving not for The New York Times or The Washington Post, but because the Chronicle is slashing its newsroom by 100 positions – a fourth of the staff. Glen took a buyout package offered by management, but if not enough staff members accept a deal, involuntary layoffs will follow.
I'm not here just to tip a hat to Glen. All over the country, newspapers (and other newsgathering organizations) are reeling from the rapid exodus of readers and advertisers from print to the Internet. The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Denver Post, The Dallas Morning News and many more big papers are cutting staff and budgets under pressure from their corporate owners to maintain the absurdly high profit margins demanded by Wall Street. But the Chronicle, the largest newspaper in the region with the most 'Net-wired audience in the country, is reportedly losing $8 million a month, as ever-growing chunks of its audience get their news online and use Craigslist for classified ads.
The Bay Area is being hit particularly hard. Not too long ago, we had a wealth of ambitious newspapers competing to cover the news, including the Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, San Jose Mercury News and the Contra Costa Times. After several rounds of mergers and consolidation, the Examiner has been reduced to a free tabloid, and the Merc and Times have joined the roster of MediaNews, a cost-cutting chain that already owned the Oakland Tribune and other East Bay papers.
MediaNews, not known for a strong commitment to journalistic excellence, now owns every paid daily newspaper in the Bay Area except the Chronicle. Insiders paint a distressing picture of how it has cut resources to the bone, with more staff reductions to come. MediaNews is consolidating the resources and staffs of its papers in the region – a logical move from a cost perspective, but bad for competitive journalism, leaving one reporter on a story that four might previously have covered from different angles.
Since you're reading this, you're probably already inclined to get your news online, and you may look forward to the end of printing the news on dead trees. Here's why you should care: Fewer and fewer resources devoted to aggressive reporting mean less and less coverage of important news – health, the environment, politics, science, pretty much everything except Paris Hilton.
You may read the news online, but almost all of it still originates as reporting by newspaper and wire service journalists, who are trained and experienced in exposing information that government and corporations would just as soon keep quiet. Some blogs and websites are good at passing on news from other sources and providing commentary on what the news means, but none have yet made the commitment to spend the kind of money it takes to do original enterprise reporting. Even The Daily Show or The Onion need the news to go off on.
The crisis in the newspaper business – however deserved by an industry that has aided its own demise by continually dumbing-down its product – is not just bad for news consumers, but for nonprofit advocacy organizations like EWG. In our 14 years we've invested heavily in building a reputation for credibility with journalists and used news coverage to shape the debate over environment and public health. We believe that if you can define the terms, you have a shot at winning the battle.
We'll continue conducting investigations that expose corporate misconduct and government malfeasance, and with databases like Skin Deep, give you direct access to the information you need to protect your health. But without journalism as it's been practiced for the last 100 years – savvy, seasoned reporters acting as watchdogs for the publc interest – it becomes much harder to get our messages out.
There seems no easy solution to the newspaper industry's problems. I spent 13 years as a newspaper reporter, compulsively pick up newspapers wherever I see one, and now even I read most of my news online. The section of the Chronicle I spend the most time with is sports. If they've lost me as a print reader, the odds of luring subscriptions from Silicon Valley programmers with saturation coverage of the launch of the iPhone are not good.
The newspaper industry has to find a way to make money online, although that flies against the cherished notion that information on the Web should be free. Or newspaper companies and their stockholders could accept lower profit margins in return for the satisfaction of knowing they're providing people with the information they need to govern themselves – a notion that, hokey as it may sound, our country is all about.
The odds of that happening? About as good as Glen Martin getting invited to dinner at Chuck Schwab's.
Study makes the case for further CDC investigation: links between vaccinations and neurobehavioral disorders?
Parents of children with ADD, ADHD, and autism spectrum disorders have been asking the Centers for Disease Control to do further research into a possible correlation between vaccinations containing mercury and neurobehavioral disorders for years. Now Generation Rescue, a small non-profit formed by parents of children with neurological disorders, has released a study that the CDC should be hard pressed to ignore.
The study, which was conducted by an independent opinion research firm, surveyed the parents of more than 9,000 boys in California and Oregon and found that vaccinated boys were 2.5 times more likely to have a diagnosed neurological disorder than unvaccinated boys.
Generation Rescue is quick to admit that this is just a phone survey, but the findings show a strong trend and suggest the need for further research. Among boys aged 11-17, there is not a single developmental condition where the survey detected a higher incidence rate for unvaccinated boys.
Which brings us to the next big question: why hasn't the CDC done a more refined version of this study already? One excuse trotted out is that that it would be next to impossible to identify a cohort of unvaccinated children, but Generation Rescue has blown that excuse right out of the water. If a small parent led group can find more than 900 unvaccinated children in just two states, surely the CDC can find a statistically significant number of them nationwide.
Some theorists say that the CDC is not institutionally capable of doing such a simple and elegant study. Bureaucratic inertia, they say, would introduce so many irrelevant and complicating factors into the study design that costs would escalate out of control and the truth would be buried in irrelevant details.
We think, however, that the CDC could do it. And more to the point, to retain any integrity on this issue at all, the CDC must do this study.
The time has come for answers. After all, if mercury in vaccines is not implicated in autism spectrum disorders, what better way to find out than looking at vaccinated versus unvaccinated children?
EPA proposes new smog standards; environmentalists wheeze their disapproval
Update: Okay, I may have been a little hard on the EPA yesterday. At least they're making an effort. Also, check out Angry Toxicologist's post, The Asthmatic Elephant in the Ozone Room.
Having trouble breathing?
EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson wants to fix that -- as long as industry groups don't mind too much.
In their first new recommendation on ground-level ozone since 1997, the Agency is calling for an 11 to 17 percent reduction on current smog standards. Johnson says that "the current standard is insufficient to protect public health," a statement which sounds like it could only lead to vigorous improvements.
And the EPA recommendation is an improvement -- a reduction of ground ozone levels from .08 parts per million to between .070 and .075 parts per million. But while it solicits public comment on the recommendation, the EPA will also consider other options -- including leaving the standards right where they are. While the Agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee has implied that even the proposed reduction might be too lax (they recommend that standards set ozone levels no higher than .070 parts per million), the EPA has left the door open for business and industry groups who consider the reduction costly and unnecessary.
Gosh. I'm breathing better already, aren't you?
I should note that the EPA is also accepting comment on alternative plans that would set the standards as low as .06 parts per million -- so take heart, asthmatics. A 90-day public comment period will follow after the proposal is published in the Federal Register, and the EPA will settle on a number in March of 2008.
Sunscreen: what about nanoparticles?
Kate at Grist did a great write-up on EWG's sunscreen investigation -- if you haven't seen it yet, you should check it out.
Some concerns have been raised over our decision to recommend products that may contain nanoparticles. We certainly didn’t start off on this project thinking that a product with nanoparticles in it would be among our top recommendations. No one has looked at nano tech in cosmetics more expansively than EWG has to date, or pressed FDA harder or more consistently to do something about. We’ve made clear our view that the FDA's lack of regulation on nano is unacceptable, including for sunscreens. We haven’t changed our view.
But here’s the deal, as we see it: nano particles in eye shadow, blush, body glitter and other purely cosmetic products is beyond dumb. Suncreens? Different stakes. When moms and dads are asking what product they should put on their kids to protect them from the sun today, they need an answer, not campaign rhetoric. Our review of the science led us to the top choices you see on our site.
Yes, as FOE reminds us, Consumer Reports testing of eight products showed
that you can get sun protection without nano. We agree, but we took our
study two steps farther. We looked at which sunscreens break down in the
sun, and which products contain hazardous ingredients that absorb through
the skin and into the body to pose other risks. Our answers changed.
The science leads you to a different place than the knee-jerk anti-nano FOE
response when it comes to sunscreen. This isn't eye shadow or mascara we're
talking about - this is a product meant to help protect us from exposure to
a known human carcinogen, UV radiation, responsible for a huge fraction of
the more than one million cases of skin cancer diagnosed in this country
every year.
If you go zinc- and titanium-free when it comes to sunscreen, chances are,
you'll be left with more UV exposure and more hazardous ingredients. Is that
what we want in our sunscreens? Are you willing to take those risks? We're
not.
You can read all of the science behind our investigation in the report, or take a look at how some best-selling sunscreens rate in the database.
Ask EWG: Do flame-retardant chemicals on furniture accumulate in breast milk?
Question: Is it true that flame-retardant chemicals in upholstered furniture accumulate in women's breast milk? If so, what kind of hazard does this pose to an infant that consumes the breast milk?
Answer:
Yes, it is true that foam used in pre-2005 upholstered furniture, mattresses, and carpet padding may contain neurotoxic flame retardants called PBDEs. These chemicals have been shown to impair attention, learning, memory, and behavior at low levels in laboratory studies. Studies worldwide have found them to be building up rapidly in people, animals, and the environment, and levels in the United States and Canada are by far the highest compared to levels in other countries. EWG's nationwide study found high levels of PBDEs in the breast milk of every American mother tested. PBDEs are still used in electronics like computers and televisions, which may be an ongoing source of exposure for people.
But breast feeding is important for many health reasons. Health professionals advise that women always breast feed when they can. Simple steps to reduce your exposures to PBDEs include using a vacuum equipped with a HEPA filter, and avoiding direct contact with the foam in older furniture and mattresses. There are some regulatory proposals being considered across the country that would get PBDEs out of the few remaining types of products in which they are used, including TVs and computers. Check out our report for more information and related news.
Got a question for our researchers? Send it in! We'll select one (or a few) for next month's edition of Ask EWG.
Want Ask EWG sent to your inbox? Sign up for our monthly bulletin.
Ask EWG: Why is there Teflon in clothes? Is it safe?
Question: I recently purchased school uniform shirts for my child and was horrified to find Dupont Teflon fabric protector stickers on the packaging. When I wrote to the company the agent said that there was no danger, as they did not use Scotchgard. Am I correct that Teflon is not better than Scotchgard?
Answer:
The Teflon fabric protector on your child’s shirts likely contains PFCs, and may break down into the common, toxic blood contaminant called PFOA. We aren't yet sure which sources cause us to be most exposed to these pernicious chemicals, but it is best to opt out of stain/water/oil repellants whenever possible.
Both Scotchgard and Teflon are in a family of chemicals called perfluorochemicals (PFCs). 3M reformulated Scotchgard in 2000, under pressure from EPA following a series of alarming company-sponsored studies surfaced linking the Scotchgard chemical (PFOS) to birth defects and showing it to be a ubiquitous contaminant in human blood. The Teflon-related chemical called PFOA has since been linked to similar concerns, and DuPont and other manufacturers are under intense regulatory and legal pressure to reduce their use of this chemical and to clean up PFOA pollution around the country. Nevertheless, PFCs that are made from or that break down to PFOA in the body or the environment are still widely used in coatings that make products ranging from food packaging to household furniture water-repellant, grease-proof, and stain-resistant.
PFCs like Scotchgard and Teflon are now in the rogues gallery of toxic, extraordinarily persistent chemicals that contaminate human blood and wildlife the world over (over 90% of Americans are showing PFOA in our bloodstream). As more studies pour in, PFCs seems destined to join DDT, PCBs, dioxin and other chemicals that are among the most notorious, global chemical contaminants ever produced. Thanks in part to EWG's hard work, in 2006 major manufacturers signed a voluntary phaseout of PFOA by 2015, but the chemical is still on the market for now.
Here's some more information on Teflon, Scotchgard, and PFCs
Got a question for our researchers? Send it in! We'll select one (or a few) for next month's edition of Ask EWG.
Want Ask EWG sent to your inbox? Sign up for our monthly bulletin.
Sunscreen woes? We've got a solution.
Yesterday EWG launched a database containing the safety and effectiveness ratings of over 700 sunscreen products — just in time for summer. The site helps consumers select the best possible sunscreen, but what do you do if you just stockpiled Neutrogena Healthy Skin Face Lotion (SPF15) or Coppertone Sunblock Lotion 2006, which were among the worst sunscreens? Never fear, ill-fated consumer, I have already thought of some creative and healthy ways to use that sunscreen.
- Protect your grape crop like these Californian farmers. Of course, that farmer is using organic sunscreens, so if you're going to use your stockpile make sure you wash thoroughly before consuming. After all, if you don't want those chemicals on you, you sure don't want them in you.
- Remove scuff marks from shoes, remove tar spots from car finishes, clean grease/dirt on surfaces and other household uses this writer claims work with Coppertone. He also recommends using it on chapped lips. We wouldn't go that far.
- Glaze your homemade pottery. (Err... actually, you'd have to use the good stuff for that — titanium dioxide, the main ingredient, is one of the more safe and effective sunscreens.)
- Gel and shape your hair. It might not hold as well as traditional hair products, or smell as nice, but at least your hair won't get a sunburn!
- On second thought, maybe you should just throw it out. Check EWG's list of best sunscreens for a replacement!
Allow me to introduce myself...
Hello Enviroblog Readers!
I've just joined the staff here at Environmental Working Group as Web Communications Coordinator. A big part of the job I've been tasked with is taking over where Matthew left off here on the blog. That means I'm your new go-to girl, so If you've got tips, thoughts, or questions, send them along to me by clicking on "Email Amanda" to the left.
I'm thrilled with the team I'm working with. Good things are happening at Enviroblog — keep checking back for the latest environmental health news!
Carnival of the Green #82
Hello and Welcome to TreeHugger's 82nd Carnival of the Green! If this week's link list just isn't enough eco-info for you, have a look at last week's round-up at Victoria E's. Next week you can get your fill at Dianovo.
Natural Collection is thanking their customers with a 10% discount and two free cotton bags (click through for details). Also check out their latest contest, because you know you want a FreeLoader.
At The Voltage Gate, Jeremy wonders why some Evangelical leaders won't acknowledge anthropogenic global warming.
Save the Ribble's photo essay looks at the river's recent flooding. How much worse would it be with a barrage in place?
The Responsible Engineer is glad that everyone's going green over CO2, but wonders why biodiversity is getting short shrift.
Speaking in Tongues gives us a tongue-in-cheek look at an innovative way to go carbon neutral.
Phil for Humanity looks at what it will take to survive the next ice-age.
From recycled invitations to homemade organic cake, EcoStreet has a guide to throwing an eco-friendly children's party.
The EcoLibertarian points out some pitfalls of carbon taxing.
Veggie Revolution draws our attention to Columbia University's efforts to improve oral health in sub-Saharan Africa.
Greener Magazine has an audio piece about the people who are working to rebuild New Orleans.
Jonathan Deamer thinks Tesco's been doing some greenwashing.
At Queer¢ents, Moorea ponders the ups and downs of shopping at Trader Joes.
The Digerati Life demonstrates how planting a tree can be good for the environment and for the value of your home.
At Sox First, Leon looks at the market approach to environmentalism in China. Will it be enough?
And rounding out this weeks Carnival, Julie at Pines Above Snow compares her own fox sighting with Thoreau's: "In 160 years, the fox hasn’t changed. But we have."
Thanks for stopping by Enviroblog! Tomorrow is another big day at EWG, so stay tuned for painless ways to make your summer safer...
Deceptive incentives
During the G8 meeting last week, the leaders of some of the world's richest countries discussed their interest in paying the global south to keep rainforests intact. A good portion of current CO2 emissions stem from burning vast tracts of forest in the developing world, where clearing space for agriculture is more profitable than leaving the land alone. US companies are willing to pay to protect these forests, but only as a cheap way to offset their carbon footprints. The World Bank is pushing to include tree preservation as an internationally recognized form of carbon credit, available for purchase by polluters wishing to green their public image.
Now I’m all for preserving rainforests, and understand that people in poor countries need to earn a living off their land in one form or another. I agree that the rich countries most responsible for global warming should pay for carbon reduction. Yet there’s a nagging hypocrisy tucked away in US energy policy.
As US policymakers discuss paying people in poor countries not to develop their land for agricultural purposes, our government continues to pay agribusinesses in the US to overproduce agricultural commodities.
Massive tax breaks to encourage US ethanol production provide incentives for many large farms to plant more acres of corn. But the extra grains earn the most profit when channeled into gas tanks, resulting in fewer calories available for human consumption. This drives up the price of food staples, which means that the poor people of the world must figure out new ways to afford their daily bread.
And what better way than to capitalize on the rich countries’ growing demand for ethanol?
Chopping down a rainforest to plant biofuel crops might produce enough income to buy necessary food staples at ethanol-inflated prices. But isn’t rainforest destruction exactly what the G8 said they’re trying to curb?
So we pay rich countries to convert food grains into fuel grains, and then give carbon credits to US companies when they pay poor countries not to grow food or fuel.
If our end goal is to reduce US carbon emissions through both transportation innovations and carbon offsets, why are we creating such a messy set of incentives?
Hey, if it works for pollution . . .
Feeling guilty about cheating on your sweetheart or spouse? Now you
can pay to have your cheating offset by Cheatneutral, a UK startup.
For just £2.50, “Cheatneutral offsets your cheating by funding
someone else to be faithful and NOT cheat. This neutralizes the pain
and unhappy emotion and leaves you with a clear conscience.” The
entrepreneurs behind Cheatneutral have been taking to the streets of
London to promote their new service: Check it out
OK, Cheatneutral is a joke. But the folks behind it argue that carbon
offsetting – the practice of balancing the global warming emissions
of your jet travel or other carbon-emitting activity by paying a fee
to be invested in clean energy – is also a joke. Find out more here:
Which is the real Chevron?
Last weekend, on my 4-year-old's preschool campout, I was talking to another dad about the environmental commitment of the oil company he works for. They're putting millions of dollars into biofuels research, converting their vehicle fleet to hybrids or natural gas, and my friend is writing speeches for the CEO that proclaim the urgency of addressing global warming.
Today, in the San Francisco Chronicle, I read about an oil company that plans to increase production at its refinery to meet gasoline supply shortages that have helped push Bay Area pump prices to the highest in the country. Problem is, that will also increase the refinery's emissions – not just global warming gases but volatile organic compounds known to cause respiratory disease and cancer, as well as heavy metals and toxic chemicals that will be dumped into the bay. The community around the refinery, which has lived for decades with the impact of its pollution, flaring, and accidents, is demanding safeguards and considering special taxes to offset the health effects of the expansion.
So which company is going green and which is still mired in the muck of environmental evil?
Trick question. They're the same company: Chevron.
Chron columnist Chip Johnson reports:
What Chevron officials call a "technological upgrade" to safer, more reliable, more flexible equipment is a lot more than that, say experts hired by community groups concerned with the proposal, which is the subject of a series of public hearings that began Thursday night."What they're doing is the latest major step in a fundamental transformation in fuel production technology," said Greg Karras, the staff scientist for Communities for a Better Environment, an Oakland-based group involved in the issue.
In layman's terms, the company is retooling its facility to process heavier grades of crude oil that require more heat and pressure and result in more pollutants being released into the atmosphere as part of the process, Karras said.
While the state Public Utilities Commission, which has authority over refinery operations, has banned construction of new coal-fired electric plants to reduce air emissions, he said, the oil industry is using dirtier grades of oil.
"Oil is getting more expensive, and dirty crude is about 30 percent cheaper on the oil market," Karras said. "It's a profit-margin issue."
At a time when oil companies, computer makers, grocery chains and every other business you can think of are claiming that they have gone green, this kind of thing makes me wary. Is the wave of companies publicly embracing sustainability for real, or a new era in greenwashing?
In the '90s, Chevron practically invented modern greenwashing with a series of "People Do" ads, bragging about things they were doing for the environment – without mentioning that they were forced to by laws and litigation. Now Chevron is inviting consumers to "Join Us" in saving the planet, as if this multibillion dollar corporation were part of the environmental movement along with Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. As Phil Mattera of the Corporate Research Project asks on Alternet:
Join them? Wasn't it Chevron and the other oil giants that played a major role in creating global warming? Wasn't it Chevron that used the repressive regime in Nigeria to protect its environmentally destructive operations in the Niger Delta? Wasn't it Chevron's Texaco unit that dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste in Ecuador? And wasn't it Chevron that was accused of systematically underpaying royalties to the federal government for natural gas extracted from the Gulf of Mexico? That is not the kind of track record that confers the mantle of environmental leadership.
Nor is deciding it's OK to pump more global warming gases, air pollution and toxic waste into the neighborhood surrounding your refinery. It's nice that Chevron is making some changes. But forgive me if I'm not ready to sign up just yet. With all Chevron's got to answer for, maybe they should start by saying: "We're sorry."
No, no, our asbestos is the safe kind
Over two decades, W.R. Grace & Co. slowly killed hundreds of workers at its Libby, Mont. asbestos mine. It's one of the most notorious cases in the annals of environmental crime – but Grace may escape punishment through loopholes opened by the same justice system that's trying to convict the company.
In 1969, Peter Grace, president of the company, received an internal memo directly stating that asbestos "is definitely a health hazard," but waited 21 years to close the mine. Hundreds of former workers or their family members have died of asbestos-related disease, and 1,300 are sick today.
Yet while common sense convicts Grace the law may not. The Justice Department's attempt to try Grace and 7 of its executives fizzled last year, because controversial lower court decisions forbid the most damning evidence from being presented. Peer-reviewed government studies? Not to be considered by a jury. Grace’s never-released internal study revealing a third of its workers had abnormal chest X-rays? Not admissible. The lower court also threw out the most serious charges of "knowing endangerment." (Guess the judge forgot about the memo.) And most outrageous to Libby residents, the lower court swallowed Grace's claim that the type of asbestos fibers in the ore from the mine are not regulated under the Clean Air Act.
EWG's asbestos work is here.
Ever wonder what would happen if you tried to test soil in Jersey?
JIM ANNESS / THE RECORD
A Paramus police officer handcuffing reporter Michael Gartland on Saturday
Well, now you don't have to. Over the weekend a reporter from the Bergen Record and a professional lab technician hired by the paper were both arrested for attempting to test the soil at a local middle school in Paramus, New Jersey. Last week the school was shut down due to the discovery of a dangerous pesticide on the grounds.
So lesson learned: If you find yourself in The Garden State, which is home to the most Superfund sites in the country, and you happen to be in the Paramus area looking for something to do, head to the mall. Because testing for contaminated soil may land you in the big house. Don't know about you, but I'd rather not have to give that as the reason when they ask me: "So what are you in for?"