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
How conventional hog farms pass the baton of antibiotic resistance
Childhood obesity increases dramatically
Prenatal PFC exposure:
The weight just won't stick
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
The Justice Roberts Skin Cancer Prevention System&trade
Chief Justice John Roberts doesn't believe sunscreens need to be regulated. Apparently he has all the protection he needs -- we hear those robes offer excellent skin cancer prevention.
In the 29 years that the FDA has been wavering on sunscreen regulations, the cosmetics industry has used some pretty crazy tactics to prevent them from passing. In 2001, for example, they hired a lawyer to threaten a lawsuit. The proposed regulations, the lawyer argued, violated the first amendment.
In 2005, that lawyer took his seat as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
That's right. As recently as 2001, Justice John Roberts was lobbying on behalf of the cosmetics industry -- a fact he failed to disclose during his hearings. Not only was Justice Roberts lobbying for the cosmetics industry, but he successfully blocked regulations that may have prevented countless cases of skin cancer.
And this is the man running our Supreme Court. Doesn't it just make you feel all safe and cozy?
Hopefully, without Roberts defending them this time around, the cosmetics industry won't be able block the FDA's recently proposed sunscreen regulations. In the meantime just follow Roberts' lead for skin cancer prevention: stay inside and swing decisions to the right.
"One of the largest human trials in history."
I went through a phase, around second grade, when all I would take for lunch was peanut butter and jelly (creamy, and mint jelly, please. The green kind. Yes, I did get made fun of). My little sister is seven years younger than me, and by the time she was in second grade she and her classmates weren't allowed to bring PB&J for lunch because there were other students with severe peanut allergies.
The story isn't uncommon, as AllergyKids President Robyn O'Brien points out in this Healthy Child, Healthy World blog post.
Today, at least 1 out of every 17 children under the age of three has a food allergy with at least 5 million American children suffering from this condition (though these statistics are from 2002, over five years old).
O'Brien posits that the rise in child allergies may be connected to a decade-old form of genetic engineering which allows for neurotoxins to be engineered into the foods we, and our children, eat. The effects of consuming these neurotoxins have not been subject to long-term study. What studies are being done on childhood food allergies are funded by the processed food industry.
Not only that, but
In the United States, our regulatory agencies do not require these genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled.So, unlike other developed countries, we have not been informed that almost 70% of our corn, 90% of our soy and 75% of our processed food now contain
neurotoxins, novel proteins and allergens.
O'Brien's post is a compelling call to action to stop what she calls "one of the largest human trials in history." Go have a read, and when you're done there, go snack on something organic -- because in this country, that's the only way you can be sure your food isn't genetically modified.
Another Katrina legacy: Arsenic coated playgrounds
It's tricky to write about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent rebuilding of New Orleans. Today's headlines are full of contradictions. New Orleans is reveling "in a new spirit of innovation," but the second anniversary of the hurricane is marked by anger and sadness. President Bush is in the city for the day; depending on who you read he's either marking the anniversary, reassuring residents ("We understand"), or celebrating [NB: Fox News has changed their headline since the post was published. Apparently "celebrate" wasn't quite the word they were looking for.]. Regardless of the angle any particular journalist chooses, all of those headlines probably ring true for many.
But this is an environmental health blog, and I am an environmental health blogger, so it was this headline that caught my attention:
It appears that when the floodwaters swept through New Orleans they unearthed deeply buried arsenic-based pesticides. At least 6 of the city's schoolyards are coated with a layer of sediment contaminated with arsenic, in some cases a two- to three times the amount at which federal law mandates cleanup. The report calls for further testing to see how widespread the contamination really is. The NRDC report has prompted the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality deny responsibility.
Let's face it, the LDEQ probably has their hands full. The arsenic hazard study is only one part of the NRDC's report titled Katrina's Wake, which also outlines health threats from pollution and the massive amounts of trash the storm created and distributed. But NRDC experts are quick to point out that the arsenic problem would be quick and easy to fix -- especially compared to some of the city's other headaches.
Ask EWG: What can I do about fluoride in my water?
Question:I recently read a report in which EWG recommended using carbon filtration to filter tap water for drinking. The report pointed out that carbon filtering is less expensive than reverse osmosis filtration, but it didn't mention that carbon filtration does not remove artificially added fluoride from the water. I know that EWG is concerned with the health effects of fluoride, especially for children and pregnant women. Was this an oversight?
Answer: It's true that EWG opposes water fluoridation. Let’s take a look at the problem and what you can do to protect yourself and your family.
Water fluoridation is a public health problem.
Fluoride is often added to municipal water to reduce tooth-decay in children, but when consumed in water it actually has very little effect on dental health. The chemical is most effective when applied directly to teeth in toothpaste or mouth-rinse.A growing body of evidence demonstrates the known and potential health consequences of fluoridated water:
- permanent fluoride spotting on teeth (called dental fluorosis) is common and generally innocuous
- A 2006 National Research Council review indicated that long-term exposure to fluoride in water increases bone fracture rates.
- The same review concluded that fluoride might also affect thyroid, immune, and endocrine systems.
- Perhaps of greatest concern is a 2006 peer-reviewed study by four Harvard scientists and medical doctors indicating a correlation between fluoride exposure and increased incidence of osteosarcoma -- a dangerous bone cancer -- in boys.
So what’s the solution?
Let’s be perfectly clear: the best solution to this public health problem is for local governments to stop fluoridating their water. You can find out if your local water utility adds fluoride by calling or visiting them online. If they do, be sure to express your concerns about the negative health impacts of fluoridation.In the meantime…
While we recommend that everyone avoid fluoridated tap water whenever they can, the main concern is for pregnant women and bottle-fed infants. Babies are more sensitive to fluoride's effects, and the American Dental Association recommends that their formula not be made with fluoridated water. For those who are able, breast-feeding is the best option for infants. A mother's body filters fluoride out of breast milk.Activated carbon pitcher filters, refrigerator filters, and tap-mounted filters reduce levels of many kinds of common tap water contaminants (including harmful chlorine byproducts), but not fluoride. Reducing those contaminants as well as fluoride requires a reverse osmosis filter. The price tag on reverse osmosis systems has come down significantly in the past year, but they still cost anywhere from $200 to more than $1000.
While we generally don't recommend that people drink bottled water, it is another option in communities with fluoridated tap water for parents who need to add water to their babies' powdered or concentrated formula. Jugs of bottled water without added fluoride can be found in most grocery stores, but be careful -- the cost can quickly add up to that of an in-home fluoride filter (and the bottled water industry has a significant impact on the environment, as well).
Above all, remember:
Pregnant women and babies need plenty of fluid. If the alternatives above aren't available to you, it's always better to stay hydrated by drinking your local tap water (or using it in formula) than to risk dehydration.At EWG, we're working for national standards that will ensure that the best, safest tap water is available everywhere. You can learn more about the safety of your tap water at our National Tap Water Quality Database.
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.
How conventional hog farms pass the baton of antibiotic resistance
Researchers at the University of Illinois have concluded that antibiotic resistance created by the nearly ubiquitous use of antibiotics on large-scale hog farms is being transferred between organisms like it's a "relay race." Resistant bacteria end up in groundwater, which makes up 97 percent of drinking water in rural areas.
Here's how it works:
- Pigs at huge conventional farms are routinely fed and injected with the antibiotic tetracycline to treat and prevent illness.
- Bacteria in the animals' digestive tracks and manure evolve genetic resistance to the drug. These super bugs are found in high quantities in manure lagoons (the giant ponds of waste that hog farms use as storage).
- Leaking lagoons -- especially those built before the law required them to be lined -- allow bacteria to migrate to ground water.
- Finally, bacteria carrying the gene for tetracycline resistance pass it off to other organisms like some kind of sci-fi Olympic torch.
"If the genes are there," says lead researcher R.I. Mackie, "potentially they could get into the right organism at the right time and confer resistance to an antibiotic that's being used to treat disease."
Read more at TerraDaily
The abstract
Enter The Meatrix
Childhood obesity increases dramatically
Recent reports by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that currently over 17% of kids in the USA are overweight, and the number has tripled over the past 20 years. Childhood obesity is a serious issue with numerous consequences that continue over a lifespan.
There are numerous things that can lead to obesity. According to the American Obesity Association:
“There are many factors that contribute to causing child and adolescent obesity - some are modifiable and others are not.
Modifiable causes include:
- Physical Activity - Lack of regular exercise.
- Sedentary behavior - High frequency of television viewing, computer usage, and similar behavior that takes up time that can be used for physical activity.
- Socioeconomic Status - Low family incomes and non-working parents.
- Eating Habits - Over-consumption of high-calorie foods. Some eating patterns that have been associated with this behavior are eating when not hungry, eating while watching TV or doing homework.
- Environment - Some factors are over-exposure to advertising of foods that promote high-calorie foods and lack of recreational facilities.
Non-changeable causes include:
- Genetics - Greater risk of obesity has been found in children of obese and overweight parents.”
However, our policies influence obesity as well. The federal farm bill, which subsidizes crops like corn but does little to promote eating healthy foods, also influences the increase in obesity. Toxic chemicals like bisphenol A are also linked to obesity. To find out more, read the report.
Prenatal PFC exposure:
The weight just won't stick
That babies are being born with man-made chemicals in their bloodstreams isn't news in these parts, but the results of two studies released this month indicate direct physical effects from prenatal exposure. Babies exposed in the womb to perfluorochemicals (PFCs) appear likely to be born slightly smaller than others.
PFCs are used in non-stick cookware (think Teflon) and stain-resistant fabric (like Scotchguard), among other things. The EPA has acknowledged that these global contaminants are a likely cause of cancer, and has encouraged manufacturers to phase the chemicals out by 2015, but (from USA Today)
Leo Trasande, assistant director of Mount Sinai Center for Children's Health and the Environment in New York, says the studies suggest companies should phase out these chemicals even sooner.
Although the researchers in charge of the studies acknowledge that exposed infants' smaller size is not necessarily indicative of health problems, but that doesn't mean you should go around licking Teflon pans. The EPA advises that it's wise to limit exposure to PFCs, even if all the results aren't in yet.
SMM: iCount video bonanza
D&AD, a British organization which gives yearly awards for creativity in design, made sustainability the name of the game this year when they built part of their student film competition around iCount's 15 Steps. You can see the official winners at the competition website, but Youtube is full of gems like these.
Step 6: Face your carbon elephant
Step 1: The power of off
Step 12: Share stuff
5 things accomplished faster than sunscreen regulations
It's been nearly 30 years since the FDA acknowledged the need for sunscreen industry regulations, but it isn't because crafting regulations is too difficult a task for the U.S. government. It took the government less time to
- Craft and sign the Declaration of Independence
- Defeat Nazi Germany (granted, we had some help on that one)
- Figure out that prohibition was a bad plan
- Create the Medicare system
- Put a man on the moon (8 years from presidential imperative to lunar landing)
Getting sunscreen safety standards finalized should be a piece of cake compared to all that. We've seen the FDA bough to industry pressure on this issue
Maybe, just in case the industry still thinks they have something to hide, you should let the FDA know that you want them to finalize and implement their proposed standards. Go to the FDA's comment page to tell them you don't want to wait another 30 years for safe and effective sunscreens.
FDA proposes sunscreen regulations
Twenty-eight years after they first pledged to implement safety standards for sunscreens, the FDA has proposed regulations that would (among other things) require manufacturers to label sunscreens based on their ability to protect consumers from UVA rays. From the LA Times story:
Under the FDA proposal, sunscreen lotions would be tested for UVA protection, as they are now tested for UVB. They would then be assigned one to four stars, with four representing the highest level of protection. Some tanning products provide no UVA protection, and the FDA is proposing such lotions bear a label indicating that they offer no safeguard against UVA rays.The proposal would also make changes to the SPF ratings for protection against sunburn. Lotions providing up to SPF 50 -- or 50 times the skin's natural protection against sunburn -- would be recognized.
In addition, the FDA is calling for a new warning on all sunscreen lotions saying that exposure to the sun increases the risk of skin cancer, as well as other damage, including premature aging. The label will say that using sunscreen is only one way to protect against the sun, and others include wearing protective clothing, such as a hat or long-sleeved shirt, and staying out of the sun, particularly during the middle of the day.
You know, it's funny, I swear I read something about sunscreen safety earlier this summer. Do you think that may have had something to do with the FDA's decision? U.S. News and World Report seems to think so:
[The] label changes were partly spurred by a report from a Washington,
D.C.-based nonprofit, the Environmental Working Group, in June. The EWG
faulted the FDA for missing a deadline imposed by Congress to set sunscreen
safety standards by last year.
In a statement released following the FDA's announcement, EWG's VP for Research Jane Houlihan had this to say:
“The proposed sunscreen safety regulations by FDA are a positive step forward, but we’ve been here before and seen FDA cave in to industry objections. [...] FDA first pledged to implement federal safety sunscreen regulations over 28 years ago and to date nothing has been finalized. We hope this time FDA moves much faster so the public can have confidence in the claims that they see on sunscreen product labels.”
Looking for a safe, effective sunscreen for those last, long beach days? Check the sunscreen database.
WaPo ignores BPA in baby formula
The hot topic among mothers at a play group this weekend was bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles. That's a shame, because it means those mothers -- and the Washington Post -- missed some crucial science.
The article, which ran in the business section today, quotes spokespeople for the American Chemistry Council (representing the plastics industry) and the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, who argue that parent's concerns are unfounded and being fueled unnecessarily by "some environmental groups".
Who, us? Concerned? Just because many studies demonstrate BPA's toxicity at low doses and across a variety of systems?
You bet we are.
"It just doesn't seem like the science is there yet," says Daddy Types blogger Greg Allen, and he's right, although not the way he thinks. There isn't enough science for us to continue exposing children to this harmful chemical. The fact that an NIH subcommittee found that there was cause for "some concern" (even while basing their opinion on incorrect and biased materials), and that there is dispute in the scientific community, should be enough cause to initiate further investigation, stronger restrictions, and careful precautions on the part of consumers.
The scariest part, though, is that the Washington Post article never once mentions that babies' exposure to BPA from plastic baby bottles is very small compared to their exposure from what goes in the bottles. For one in three cans of infant formula tested, a single serving contained enough BPA to expose an infant at levels that caused serious adverse effects in animal tests. The chemical is used to line the inside of food cans, and from there can leach into the food. This appears to happen at a much higher rate than leaching from plastic food and beverage containers.
The plastics industry would have you believe that calling attention to these potential dangers is scaring parents witless. Parents are terrified! They can't handle it! They're so scared of poisoning their children they might just stop feeding them altogether!
What an insult. I hope that real-life, sensible, running-the-show parents reject this headless-chicken image. Reducing your exposure and your children's is as easy as making a few simple changes. Then you can go back to worrying about the important things, like your child's first steps, first teeth, first love, first time behind the wheel... y'know, the good stuff.
Marie Claire: What's your shoe size?
I walk to work everyday. It's because I live in a walkable city, because I live fairly close to the office, because it's good for the planet and because I enjoy the exercise -- oh yeah, and because I never got my driver's license.
Neither did Josie, the globe-trotting marketing manager featured in Marie Claire Online's Guess Her Carbon Footprint piece this month. The article looks at some of the details of three women's lifestyles and analyzes their carbon footprint.
1. THE URBAN HIPSTER
“I eat out way too much. I drink bottled water. I do the club scene a lot. Am I busted?” —Nikea, 29, public defender2. THE MOUNTAIN MAVEN
“Even my cappuccino maker and hair dryer are solar-powered.” —Melissa, 33, land-conservation program manager3. THE GLOBE-TROTTER
“I’ve never learned how to drive. I always use public transportation.” —Josie, 26, marketing manager
Go on, take a guess. The results may surprise you.
Change the Mining Law
Mining laws have not changed since 1872 in the US. The General Mining Law of 1872 still rules mining hard rock metals, does not require royalties and sets no environmental safeguards. A new EWG report shows
“80 percent increase in uranium, gold and other mining claims in 12 western states over the past five years, including an explosion of uranium claims near the edge of Grand Canyon National Park. Across the West, more than 50,000 claims were staked from last September to this May alone.”
A mining boom, prompted by an increase in metal prices, threatens numerous beautiful national parks. Without better law and protection of public resources, citizens will be left with the cleaning tab after mining company extracts all valuables from the land. Reform of the 1872 law needs to happen, and it should prohibit mining close to national parks, while considering environmental risks. H.R. 2262, introduced recently by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) is a good start.
Clothing, preserved
Formaldehyde may bring back fragrant memories of dissecting frogs in high school, but you wouldn't want to rub the stuff onto your skin -- or your children's. But a New Zealand study found that clothing made in China and shipped overseas may effectively be doing precisely that:
New Zealand's government is investigating clothing imports from China after some were found to contain dangerously high levels of the chemical formaldehyde, officials said Monday...."Target" producer Simon Roy said scientists from government agency AgriQuality had tested a variety of new children's and adult's clothes.
"Our results were shocking, ranging from 230 ppm (parts per million) to 18,000 ppm," he said. "Some of the clothes tested have a reading of 900 times the level that actually causes harm."
For the sake of comparison: the study found levels as high as 18,000 ppm, but research supported by the World Health Organization demonstrates that concentrations of just 20 ppm can cause eye and skin irritation, respiratory problems, and cancer. Formaldehyde is added to lend garments a "wrinkle-proof" finish.
SMM: Stupid? Smart? How about some of each.
Things to do: replace old, inefficient incandescent light bulbs with new, energy-saving CLFs.
Things not to do: poke self or others with cattle prod.
Got it?
Good.
See more at STUPIDandSMART.com
Mercury (protests) rising
Chronic polluter BP ("Beyond" Petroleum) may have been given license to continue polluting Lake Michigan (more on than in a moment), but one of the country's biggest mercury polluters will be changing its ways in the coming years. The ERCO plant in Wisconsin will make the switch to mercury-free technology in 2009, eliminating the single biggest polluter in the state and a major cause of the Midwest's continued fish consumption advisories. The question of what to do with the mercury the company already has at its plant is a touchy one, since mercury traded on the open market often finds its way to other polluting sources. Still, this is a major victory for Oceana, the environmental organization that had been pressuring the company to convert for years. Oceana isn't shy about saying so, either. And why should they be? From their statement following ERCO Worldwide's announcement:
"Of the nine plants that were using mercury-cell technology to make chlorine when Oceana launched its campaign in 2005, only four remain that have not committed to stop using mercury. We hope ERCO’s decision will soon be replicated by the four remaining plants that continue to use 110-year-old technology, which results in the release of four times more mercury per plant, on average, than the average power plant.”
Our heartfelt congratulations and thanks to Oceana.
Tentative congrats also go out to those who loudly protested the decision of the state of Indiana to grant BP a permit to increase the amount of waste it releases into Lake Michigan. The state and the company are now "reconsidering" the permit. While state officials still say they have no legal grounds to rescind the permit, they are looking into the matter. Nice to know public complaints are being taken into consideration, but shouldn't public health have been considered from the beginning?
The keystroke is mightier than the sword
I know, I know. If you're reading Enviroblog, there's a pretty good chance you already care about the environment. But not everyone does, and this newfangled citizen media stuff just might be a good way to begin to change that.
From the minds behind NorthxEast, FreelanceSwitch and ZenHabits comes Blog Action Day. This year, on October 15th, bloggers around the world will be writing about the environment. There's no agenda and no specific message, and anyone who wants to can get involved. The point, according to the action's coordinators, is to
"display the potential and the power of the blogging community, which is a disparate community but one with an amazing size, breadth and diversity. By bringing everyone together for one day, we can see just how much can be achieved, and how much we can be heard."
So we'll be blogging about the environment on October 15th, just like we do every other day. But we'll be glad for the company.
Want to get involved? Go to Blog Action Day and register your site.
Are D.C. residents being scammed on water quality?
D.C.'s Water and Sewer Authority put out a warning this month that unsolicited tap water testing kits were being left at the doors of residents in at least one neighborhood. Those who filled the plastic bottle provided received a follow-up call from a telemarketer looking to sell a $2,000 reverse-osmosis water treatment system. According to the Examiner, the telemarketer claimed that the water tested high for chlorine or lead.
Want to know why this ticks me off? The company, which does not supply a name or contact information, is exploiting resident's well-founded concerns about their drinking water to sell a product. Not only that, but acceptable under-sink reverse osmosis systems are available for a tenth of that price!
But an anonymous commenter on the Examiner article claimed to be involved with the company behind the scam, and said it was no scam at all:
we are a private owned company that is world wide and has been in business for over 65 years. And for your information we do test the water for impurities and contaminents. what the city and state admit to people is the water is "within federal standards" but fail to state that the chlorine put in the water to kill germs is just as harmful to ones health as everything else in the city water.
Well, maybe not just as harmful; after all, chlorine and chloramines are added to the water to kill potentially deadly pathogens. But they do produce toxic byproducts, the health effects of which are in some instances not well known. Other byproducts are classified by the EPA as possible human carcinogens.
WASA was quick to point out that D.C.'s public water "is in full compliance with federal Safe Drinking Water Act regulations for health and safety," but when EWG had water samples from across the city tested this spring, "More than 40 percent of the tap water samples contained chemical byproducts of water treatment above annual federal health limits." WASA also recommends that you call them if you're concerned about your water. I second that. Call them, please.
The bottom line: a scam is a scam, and any time you're exploiting people's fears to sell something... as far as I'm concerned, that's a scam. But D.C.'s water leaves a lot to be desired, and EWG recommends carbon filtering the water (with a pitcher or faucet-mount filter) before drinking it.
Ask EWG: Arsenic on my new house's deck?
Question: My husband and I are thinking of buying this great old house with a big back deck, but I remember reading something about how wood used on decks can be dangerous. We've got a two year old. Should I be worried?
Answer: There are reasons to be concerned, but if you’re set on the house, there are a couple of steps you can take to minimize exposures. First, however, a quick recap of the problem. Wood destined to remain outside faces harsh elements and can succumb to insect damage and rot. Pressure treated wood is injected with chemicals in order to protect it from the elements and the insects, and one of those chemicals is chromated copper arsenate (CCA), an insecticide that is 22 percent arsenic. Arsenic is a carcinogen, and EWG research indicates that little ones crawling across a deck or playing on an old wooden swing set may ingest potentially hazardous levels of CCA leached out of the wood.
In part because of EWG’s advocacy and research, EPA banned arsenic-treated wood for decks and playsets in 2004. But because the pesticide was the standard in outdoor lumber for 30 years, 70 percent of all homes in the U.S. still have old, arsenic-treated wood porches and decks. You can learn if your wood contains arsenic by using a simple test kit available on our website.
If your wood contains arsenic, the best solution would be to rebuild your deck with materials naturally resistant to rot and insects, or wood treated with arsenic-free preservatives. If that’s not in your budget right now there are other ways to minimize your family’s risk of exposure:
- Seal the wood at least every six months with standard penetrating deck treatments.
- Replace sections of potential high exposure like handrails, steps, or deck boards with non-arsenic alternatives.
- Wash your hands and your children’s hands after every exposure to arsenic-treated wood, especially before eating.
- Keep children and pets away from the soil beneath and immediately surrounding arsenic-treated wood structures.
- Cover arsenic-treated picnic tables with a tablecloth before using.
- Do not pressure wash to clean the surface of arsenic-treated wood. Instead use a soap and water solution, with disposable cleaning supplies. Pressurized water will blast off the upper surface of the wood and spray arsenic-contaminated particles over your yard.
- Do not allow children to play on rough wood surfaces. Arsenic-treated wood splinters can be dangerous.
- Never sand arsenic-treated lumber. If wood is smooth enough that splinters are not a risk, avoid sanding a deck to prepare the surface for sealing—use a simple soap and water wash instead. Wood dust formed by sanding contains arsenic that is easily ingested by a child, or can wash off the surface to contaminate the soil below.
- Do not store toys or tools under the deck. Arsenic leaches from the wood when it rains and may coat things left there.
- Do not use commercial “deck washing” solutions. These solutions can convert chemicals on the wood to a more toxic form.
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.
Outside the Box: Payments or principles?
Every day people decide whether to adhere to or stray from their principles, or whether to commit to or hedge on their ideas. Unfortunately, money often forces people to compromise on both. This week’s Outside the Box features one man’s five billion dollar principle and researchers’ billion dollar ideas to combat climate change.
Passing on billions
Jeffrey Lee values the land of his ancestors more than the billions of dollars he would gain from selling it to the French energy company Areva. The company estimates the Australian land to contain more than 5 billion dollars worth of uranium deposits. Lee is the only surviving member of the Djok clan, and solely responsible for the fate of the tribal lands containing a vast fortune in addition to sacred holy sites and burial grounds.
Instead of selling the land, Lee is advocating for its addition to the adjacent Kakadu National Park in order for its permanent protection from environmentally unfriendly mines. His inspiring stance illustrates how some things, like our environment, are not for sale or compromise. Jeffrey Lee is leaving a different kind of legacy and inheritance for future generations, perhaps one worth every penny of that five billion.
Thinking outside the budget
Global warming presents a very real problem facing contemporary society. However, for such a universal concern, global warming doesn’t seem to get the attention it deserves other than the ‘gloom and doom’ story in the newspaper every other week. The New York Times ran a great story highlighting actual proposed solutions to climate change, which haven’t gotten the chance they deserve due to a perennial lack of funding.
Some ideas include:
- Carbon sequestration, which would involve creating ‘carbon landfills’ by pumping carbon dioxide into the Earth. The technology and science are practical, but questions of scale and whether or not the gas would stay contained would require scientific funding estimated at 1 billion dollars.
- Collecting solar power in space and beaming the energy down to a receiver station on Earth using satellite lasers. This is significantly less practical since it is estimated to cost 5 billion to build a facility that could power a small city, but with more research and development the amount could decrease significantly.
- Creating a solar sunshade to deflect a small percentage of sunlight from the Earth. This idea seems to be way outside the box and is estimated to cost trillions.
- Geoengineering, which involves shooting particles into the atmosphere causing sunlight to be reflected back into space. It seems odd that shooting particles back into the atmosphere would reduce global warming, but the same principle occurs in nature when a volcano erupts and surrounding regions experience cooler temperatures.
Some of these ideas are never going to be cost effective or practical solutions to global warming, but the only way to find a tenable solution is by funding research and development. The private sector is not going to develop the solution because of the potential for failure, long-term nature, and uncertain payoff that prevent investment.
The government needs to fill the void and seriously commit research and development funding to ideas large in scope and budget demands. Developing cleaner coal, a project currently being funded by the government, is one thing. But big problems require big solutions. Thinking outside the box is always risky, but once in a while it pays off big.
'If you love your child, move'
Where's the worst air in America? Los Angeles, with its freeways gridlocked with smog-spewing cars? Houston, where petrochemical plants pump out their poisons 24 hours a day?
The distinction actually belongs to the small California farming town of Arvin, about 20 miles southeast of Bakersfield. The EPA says that Arvin's level of ozone, the primary component in smog, exceeded the amount considered acceptable on an average of 73 days per year between 2004 and 2006. And, says the AP, almost all of Arvin's pollution comes from somewhere else:
Arvin has none of the smoke-belching factories or congested freeways of cities such as Los Angeles. In fact, it produces little pollution. But the pollutants that blow in from elsewhere get trapped by the mountains, causing airborne particles to coat homes and streets and blot out views of the nearby Tehachapi range on hot summer days.
But obscured mountain vistas aren't the problem.
Specific asthma data for Arvin is not available, but surrounding Kern County has a childhood asthma rate that far exceeds state and nation averages, with 17.5 percent of children under the age of 18 suffering from the condition. The state average is 14.8 percent, the national average 12.2 percent, according to the California Department of Health Services.[snip]
Amalia Leal, a family advocate with the local school district, [says that] without the skills or resources to relocate, many families are trapped in Arvin.
But her advice to parents with chronically asthmatic children is simple.
“Move,” she said. “If you love your child, move.”
EPA is proposing to strengthen national ozone standards to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. (To see if your county meets current standards, check the map.) Not that the prospect of tighter standards holds out much hope of releif for Arvin any time soon: EPA's timeline for communities to meet the new standard extends to 2030.
Stewardship for all Creation
What will it take to get presidential candidates to commit to stopping human-caused global warming?
In a speech given at a ReEnergize Iowa rally this weekend, Jim Hansen called on presidential candidates to support a Declaration of Stewardship for the Earth and all Creation. Citing the success of public pressure and political leadership in solving the problem of ozone depletion, Hansen presented three points which such a declaration would cover: a moratorium on dirty coal, a gradually rising price on CO2 emissions, and increased energy efficiency and no-carbon energy sources.
"The bottom line," Hansen says, "is this:
"business-as-usual, if it continues for even another decade will be disastrous for the planet. We can have a stable climate, clean air, and an unpolluted ocean. And clean energies yield good jobs. It is up to the public to make sure that we get onto a path that stabilizes climate and allows all the creatures of Creation to continue to thrive on this planet.
It's interesting that a lot of the more detailed discussions that go on around global warming -- the pros and cons of biofuels, the question of "liquid coal," and the fact that plastics are made from petrochemicals -- are nowhere to be found in the declaration. Not being too picky about the details right now will allow candidates to support such a declaration without having to defend, again, their position on this or that specific issue (yeah, Obama, I'm talking to you). The point is to separate the wheat from the chaff: 'We need a way to smoke out who is serious, who will give priority to preserving creation for today’s and future generations, and who, on the contrary, is subservient to special interests."
We can hope that the Declaration gains momentum so that candidates will state a position, but a stated position doesn’t mean much in the end (see: status-quo Dems. Farm Bill, anyone? CAFE standards?). What we really need to do is hold politicians accountable.
In the meantime, you can see where many of the (Democratic) candidates stand on environmental issues in Grist's special Election '08 section.
LA water company takes 5 minutes for fluoride
On Aug. 20, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which supplies drinking water to Los Angeles, San Diego and four other counties, will be briefed on the health risks of water fluoridation. MWD is preparing to add fluoride to its supplies in October. Many cities in SoCal already add fluoride to their water after they get it from Met, but now they won't have a choice.
MWD scheduled the briefing after EWG, the Fluoride Action Network and Citizens for Safe Drinking Water raised concerns that the utility's 18 million customers should be fully informed about the new state of scientific thinking on fluoridation. In just a couple of years, concerns about fluoride in drinking water have gone from being considered a fringe issue to a mainstream debate, as new evidence has emerged about its health risks, which include an increase in a rare bone cancer among boys exposed to too much fluoride as infants.
Last year, a landmark National Research Council report pointed to a growing body of evidence that fluoride is also an endocrine disruptor. In response to the NRC report, the American Dental Association for the first time acknowledged that fluoride poses health risks, and issued an advisory warning parents who feed their infants formula reconstituted with fluoridated tap water that they should consider bottled water instead. This week, the Fluoride Action Network sent Congress a petition signed by 600 medical, public health and environmental professionals, urging a moratorium on fluoridation until more research to determine the level of risk.
Realistically, it appears certain that MWD will go ahead with its plan. But we're pressing make sure that they undertake an aggressive and comprehensive public education campaign to inform their customers of the risks. So their agreement to hold the upcoming briefing is a good sign.
Or is it just lip service? Dr. Kathy Thiessen, one of the authors of the NRC report, is coming all the way from Tennessee to address the board. But MWD plans to allow her only 5 minutes for her presentation, followed by a 5-minute presentation from the State Health Department, which favors fluoridation.
This stinks. There is no way that the revolution in scientific thinking about fluoridation that has taken place in the last few years can be adequately discussed in 10 minutes. We've asked MWD if members of the board or staff could make time to meet with Dr. Thiessen outside the board meeting, but they've been noncommital. We've heard from some members of the public that their attempts to talk to someone at MWD about their concerns have also met with no response.
If you live in Southern California and can make it to the Aug. 20 meeting, members of the public are also allowed 3 minutes each to speak on any topic. The meeting begins at noon at MWD headquarters, 700 N. Alameda in downtown LA. In the meantime, if you want to let MWD know that you think they should spend more than 10 minutes considering a major public health decision that will affect 18 million people, send a message to General Manager Jeffrey Kightlinger here.
Maybe you should skip the seafood special...
Although the revelation that over 1 million pounds of suspect seafood from China was allowed into the country is woefully late, better late than never.
FDA officials stuck the pond-raised seafood on their watch list because of worries it contained suspected carcinogens or antibiotics not approved for seafood.No illnesses have been reported, but the episode raises serious questions about the FDA's ability to police the safety of America's food imports.
It's rather unfortunate though, and I would go so far as to say down right scary, that we had to learn this from the Associated Press and not the good men and women at the FDA in charge of monitoring imported food arriving into the country every single day. Maybe until the Congress and the Administration decide to put some real resources in place to protect the American people from potentially tainted seafood coming in from foreign countries people should skip the popcorn shrimp and go with the fries.
Beach closings at all-time high in 2006
Last summer I lived just a mile from a beach -- a real beach, with an ocean and everything. Having grown up several hundred miles from the Atlantic in a town where the only "beach" was a long patch of trucked-in sand in front of a small pond, living so close to the ocean was quite a novelty. Beach culture was an entirely new thing to me, so I did what any real geek would do. I did research.
Granted, some of my research was to investigate the best beach reading and most sensible beach mats. And boy do I wish I'd had EWG's Sunscreen Database to go by (my shoulders hurt just thinking about that painful burn). But in my travels across the sandy terrain of beach culture online, I never encountered any information about beaches being declared unsafe for swimming. Now I know why. More on that later.
The National Resources Defense Council's 17th annual report on beach water quality reveals that instances in which beaches were declared unsafe for swimming reached an all-time high last summer, with more than 25,000 instances in which beaches were closed or health advisories issued. The NRDC report says that aging and poorly designed sewage and water-treatment systems are largely to blame:
“Vacations are being ruined. Families can’t use the beaches in their own communities because they are polluted. Kids are getting sick – all because of sewage and contaminated runoff from outdated, under-funded treatment systems.”
Ah, sewage in the water, our old foe. It's not just a problem for oceans, either, as Flushie will happily inform you. Act for Healthy Rivers has been campaigning for legislation to require public notification of sewer spills and overflow. This is how the NRDC characterizes the risks of sewage overflow:
"Untreated sewage carries a dangerous cargo of infectious bacteria, viruses, parasites and toxic chemicals. When it ends up in our recreational and drinking water, in groundwater and in the basements of our homes, it takes a severe toll on human health and the environment"
A map on the NRDC's new interactive Your Oceans website allows users to view 2006 water testing and advisory rates for 100 of the most popular beaches in the country. Want to know why I never heard anything about beach closings? Water at Herring Cove, tested weekly during the summer of 2006, didn't violate health standards on a single occasion. I guess my first beach-living experience was a lucky one.
Outside the Box: Going for gold
We are one summer away from the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, and the host country is trying to win the gold by going green. This week’s Outside the Box hurdles organic pork, strict air quality control standards, and vast urban renewal in a marathon of environmental stories that might leave you forgetting about lead paint and toxic food.
Hamming it up
The official Olympic pork supplier, Qianxihe Food Group, is changing the way it prepares its meat so athletes won’t fail their drug tests. Special pigs grown in a secure location (one step away from an undisclosed bunker) will be fed organically grown feed and not injected with growth hormone. This of course implies chemicals banned by the International Olympic Committee are regularly present in Qianxihe (Lucky Crane is the U.S. brand) meat at doses high enough to appear on drug tests.
More below the fold...
The significance of this seems to be clear to everyone but the Qianxihe spokesman. The chemical supplements, such as growth hormone injected into the pigs and even the chemicals in the food they eat, are eventually passed on to the human consumer and become unwanted body burdens—yet again more toxins in the concealed chemical soup we ingest everyday. These pigs are normally deemed fit for consumption but hey, the rest of us aren’t Olympic athletes, right? Maybe OTB should forward the organics petition EWG recently delivered to Congress to Qianxihe executives.
At least the company seems to be taking these particular pigs seriously. Check out this hilarious quote by a Qianxihe spokesman, “From the perspective of terrorism prevention, the pig farms are secret and cannot announce their names, conduct publicity or allow entry by strangers until after the Olympics.” Perspective anyone?
Mixed Reviews
The Chinese government is rebuilding Beijing. With the remodeling comes the good, the bad, and the ugly. The Chinese leadership has made conscious efforts for environmentally friendly, sustainable development including setting aside the tidy sum of twelve billion dollars for ‘green’ construction projects. These projects include adding hundreds of square miles of parks, greenbelts, and trees.
Their methods leave a lot to be desired, however. A balance between the community, environment, and the need for development should always be sought, and in China that hasn’t been the case. The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions estimates that as many as 1.5 million people have been evicted for Beijing’s photo op. Many of these evictions have been unwilling, uncompensated, and even involved the use of force. In addition, many of the Chinese rural provinces are attempting to mimic Beijing’s grandiose development in much less environmentally friendly ways. The Chinese model of rapid at-all-costs development is a far cry away from ideal.
While China’s newly developed environmental conscious looks to be like a positive event, a plethora of contradictions exist beneath the surface. Hopefully, human rights will play a larger role in Beijing’s development and growth hormone free pigs become the norm, not the exception.
Big-box muscles push for greener packaging
When a retailer with $60 billion in annual sales says jump, manufacturers ask how high, and in this case that's great news for the environment.
An initiative by Target to persuade its private-label packaging companies to eliminate excess packaging has resulted in more sensible packaging for more than 500 products so far, and Director of Packaging John Butcher implies that we can expect the process to continue. Wal-Mart has instituted a similar program, vowing to eliminate all private-label PVC packaging by 2009.
PVC (polyvinyl chloride) is of particular importance to us here at Enviroblog, since the perennial plastic packaging favorite contains vinyl chloride (classified by the EPA as a human carcinogen) and phthalates (which are linked to hormone disruption). And, as Izzy points out,
"so much of that stuff we use comes ONLY in plastic, regardless of the brand. And while makers claim this plastic or that plastic is safe, I’ve heard that too many times only to find out later that it’s not safe at all."
Critics call it greenwashing, and certainly the move to minimize packaging makes good business sense for the retailers -- it will not only improve their image with environmentally-conscious consumers, but reduce shipping costs and increase shelf-space at retail outlets. But short of a massive consumer movement to eliminate excess packaging (which, unfortunately, still seems far-fetched), requests from big-box retailers are the most effective way to influence manufacturers.
So good for Target and Wal-Mart for using their considerable economic muscle for the greater good. Hopefully positive consumer response will make it profitable for them to move on to even bigger environmental initiatives.
Saturday Morning Multimedia: Toilet environmentalism
Plenty of companies make water-efficient toilets these days, but replacing your old model with a newer one is an expensive endeavor -- and if you live in an apartment building, it's pretty much impossible. Here's an easy DIY way to make your toilet more efficient and save money and water at the same time.
Problem toys: A personal perspective
This post from one of the Urban Mamas bloggers really drove home the reality of the Mattel recall for me. I don't have babies of my own (yet -- don't worry, Mom, I'll get there!), so while I was busy being angry from a public health perspective, anxious parents across the country were raiding their children's toy boxes and wondering how to protect their precious progeny. From the post:
While I go around the house collecting these precious objects, I think: is it time to collect everything and switch entirely to wooden and handmade toys? I'm certainly about ready to throw up my hands in distress. My heart aches when I think of the fallout should I discover that the die-cast Thomas trains from Target have lead paint, too (my worst nightmare). If only I'd never developed the love affair my sons have with these dangerous things.
I don't know what I'll do when I have children (please, it's after 1 p.m. and I don't even know what I'm having for lunch), but the comments thread at Urban Mamas is full of ideas for where to find safer, more sustainable toys. That is, if you can afford them. Which, once again, is why we need to reform our nation's chemical laws and ensure that chemicals and products are safe for everybody's children.
Toxic children's toys signal time for reform
As though we needed it, here's further evidence that the status quo of chemical regulation is not sufficient:
In what is only the nation's second largest toy recall this year, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a recall of more than one million lead-painted toys. The Mattel products were manufactured in a Chinese factory, and although two-thirds of the toys were pulled directly from retail shelves, 300,000 have already made their way into consumer homes.
Lead paint on children's toys. It's just ludicrous, especially when you consider that Americans have spent nearly 30 years trying to keep lead paint as far from their children as possible.
The CPSC and the Toy Industry Association have been working together to create more stringent regulations, and we think that's a good start. But we want to keep lead and other harmful and under-researched chemicals out of our children's systems, and what we need to make that happen is massive reform of US toxics regulation. It's time -- in fact, it's well past time -- for an overhaul.
EPA sued over potentially dangerous pesticide
When a CDC website describes the possible medical effect of a pesticide like this
...may produce a variety of effects on the nervous system including headaches, blurred vision, watering of the eyes (called lacrimation), excessive salivation, runny nose, dizziness, confusion, muscle weakness or tremors, nausea, diarrhea, and sudden changes in heart rate...
It seems sensible to think that maybe the government would move to ban it.
In the case of chlorpyrifos, the pesticide whose possible side effects are described above, a ban was enacted on the chemical's indoor use. But last summer, disregarding their own calls for further research into the effects of the pesticide, the EPA reauthorized its agricultural use.
Yesterday a coalition of farmworker advocates filed suit against the EPA. According to the suit, the EPA's continued allowance of chlorpyrifos constitutes a violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.
Given that the EPA has acknowledged that chlorpyrifos can cause "paralysis and death" in high doses, I'd say the reauthorization also constitutes a glaring disregard for farmworker health and safety. Says attorney Shelley Davis, "With safer alternatives already in widespread use, the EPA has betrayed the trust of the men, women, and children whose health it is supposed to protect."
Incidentally, the Fairness Amendment to the House Agricultural Committee's version of the Farm Bill would have "required more complete reporting of pesticide use in agriculture," a move that was supported by many of those involved in the lawsuit.
Read more: Seattle Times, AP, Wired Science