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]
Ask EWG: Should I use iodized salt?
Envirohealth News: Crime, unleaded
Organic: Better for the planet, better for your health
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
October 31, 2007
Consumer safety legislation going to Senate
Earlier this week some key members of the United States Senate decided that if lead had no place in gas or paint, it probably shouldn’t be in children’s toys.
While there were several members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation who didn’t support legislation to increase funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and ban lead in toys, enough members did to send the bill to the full Senate for consideration.
The bill will also put the ‘Consumer” back in the CPSC by better protecting whistleblowers and more aggressively going after those industry big shots who knowingly break the laws that are in place to protect the consumer. Chalk one up for the people.
Envirohealth in Blogs: Have a green Halloween!
A little light reading. Happy Halloween!
Eco-conscious but on a budget? David at The Good Human has the list you've been looking for: 35 low-cost ways to green your lifestyle.
CPSC Chair Nancy Nord is nervous that legislation on the table might force her agency to (gasp!) do its job! More at The Pump Handle.
Some DC schools are giving young students a lesson in Ethicureanism. Also from Ethicurean, a Food and Farm Bill update.
This may be the best line I've read in a blog recently:
"Let's think like a coral and get worried about acid oceans."Read more about acid oceans at Blogfish.
Carl Pope's got an important three-point post up about the California wildfires -- well worth a read, especially if you feel like contributing something useful in the comments.
Finally, Siel at Emerald City has 7 tips for a green Halloween -- and she links to this awesome online pumpkin carving application, just in case you're not a fan of pumpkin guts.
October 30, 2007
Drop in aggressive crime parallels ban on leaded gasoline
It can be hard to prove the correlation between environmental exposures and health implications. Public health advocates who focus on environmental exposures, often speak about general health trends more then specific causalities. For example, EWG analysis combined with numbers from numerous governmental agencies and independent science reports found that over the past 50 years, chronic conditions without obvious origins have become prevalent. Asthma, autism, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders (ADD and ADHD), childhood brain cancer and acute lymphocytic leukemia have all increased over the past 30 years. Five to ten percent of American couples are infertile. Up to half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Three to five percent of babies are born with birth defects and so forth. Scientists cannot fully explain these increases, but early life exposure to environmental pollutants is a leading suspect.
Well, now we have further evidence that exposure to environmental toxins affects us. A new study on that subject was published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research. The study focused on the reduction on leaded petrol and how that affected crime rates around the world. The research found that “banning lead in petrol is responsible for declining crime rates in Britain, the United States and other countries.”
Besides threatening to overturn current thinking on crime, it provides the data for a wide range of countries, with different social and economic situations. We have known for years that lead, a potent and toxic chemical, can damage the brain and among other things lead to aggressive and criminal behavior. Another study, done at Pittsburgh University, “found that adolescents arrested for crime in the city had lead levels four times higher than their law-abiding contemporaries, and a study of 3,000 possible causes of criminality in 1,000 young people by Fordham University, New York, found that high lead levels were the best predictor of delinquent and violent behavior” according to the article in The Independent.
This is an important study. More work needs to be done on the effects that environmental toxins have on our lives. And we need lead out of our daily products -- like out of lipstick, as I blogged about few weeks ago.
Ask EWG: Should I use iodized salt?
Question: Is there a reason why my table salt is iodized? I’m not even really sure what that means, but it sounds a little scary, and unnecessary. Should I switch to kosher salt or sea salt?
Answer: Stick with the iodized salt! It’s an important source of iodine, a trace nutrient necessary for proper thyroid function. Severe iodine deficiency is rare in the US, but about one third of women in the US have low iodine levels, which makes them especially susceptible to chemical contaminants that interfere with thyroid function.
One of these chemicals is perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel that has leaked out of military sites and contaminated drinking water in many states. It has also been found in a variety of foods, including many produce items and cow’s milk. The CDC has found perchlorate in every one of almost 3,000 people who they tested, indicating widespread exposure among the US population. In addition, they also found that in the one third of women with lower iodine levels, exposure to perchlorate at levels that are commonly found in food and the environment was associated with significant changes in levels of thyroid hormone. This is especially worrisome for women of childbearing age because the developing fetus is vulnerable to any decreases in maternal thyroid hormone.
Iodized salt is no substitute for aggressive public health protections from thyroid toxins in the environment. The government must step in and take responsibility for cleaning up these contaminants to levels that protect human health.
In the meantime, as little as half a teaspoon of iodized salt per day is enough to maintain healthy iodine levels in most people. People with medical conditions like high blood pressure and congestive heart failure should be careful with their salt intake, and no one should dramatically increase salt intake without first checking with their doctor.
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.
October 29, 2007
Envirohealth News: Crime, unleaded
When a body is exposed to lead it's stored in the bones like calcium, but scientists are just now realizing that it's also released back into the blood like calcium -- including when mothers are breast feeding.
Speaking of lead, Giuliani might want to be careful about claiming credit for the reduction in crime in New York City -- recent research connects the ban on leaded gasoline with dropping crime rates.
Illinois' state EPA is suing a chemical company that poured as much as 7,000 pounds of toxic chemicals into Pettibone Creek, which drains into Lake Michigan.
The Associated Press has an amazing investigative piece on poor salt harvesters in Africa -- haunting, and well worth a read.
Residents of a cancer-cluster town in Pennsylvania will find out this week whether or not the rare disease that's plagued their town is linked to the nearby Superfund site. Our guess? Probably not a coincidence.
Organic: Better for the planet, better for your health
For years governments have made a point of saying that there's no nutritional benefit to organic foods. Now they may have to eat their words.
A European Union funded study of organic and non-organic fruits, vegetables and animal products found that organic fruits and veggies had up to 40% more cancer-fighting anti-oxidants, and milk from organically-reared cows had as much as 90% more anti-oxidants when compared to non-organic milk. The study was conducted by researchers on adjacent farms -- one using organic methods, the other going the conventional route -- to come as close as possible to ensuring identical environmental variables.
Let's review, shall we? Organic is better for our health, better for the environment, it can feed the world, and it's even tastier (at least according to some lab rats). So why does it remain the neglected child of the farm bill?
October 27, 2007
SMM: Well-oiled machine
I do not speak for the rest of the Enviroblog team when I say, I love bluegrass. I love the classic stuff and the new stuff, the ballads, the lightening-fast pickin'. . . Who knows, maybe I was from Appalachia in another life.
Anyway. Hot Buttered Rum is a string band that covers classic bluegrass and country tunes, but they also write their own stuff. I'd been listening to this song for a couple of months before I finally realized -- they're talking about a grease car!
Awesome.
October 26, 2007
Just shoot me: The vaccination quandry
I'm not about to get into the science of vaccination on a Friday afternoon (except to say that injecting babies with mercury sounds like a bad idea to me, and the burden of proof should be on demonstrating that it isn't hazardous, not proving that is a risk).
Over at Moms Speak Up, Cristina has posted about the experience she had when she tried to exert a little control over her infant's vaccine schedule. Cristina had done her homework and drawn up a plan for her baby, only to have the doctor insinuate that she was ridiculous and inept:
Doctor: Well, the problem with that is that it’s really hard to keep track of what vaccines you need and which ones you’ve had when you get off the standard schedule.Me: I understand, but I’m just concerned that the baby’s immune system isn’t ready for all of this.
Doctor: They have done studies and found that these vaccines are perfectly safe though. They wouldn’t be on the market if they hadn’t been safety tested.
Me: Well, what about the old Rotavirus vaccine? Wasn’t that pulled from hospitals after problems a few years agod.
Doctor(missing the point): Oh, there is a new Rotavirus vaccine now though.
Me: But isn’t it pretty new?
Doctor: Well, it depends on what you consider new.
Me: Well, my two-year-old didn’t get it. Isn’t it just a year old?
Doctor: But it’s been tested on 100,000 people before it came to market. Plus, this one’s oral so it doesn’t go into the bloodstream.
Infuriating. Good for you, Cristina, for putting your foot down.
Chemical Index: Find the information you're looking for
We quietly added a new feature to the EWG homepage this week, and it's one I think Enviroblog readers might find very useful.
The Chemical Index (which you'll find on the lefthand navigation) documents all of the chemicals EWG has researched or done work related to. You can go in, click on a chemical you want to learn more about, and get a list of EWG's research, related news items, and the health effects of that chemical. Health effects (like hormone disruption) and routes of exposure (like through personal care products) are also cataloged, so there are lots of ways to search.
Let's have an example, shall we?
Say you heard something about PCBs on the news. In fact, you've been hearing about PCBs on the news for years, but the news anchors are so vague that you don't think you really understand what they are. Instead of searching the internet and turning up dubious information, or hunting through EWG's site to find what you're looking for, you can just click on PCBs in the chemical index. There you'd find EWG's report on PCBs in farmed salmon, as well as this simple explanation:
PCBs are persistent contaminants that impact the brain, nervous and hormone systems. PCBs were banned in the 1970s but despite the ban, human exposure continues from fatty foods. EWG is working to clean up food fed to farmed salmon, which contain high concentrations of these chemicals.
and this description of the health effects and routes of exposure:
Health Effects related to Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): Endocrine system, Reproduction and fertility, Persistent and bioaccumulative, Cancer, Immune system (including sensitization and allergies), Brain and nervous system, Birth or developmental effectsRoutes of Exposure related to Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs):
* Environment: agriculture
* Food: fatty foods, fish
* Found in people
* Miscellaneous: electrical insulators, electrical transformers
* Water: sewage sludge
So there you have it. Yet another useful, research-based tool from EWG.
October 25, 2007
Envirohealth News: Home on the trash heap, and recycle your CFLs!
As the Santa Ana winds begin to die down and Southern Californians take stock of the damages, some in the media are noting the impact that global warming may have on wildfires. In the UK, the BBC asks: Have lessons of Katrina been learnt?
Senator Boxer and Representative Gordon are not pleased that the White House censored expert testimony about global warming. Sections on global warming as a public health threat and global warming vulnerability were removed. Why, I wonder, would the Administration do that?
While we're on the subject of global warming: ten northeastern states have put together a regional plan to auction off credits to industrial plants to cover their CO2 emissions. The plan is designed to put dirtier plants at a competitive disadvantage and encourage the use of cleaner generators and more efficient technology.
Location, location, location: EnCap wants to build luxury homes atop old toxic trash heaps in the Meadowlands, but real estate investors aren't buying it.
Critics call the greening of schools a fad and a waste of money. I call it a real education.
Compact fluorescent lightbulbs save money and energy -- and because they save energy, less mercury-per-bulb is emitted from coal-fired power plants. Unfortunately, each bulb contains a few milligrams of mercury, which means they can't be thrown out. Apparently GE is working to change that. In the meantime, make sure you recycle them!
What happened at Brofiscin Quarry?
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when Douglas Gowan was called to investigate the deaths of livestock on a farm near Brofiscin Quarry in South Wales. Other than that, though, his story reads like a film noir script.
Brofiscin Quarry was a dump site for Monsanto between 1967 and 1974, and the waste chemicals they dumped there -- PCBs, mostly -- flowed from the quarry in brightly colored foaming streams into the local waterways. The contamination killed cattle and sheep and caused spontaneous abortion in livestock, and there's no telling what effect it may have had on the health of the human population. Monsanto was never made to clean up their act, and now, decades later, Brofiscin is one of the the most polluted places in the UK and Gowan is receiving death threats. From The Ecologist:
Gowan’s evidence was then released to Monsanto and Tony Morgan. That’s when he started to receive threatening phone calls and menacing callers at his home, and experiencing break-ins that left him fearful for his personal safety. ‘You won’t live to testify’; ‘You’re the last surviving witness’ he was told; ‘Don’t you feel vulnerable?’ he was asked.
Industry lied and paid their way out of the courts in the '70s, and they're doing it again now. Go and read the article. It's shameful, and infuriating, and scary, and it ought to be a work of fiction. Unfortunately, it isn't.
October 24, 2007
Envirohealth in Blogs: Getting to the meat of things
A little light reading for your Wednesday. . .
Liz at The Pump Handle looks at how the problems at Topps Meat managed to get past USDA inspectors, and as per usual it all comes down to money.
While we're on the subject of meat, Bonnie at Ethicurean examines how the new grass-fed label could be organic all over again.
At her new(ish) LA Times blog Emerald City, Siel wonders about the preponderance of doom-and-gloom documentaries.
Sierra Club president Carl Pope looks at the facts behind the so-called nuclear revival, and wonders, "who is fooling whom?"
Moms Speak Up has a great post about building a community around buying locally raised, grass-fed meat. Hard work, sure, but worth it in the end.
Talk about bad bottled water: ingredients listed on bottles of water handed out at the local water treatment facility include "lint, rancid grease, stomach acid and trace amounts of Pepto Bismol." It gets worse -- read the rest at DeerPhD
October 23, 2007
A fish called Sally: The truth about mercury, omega 3s, and pregnancy
Washington Post reporter Sally Squires toed the fishing industry line in her front-page article on the recommendations issued by the industry through the National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition. Criticism from reporters and health advocates, as well as a statement from The Post’s Ombudsman, lead Squires to write a follow-up article on the subject of fish consumption.
Unfortunately, some people just can’t admit their mistakes. Squires doesn’t correct the record or apologize for misleading her readers, and to top it off the column reads like it was written by the fishing industry itself.
Squires could have owned up to her mistakes and her role in perpetuating industry-created confusion. If she had, here’s how today’s column would have read.
Earlier this month I wrote an article about a set of recommendations issued by the National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition. Their report, urging women to eat a minimum of 12 ounces of fish per week, ran contrary to FDA and EPA advisories. Due partially to mistakes on my part and partially to information that had not yet come to light, that story went to press with four important points omitted or misstated:
- The first paragraph of my October 4th article attributes the recommendations to top scientists and federal agencies. In fact, not a single top scientist or federal agency has backed the report or its findings. Clearly this fact changes the nature of the rest of the article; the recommendations carry little weight without the backing of respected scientists.
- The coalition members that I listed, including The American Academy of Pediatrics, the March of Dimes, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, did not support the recommendations and in fact had never even seen the report. The recommendations were issued by the coalition’s board of directors and were not screened by member organizations.
- The National Fisheries Institute, an industry organization, funded aspects of the report and its publicity. NFI paid scientists involved $1,500 plus travel expenses to attend the meeting at which they wrote the recommendations. NFI also paid $60,000 for an educational campaign to inform mothers of the coalition’s recommendations. Furthermore, the public relations group Burson-Marsteller (which represents the fishing industry) is facilitating the promotion of the report. Hampton Shaddock, a managing director at Burston-Marsteller, is also the vice-chairman of the National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies coalition.
- The coalition’s recommendations are not “backed up by the preponderance of science,” as Dr. Frank Greer, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told my colleague Marian Burros at The New York Times.
I regret all of these errors, but I’d like to pay special attention to the last point.
There is an illusion of controversy and confusion around fish consumption. The Maternal Nutrition Group, who wrote the coalition’s recommendations, cited five studies that appear to support their case, but the bulk of the evidence demonstrates the risks to pregnant women of eating fish contaminated with methyl mercury. There is agreement in the scientific community, and I want to be perfectly clear about it:
There is a consensus that women of childbearing age should avoid eating fish that are high in mercury, and that they should limit their seafood consumption to 12 ounces per week or less.
Health advocates advise women to choose low-mercury fish, such as
- salmon
- sardines
- tilapia
- anchovies
- shrimp, and
- light tuna
Women should avoid fish known to be high in methyl mercury, such as
- albacore tuna
- king mackerel
- swordfish, and
- shark
The health benefits of omega 3 fatty acids are indisputable, so women should particularly seek fish that are high in omega 3s while remaining low in methyl mercury, or find alternate sources of omega-3s (such as fish oil supplements or flaxseed oil).
Health advocates would love to see the FDA release a comprehensive list of fish that should be avoided or eaten only in moderation during pregnancy, as well as other low-mercury sources of omega-3s. Until they do, though, you can refer to this chart, or to this Safe Fish List compiled by the Environmental Working Group.
Previous coverage on Enviroblog:
Mothers told, "Eat fish! No wait, don't eat fish!"
This Enviroblog post has not been sponsored by the seafood industry
Blog Action Day Tip: Know your source
Prioritize your food dollars with Dr. Greene
You're organic-savvy, right? You already use the Shoppers' Guide to prioritize your produce purchases, but now you're wondering what else you should be considering when it comes to your food dollars.
Tips like these from Dr. Alan Greene are just what you need. His Organic Prescription series presents 11 tips for making smart choices when shopping for yourself and your family. Five of his tips were featured on Tara Parker-Pope's Well blog (on the New York Times website) this week, and they generated quite a bit of buzz. No surprise there -- people want to know how to prioritize their purchases to keep their families and the planet healthy. Dr. Greene has advice about
- Milk
- Potatoes
- Peanut butter
- Baby foods
- Catsup
- Cotton
- Apples
- Beef
- Soy
- Corn
. . . And a bonus tip about wine. If you've ever wondered about the nutritional value of your fries or the catsup you're dunking them in, Dr. Greene has your answer.
Speaking of answers, Dr. Greene will be chatting live on his website today at 10am, so if you've got a question stop by and ask it!
October 22, 2007
When Less is More
I often complain about lax chemical regulations. And, I am definitely guilty of saying “imports are poisoning people in America.” But what about the people that make those imports? Few of us ever stop to think about them.
This amazing investigative piece that I read today in The Salt Lake Tribune puts things into perspective. It is written by Loretta Tofani, a journalist that is spending time in China visiting factory workers and reviewing medical and legal records. It investigates the health implications that these products, made mostly for America, are having on workers.
While the products are made for Americans, the rights and protections of Chinese workers are not the same as those of American workers. This makes the super-cheap products super-expensive for those who are inhaling, touching and being surrounded with many chemicals.
In most cases, Chinese corporations own the factories and American companies just pay them to make the products. The reduction in prices allows American companies to compete in global market. According to the U.S. Commerce Department, “Last year, the U.S. imported $287.8 billion in goods from China, up from $51.5 billion a decade ago.
In a global economy, few think of basic human rights, like workers health. China did pass a law in 2002 that would set more rigorous standards for their workers. However, the law is not enforced and more emphasis is given to the economic growth then safety.
While there is definite economic growth in China, the Chinese Ministry of Health estimated in 2005 that at least 200 million of 700 million workers in the labor force were regularly exposed to toxic chemicals in factories. This also led to China’s world lead on deaths per capita from work-related illnesses. China’s manufacturing costs have lead to reduction of the cost of their goods from 11 percent to 44 percent, according to Columbia University law professor Mark Barenberg as quoted in the article.
So, while we all enjoy our inexpensive goods, we should wonder sometimes what they do to the world around us, and the people we share the planet with. I know that I will never again think I got a deal.
Envirohealth News: Peak oil, drought, and (thank goodness) some environmental heroes
Greener parenting: Because "those cute little feet sure do make a big carbon footprint."
Atlanta has less than a 90-day supply of water left, and so far there's no backup plan.
German-based Energy Watch Group (EWG, hah!) says that oil output peaked in 2006, and their studies show that it will decline by 7% per year. The Guardian has the story (in their business section, which strikes me as being vaguely ironic).
The next time a friend asks why you're so concerned about your child's exposure to environmental toxins, point them to this article -- it's one of the best I've seen on the subject.
When is the (un)grass too green? More on the synthetic turf wars.
Time Magazine designates Heroes of the Environment. The list includes the usual suspects, and some people you've probably never heard of.
iToxic?
Apple's iPhone contains chemicals that are internationally regulated because of their potential danger to health and the environment, according to research by Greenpeace. Elements of the phone were made with PVC and brominated fire retardants, although the levels of those chemicals adhere to international standards. Greenpeace's research has lead a consumer organization in California to file a lawsuit against Apple; under proposition 65, a product containing any amount of dangerous chemicals must be labeled accordingly.
That's the story the media's telling, but what's getting left out?
The computer on which I'm typing at this very moment contains similar chemicals, and there's a pretty good chance that yours does too.
Now, I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't be criticized here -- they tout themselves as being green, and it makes sense that many would hold them to a higher standard. As it stands they've vowed to stop using some of the nastier chemicals by the end of 2008 (although why implementation has taken so long is another question altogether).
What I am saying is that there are a lot of electronics out there containing PVC and BFRs. Instead of "Ooooh, lookit what Apple did!" the media's message ought to be "Uh oh -- if Apple's using this stuff, how bad must other electronics be?"
October 20, 2007
SMM: Eco-intervention
Poor Lindsay Lohas. Once upon a time she was a careful environmentalist, but in the wake of fortune and fame, her eco-idealism has gone down the toilet. Will her friends be able to get her back on track?
Courtesy of Blue Egg, a web magazine devoted to "green, for the rest of us." Can't wait to see what happens next!
October 19, 2007
National toxic toy ban? Lead the way, California
Right now, parents who want to avoid exposing their kids of phthalates have to carefully monitor the toys and children's products their young ones have access to. But when the initiative signed into law on Sunday goes into affect in 2009, parents in California will be able to breathe a little easier.
The bill, which bans the sale of products containing phthalates and intended for children 3 years or younger, sparked interest in enacting similar bans in states across the country. The Chronicle reports that "Lawmakers in Texas, Illinois, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, Maine, Connecticut and New York are expected to introduce similar legislation in the coming months."
The slow and painful process of a state-by-state ban would lead toy manufacturers, sooner or later, to abandon the chemicals altogether -- after all, what's the point of making toys that can only be sold in a handful of states?
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has expressed interest in modeling a national bill on the state's new legislation, and we applaud that effort. This much interest in a ban on phthalates ought to send a message to the industry and to Congress: people want safer toys, and they'll get them however they have to.
Learn how to minimize your family's exposure to phthalates.
October 18, 2007
Nuke free's the way to be
This is not about celebrities.
If this was about celebrities, people would say "What do they know?" and "Their job is to entertain, they should just stay out of politics" and "Who do they think they are?"
So I won't tell you what they know. Instead, I'll tell you what I know.
- Producing tons of radioactive waste (tons per power plant, per year, which then needs to be safely transported and stored and will remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years) is not sustainable, and it is not clean energy.
- Spending billions of taxpayer dollars on nuclear energy as a clean energy option is at best misguided, and at worst a total sham.
The Senate version of the energy bill authorizes essentially unlimited loans to companies building new nuclear power plants in the name of clean energy, when in fact it is nothing of the sort. The are other issues at play, here: the health of employees, environmental effects, the possibility of an accident like the ones at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and the potential for nuclear power plants to be used as terror targets ought to be enough to get you thinking.
But I'll tell you what gets me. Congress is willing to spend billions on "clean" energy that is, by definition, not clean, instead of putting their our money where their mouth is and spending that same money to research and develop promising sources of actual clean energy.
That's what I know about nuclear power, but let me tell you something else: those entertainers know a lot more than I do, because they've been thinking about and working on this issue since 1979. Nuke Free has the information you need about what's going down, and about what you can do to stop it.
October 17, 2007
Caution: These seven household items may feminize baby boys
. . . and they're unhealthy for you, too. Phthalates are the culprit.
Phtha-what, you ask? Phthalates are common industrial chemicals. They've been around since the 1930's, making vinyl out of hard plastics, acting as solvents, and contributing to the "fragrance" of many personal care products. The Centers for Disease Control tested 289 people in 2000, and found phthalates in all of their blood at surprisingly high levels. High phthalate levels have been linked to decreased sperm motility and concentration and altered hormone levels in adult men; in a recent study of 134 newborn boys and their mothers, researchers found distinct differences in the reproductive systems of the boys whose mothers had the highest phthalate levels during pregnancy. Further research revealed that those moms' phthalate levels weren't uncommon -- in fact, an estimated one quarter of American women would have similarly high phthalate levels.
Luckily, there are steps you can take to limit your exposure. Here are six seven common sources of phthalate exposure in the home, and what you can do to avoid them.
- Nail polish: Dibutyl phthalate is often used to make nail polish chip-resistant. Look for it on the ingredients list, where it may be shortened to DBP.
- Plastics in the kitchen: Take a critical eye to your cupboards. Phthalates may be more likely to leach out of plastic when it's heated, so avoid cooking or microwaving in plastic.
- Vinyl toys: Phthalates are what make vinyl (PVC) toys soft, so don't give them to children. Opt instead for wooden and other phthalate-free toys, especially during that age when they put everything in their mouths!
- Paint: Paints and other hobby products may contain phthalates as solvents, so be sure to use them in a well-ventilated space.
- Fragrance: Diethyl phthalate (DEP) is often used as part of the "fragrance" in some products. Since DEP won't be listed separately, you're better off choosing personal care products, detergents, and cleansers that don't have the word "fragrance" on the ingredients list.
- Vinyl: Vinyl shows up in a lot of different products; lawn furniture, garden hoses, building materials, and items of clothing (like some raincoats) are often sources. Aside from carefully choosing materials when you're making purchases, there is one easy change you can make: switch to a non-vinyl shower curtain. That "new shower curtain" smell (you know the one) is a result of chemical off-gassing, and it means your shower curtain is a source of phthalates in your home.
- Air Fresheners: New research from the NRDC demonstrates that, just like fragrances in personal care products, most air fresheners contain phthalates. That even goes for the ones labeled "fragrance free." NRDC suggests that you open your windows and use fans to circulate air and keep it fresh.
October 16, 2007
"Onederwear" makes me wonder about our common sense
Have you ever undressed to shower while on vacation and thought, "Gee, I really wish I didn't have to go to all the trouble of putting this underwear back in my luggage"?
No?
Me neither. But just in case you're simply too lazy to re-pack those dirty underpants, here's Onederwear -- wear-it-once disposable cotton undies.
OneDerWear is an ultra-light disposable underwear created for traveling. Designed to provide the utmost comfort and convenience, OneDerWear disposable underwear is 100% cotton and ideally packaged for maximum space efficiency. Each package contains five compact pairs of individually wrapped disposable underwear that can fit in the palm of your hand. With OneDerWear, you simply wear and toss! By the end of your trip, you'll be surprised to find plenty of luggage space for gifts and souvenirs.
The site even suggests that parents send them to their college students, who can't be bothered to wash their underpants during finals.
Seriously? Well, yes. The biggest problem with Onederwear is that it's not a joke. The waste, the ultra-consumerism, the sheer laziness, it's all for real.
October 15, 2007
Lead in Lipstick?
To be honest, before I started working for EWG, I really didn’t think much of the makeup that I put on my face every day. I believed that the products were safe because I was able to buy them in stores. I had no idea that $50 billion personal care industry regulates itself and there are almost no guidelines or testing requirements by the government.
After over a year at EWG, I didn’t think anything else could surprise me. Until a few days ago, that is, when the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (EWG is a founding member of the Campaign) released its new study of lead in lipstick. The Campaign tested 33 red, brand-name lipsticks (like L'Oreal, Cover Girl, and Dior) and found that more than half of 33 brand-name lipsticks tested (61 percent) contained detectable levels of lead. None of these lipsticks listed lead as an ingredient.
One-third of the tested lipsticks exceeded the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s limit for lead in candy -- a standard established to protect children from directly ingesting lead. Lipstick products, like candy, are directly ingested into the body. Nevertheless, the FDA has not set a limit for lead in lipstick, which makes sense when one considers the disturbing absence of FDA regulatory oversight and enforcement capacity for the personal care products industry.
We all know lead is bad; it's a proven neurotoxin that can cause learning, language and behavioral disabilities. No amount of exposure is without harm. Pregnant women and young children are most vulnerable since it can cross the placenta and interfere with the normal development of the fetus. Lead has been removed from paint and gasoline -- why do we need it in lipstick?
Actually, we don't. The test done by the Campaign also shows that it is possible to make lipsticks without it. No detectable levels were found in 39% lipsticks tested.
It's 2007 and the US FDA still lacks important, obvious regulations on cosmetics. Until we see that change, you may want to check out these safer lipstick alternatives.