ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Envirohealth News: Crime, unleaded
Organic: Better for the planet, better for your health
Just shoot me: The vaccination quandry
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Toxins in our Kids' Foods: Where is the FDA?
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Fluoride in Your Water: How much is too much?
Borax: Not the Green Alternative It's Cracked Up to Be
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
Monthly Archive
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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?"
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!
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Blog Action Day tip: Know your source
Today is Blog Action Day, an event created to draw the attention of the blogosphere as a whole to one particular issue. Today, bloggers around the world will turn their attention to this year’s theme: the environment. Parenting bloggers, tech bloggers, health bloggers and a multitude of others will be writing about environmental issues as they relate to each niche.
But us… we’re an environmental blog. The environment is our niche. We passed ideas around: do we distill our entire message down into one post? Offer a single remarkably useful consumer tip? Offer a roundup of our favorite posts from the past year? In the end, we decided we had a timely message to convey, not just to the environmental community but to the blogosphere at large.
When you’re dealing with environmental science – when you’re dealing with almost any science at all – you’re also dealing with politics, and if you don’t know your source then you don’t know your facts.
What does it mean to “know your source?” In the environmental movement, it can sometimes be very easy. If Big Petro puts out an ad campaign claiming to the most earth-friendly, eco-conscious, “green” company on the planet, I imagine you’d naturally be suspicious. The same would go for any corporation tooting it’s own green horn.
But it isn’t always so clear. What if a nonprofit think tank came out in support of that corporation? And what if they backed it up with statistics, saying they’d done an analysis and found that in fact Big Petro is the most earth-friendly, eco-conscious, “green” company on the planet? Would you take it at face value? If you did a little digging, you’d probably find some connection – like, oh, money – between the “think tank” and the corporation it endorsed.
It gets even more complicated when the industry that benefits isn’t patently obvious. We don’t have to look far for an example in this case; a couple of weeks ago a coalition of scientists, non-profits, and government agencies released a report directly in contradiction with current government recommendations. Pregnant and nursing women, the report said, should be eating at least 12 ounces of fish per week; never mind that this might expose women to extremely high levels of mercury, one of the most toxic substances in our environment. The recommendations appeared to amount to a complete reversal from the government; the FDA recommends no more than 12 ounces of fish per week, but the Centers for Disease Control and several NIH agencies were listed as part of the coalition that produced the report.
The Washington Post splashed it across their front page: “Mothers again urged to eat fish,” the headline read, and in smaller print below that “Advisory at odds with FDA stance.” Plenty of other credible news sources jumped on the story as well, referring to “the new recommendations” as though they were a mandate from on high rather than a cherry-picked literature review. NPR thought something seemed, well, fishy, and sure enough it only took a couple of phone calls before the entire thing began to unravel.
Aspects of the review had been funded by the seafood industry. The press had been informed of the funding conflict, but none of them chose to pass that information on to the rest of us when they made their reports. Meanwhile, calls to government agencies and respected non-profits like the American Association of Pediatrics revealed that these coalition members had not seen the report, knew nothing about it, didn’t endorse it.
So what did mainstream media do? They added a sentence to subsequent reports: “Some point out that seafood industry funding helped to pay for the report, but the coalition insists that their science is sound.”
And so the seafood industry succeeded in their goal; the report has created confusion around the issue of mercury exposure from seafood, especially during pregnancy. Although the “new recommendations” aren’t likely to be taken seriously, the junk science steals credibility from the real science of mercury exposure by creating the illusion of conflict in the scientific community, when in fact there is no conflict. Any good scientist, any good doctor will tell you that while omega 3s are important to developing brains, it’s a useless venture if of babies are being born with dangerous amounts of mercury in their bodies. Following FDA recommendations, women should choose fish low in mercury and high in omega 3s, and look for other sources of the fatty acids as well.
And what can you do? Know your source. When a new study comes out and completely counters old research, don’t reject it out of hand or accept it blindly. Instead, give some thought to who stands to gain, ask questions, and always demand that mainstream media tell you the whole story.
DDT is not healthy for children and other living things
Imagine a group of gregarious nine and ten year old girls in the early 1960s, laughing and running through the streets of their neighborhood on a summer evening, following along behind a big truck -- a big truck spraying the pesticide DDT.
Now imagine those same girls as grown women, 30 years later, when many of them are fighting breast cancer, and some of them have already lost that fight. For them, the recent news of a link between DDT and breast cancer must be a little surreal.
Although scientists have long suspected a link between DDT exposure and breast cancer, most studies have turned up little or no evidence of a connection. But new research focusing on women's age of exposure found that those who were exposed to the pesticide in the years before puberty had their risk factor increase fivefold. It appears that, given the opportunity to enter the body before breast development, DDT goes to work on breast tissue.
DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) was synthesized in 1875, but it's powers as a pesticide were discovered by a Swiss scientist (who patented his discovery and won a Nobel Prize for it as well) in the late 1930s. It was widely used during the second World War to combat insect-borne diseases, and in the 1950s and '60s it was sprayed widely through many American towns as pest control. To judge from comments and photos I've seen, running behind the fogger was a popular pastime for suburban children. Rachel Carson documented a link between DDT and declining bird populations (the chemical thins their eggshells) in her 1962 book Silent Spring. The pesticide was largely banned in the US ten years later, and subsequently banned for agricultural use worldwide.
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization has agreed to permit the use of DDT in interior home spraying in parts of Africa badly afflicted with malaria. Families are told to leave their house and stay away for a period of time (which many point out is not always possible), but even afterwards the pesticide's residue will remain on the walls and floors where babies and young children -- apparently the age group most likely to be affected -- will inevitably come into contact with it.
Those who clamor for the use of DDT (some of whom may stand to gain from the continued sale of the expensive chemical) to control malaria are setting up a false dichotomy: poison yourself with DDT or contract malaria. Malaria kills between one and three million people every year, so it's easy to see how spraying a dangerous pesticide might seem like an attractive option. But in fact DDT stopped working on many mosquito populations in Africa because those mosquitoes evolved ways to deal with the pesticide. Continued spraying is likely to lead to further genetic resistance.
Eventually, to combat resistant mosquitoes, nations using DDT to fight malaria will have to transition to another form of pest management. But many of those other alternatives exist already, and I'd guess that more are on the way. All that remains is for those funding the spraying of DDT to stop buying into the intentionally confusing messages of the chemical industry and start moving forward with a system that protects against both malaria and cancer. The issue is a lot more complex than the DDT-or-death rhetoric that surrounds it.
Envirohealth in Blogs: Fishy fishy. . .
What with the recent confusion over safe fish consumption, you may be in the mood for some clean fish. Head on over to Blogfish for a hot tip on where to find it.
It turns out that the streets are safer for cyclists than many think -- and in fact, not pedaling may kill you. Alan Durning of Sightline Institute has the story on Gristmill.
The EPA has approved the use of methyl iodide (nasty, dangerous stuff) to replace methyl bromide (nasty, dangerous stuff that depletes the ozone layer) as a soil fumigant. Revere is not surprised.
Heather and Renee at Enviromom are perpetually full of useful ideas. This week they've got a recipe for spreadable butter without all the hydrogenated oil and disposable plastic tubs. So handy!
Jasmin of Worsted Witch covers the Breast Cancer Fund's new Pure Prevention campaign for Treehugger.
There is no fish conundrum, says Angry Toxicologist -- it's simple. Just choose low mercury fish -- oh, and doing something about mercury pollution might be a good idea too.
Toxic remains of mining operation kill geese, cancer cells
You really can't beat this opening sentence, so I'm not even going to try:
BUTTE, Mont. — Death sits on the east side of this city, a 40-billion-gallon pit filled with corrosive water the color of a scab.
If that doesn't sound like a cheery story to you, you're in for a surprise. From that scab-colored corrosive water, researchers are pulling organisms that might be the key to the next generation of cancer drugs.
The pit is the remains of what was once the world's biggest copper mine, now filled with acidic water and- well, again, author Christopher Maag says it better than I could:
For decades, scientists assumed that nothing could live in the Berkeley Pit, a hole 1,780 feet deep and a mile and a half wide that was one of the world’s largest copper mines until 1982, when the Atlantic Richfield Company suspended work there. The pit filled with water that turned as acidic as vinegar, laced with high concentrations of arsenic, aluminum, cadmium and zinc.Today it is one of the harshest environments in the country. When residents speak of the pit, they often recall the day in 1995 when hundreds of geese landed on the water and promptly died.
He's not kidding; this thing is an environmental nightmare.
But two scientists with a history of discovering sources of cancer-fighting drugs think they may have struck gold again. Of the 80 chemical compounds that exist in this pit and nowhere else, two have already demonstrated under lab conditions an ability to kill breast and ovarian cancer cells.
It will be years before the drugs-from-sludge meet the market, and that's only if they pan out. Still, as environmental health stories go, this is a fascinating one. I hope they manage to get something of value out of the murky water. Maybe that will begin to mitigate the environmental damage done by the open pit mine.
Exposure of Canadians to toxic killers
Canadians face up to 25,000 premature deaths annually and that costs the Canadian government more than $9 billion. These, among other statistics, were revealed in a new study published last week.
This is one of the first studies to estimate largely preventable exposures that resulted from exposures to air pollution, and numerous chemicals. It studied exposure to environmental hazards in four categories: respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer and congenital afflictions, because according to the authors of the study, there is strong evidence that connects them to the environmental contaminants.
According to Canada.com article, here are some sources of exposure and prevention tips:
The four major sources of our contact with toxic chemicals:
- Air: The air we breathe contains the biggest threat, from outdoor pollutants such as smog and combustion byproducts to indoor pollutants called volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, which can be found in paint, carpet and plywood, eventually breaking down into a fine dust that is inhaled. VOCs are identifiable by their distinct smell, obvious in a freshly painted room or wet nail polish.
- Food: Apart from the chemicals in processed food, fruits and vegetables can also contain pesticide residue and traces of heavy metals.
- Water: Water quality varies between communities, but some tests have revealed miniscule amounts of lead and arsenic.
- Skin: From insect repellent to shampoos and cosmetics, the products we put on our skin remain with us.
Practical things you can do to protect your health from environmental threats:
- Shop smart: Avoid products that contain dangerous chemicals. For cleaning, use baking soda, vinegar and "green" soaps. Try natural cosmetics and skin-care products. Avoid materials containing VOCs and carcinogens.
- Bug off: There are safer alternatives to pesticides for your lawn and garden. Try using good bugs that eat bad bugs or mixing crops to minimize the use of chemicals.
- Keep clean: Remove your shoes at the door. Hard flooring is easier to keep clean than carpet. Be sure your vacuum has a HEPA filter, which catches small particles. Maintain your furnace and gas stove.
- Air it out: Minimize outdoor activity on poor air quality days. Don't smoke, avoid open burning of garbage and yard waste, and drive less.
- Healthy habits: Eat local, so your food has to travel less, and consume more organic fruits and vegetables.
Envirohealth News: Finally, an asbestos ban
We've known the about the negative health impacts of asbestos since the 1920's, and now the Senate has finally acted to ban the stuff from import. Our thanks and congratulations go to Senator Murray and the tens of thousands of asbestos victims who fought so hard for this achievement.
Meanwhile, a product that killed two people and made almost 100 others ill was allowed to remain on store shelves for months after the CPSC ordered a recall. If you've ever wondered how effective that government agency is, you must read this article.
Drilling for natural gas in the Midwest is big business these days, but rigs are moving closer and closer to a nuclear test site. Drilling too close could release radioactive gas. Says one gas company rep, "[. . .] every square mile of land that you set aside that can't be developed is worth a huge amount of wealth." It's that classic conundrum, you see: community health, or developer's wealth.
The Washington Post covers the smoggiest place in America: little Arvin, CA, whose pollution mostly comes from Los Angeles and San Francisco, and from traffic on Interstate 5. Bill covered this story here on Enviroblog in 'If you love your child, move'.
With the summer's spate of recalls on lead-tainted toys, parents across the country are wondering: how do we get rid of this stuff? No one's exactly sure, and improper disposal could contaminate landfills and even groundwater.
How about a little hormone disruption with your drinking water?
It's awfully hot here, especially for October. Can I get you a nice, cool glass of water?
Would you like some estrogen with that?
A UK study of two waterways and the sediment they rest on reveals that estrogenic compounds contained in effluent from wastewater treatment plants migrate into the sediment, and could from there migrate into groundwater. That means it may end up in drinking water and in water for crop irrigation.
If you're wondering how the estrogen-like compounds got there, look no further than your medicine cabinet. Endocrine disruptors (EDCs) are in products that many of us use every day, including products that get flushed down the drain constantly. There are EDCs in anti-bacterial soap, in some toothpaste, in cosmetics, in laundry detergent and in vinyl shower curtains. EDCs are also often a product of industrial manufacture.
Most endocrine disrupting chemicals are unregulated, and wastewater treatment plants -- which deal quite effectively with organic waste and solids -- were not designed to filter out hormone-mimicking compounds. You can limit your own household's exposure to EDCs, but if they're in the drinking water. . . well, maybe then the government will finally do something about it.
SMM: A food and farm bill for school lunches
KQED public radio in Northern California played a story on Thursday about the farm bill and how it effects the lunch menu in public schools:
We've all heard the latest health advice: avoid transfats. Eat more fruits and vegetables. But for many school children, their cafeteria lunch menus haven't caught up. This year, an effort to get healthy foods to the school lunch table is tied up in a much larger debate-- national farm policy.
Enviroblog's very own Bill Walker comes in about halfway through. What does he have to say?
"It's the biggest political pork bill that's out there. Billions of dollars in crop subsidies go every year, mostly just to growers of a few select commodity crops: corn, soybeans, rice, wheat, cotton."
Have a listen and then, if you haven't already, contact your senator!
This Enviroblog post has not been funded by the seafood industry
So, the Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies coalition has issued a recommendation that women who are pregnant, breast-feeding, or planning on becoming pregnant should eat at at least 12 ounces of fish per week -- including mackerel and tuna. The recommendation goes directly against the standing government guidelines, which advise women to eat no more than 12 ounces per week, and to avoid fish known to be high in mercury concentration -- including none other than mackerel and tuna.
Who belongs to the coalition? According to The Washington Post, "top scientists from private groups and federal agencies." What the paper forgot to mention in its front page story (in which it paid considerable lip service to a recommendation which goes directly against government recommendations) was the coalition's silent partner. The "review" was funded by the National Fisheries Institute, the preeminent seafood industry advocacy group.
Sounds pretty fishy, but evidently industry-funded science doesn't set off any alarms at any of the host of mainstream media outlets covering the story yesterday. Most of them treated the news as a mandate from heaven, even after it was revealed during the press briefing that the organization had received funding from the seafood industry.
This is a straightforward case of science-for-hire: the seafood industry wanted to boost sales, so they hired a review panel to recommend that women eat more fish -- and the media bought it hook, line and sinker.
If media's only requirement is that a handful of people with degrees back a statement, what will tomorrow's headline be?
Courtesy of the tobacco industry:"Cigarette smoking improves lung function"
Or the alcohol industry:
"Whiskey helps stem liver failure"
Or the auto industry:
"Safety belts increase risk of accident fatality"
Let's be honest: smoking cigarettes can give you cancer, if you have liver problems you shouldn't be drinking, and use of safety belts has reduced accident fatalities by 45 percent. According to the EPA, 1 in 6 babies born in this country are already at risk for developmental disorders caused by mercury exposure, and increasing fish consumption would just put more kids at risk. Pregnant or nursing women should not consume more than 12 ounces of fish per week, no matter what the seafood industry says.
Mothers told: "Eat fish! No wait, don't eat fish!"
In an interesting turn of events, a coalition of top scientists announced yesterday that pregnant and nursing women should eat more fish.
The position is at odds with the FDA's 2001 recommendation, reiterated in 2004, that pregnant and nursing women should limit the amount of fish they eat in order to avoid mercury toxicity. Scientists from the National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition said yesterday that the benefits derived from the omega-3 fatty acids in fish outweigh the risks of mercury poisoning; omega-3s contain nutrients important to developing brain and nervous systems.
Interestingly, the numbers aren't that different. The FDA recommends that pregnant and nursing women eat no more than 12 ounces of fish per week, while scientists yesterday recommended women eat at least 12 ounces per week.
So what's an expectant mom to do? Taken together, the scientists make it sound like 12 ounces per week is the magic number. And even that may be too much, unless you're eating only fish with low mercury content. And there's always supplements, although a colleague of mine points out that it's important to choose distilled fish oil if that's the route you decide to go.
And now for the obvious: how absurd is it that we should have to limit our consumption of one of the most nutritive foods there is because of man-made pollution? Maybe if we'd just stop spewing mercury into the water, we wouldn't have to worry so much about eating it.
Nail biters in Taiwan beware
Well, biting your nails is never a good habit to pick up, but now it could be down right dangerous for a certain segment of the population in China Taiwan -- specifically those who use nail polish. A new study shows almost 70 percent of all nail polish on Chinese Taiwanese shelves is mislabeled regarding ingredients, with over 2 percent of those containing high levels of the heavy metal lead.
Unfortunately, lead in personal care products is nothing new. Even though the U.S. federal government ordered the dangerous substance removed from the gas we fill our cars with and the paint we put on our walls, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to keep it out of some cosmetics sold in the United States. Human exposure to lead, depending on the amount, can inflict serious health problems, including developmental problems in children, induced comas and even death.
Note: We made an error in this post. Although the article referenced was printed in the China Post, it actually discusses the problem of mislabeled nail polish in Taiwan. We apologize for the mistake.
Envirohealth in Blogs: Climate change whatchamacallits, crop insurance, DDT and more
A little light reading for your Wednesday.
The FDA has dropped the ball, and Angry Toxicologist is . . . well, angry! It's easy to see why.
Vital Daily Juice at Green Options gives us a friendly reminder to watch our mercury intake.
Effect Measure takes a look at the (newly discovered) link between breast cancer and the banned pesticide DDT.
Joseph at the Sierra Club's Compass takes a look at the taxonomy of climate troublemakers.
The Pump Handle reviews EPA's new rule on lead in drinking water.
Washable? Disposable? The moms at Safe Alternatives for Baby look at environmental impacts, heath effects, and convenience when considering the options.
And finally, at Gristmill, Aimee Whitteman explains the backwards, twisted, vaguely unreal crop insurance policies of the federal government -- giving you one more reason not to forget the farm bill.
17 Principles of Environmental Justice
After writing this morning's post on the global environmental justice movement, I did a little digging and turned up the Principles of Environmental Justice. Drafted and adopted in 1991 at the National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, the document serves as a guidepost for the movement. Here are the 17 principles, reprinted in full from the Environmental Justice Resource Center's site.
Principles of Environmental Justice
Preamble WE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR, gathered together at this multinational People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, to begin to build a national and international movement of all peoples of color to fight the destruction and taking of our lands and communities, do hereby re-establish our spiritual interdependence to the sacredness of our Mother Earth; to respect and celebrate each of our cultures, languages and beliefs about the natural world and our roles in healing ourselves; to insure environmental justice; to promote economic alternatives which would contribute to the development of environmentally safe livelihoods; and, to secure our political, economic and cultural liberation that has been denied for over 500 years of colonization and oppression, resulting in the poisoning of our communities and land and the genocide of our peoples, do affirm and adopt these Principles of Environmental Justice:- Environmental justice affirms the sacredness of Mother Earth, ecological unity and the interdependence of all species, and the right to be free from ecological destruction.
- Environmental justice demands that public policy be based on mutual respect and justice for all peoples, free from any form of discrimination or bias.
- Environmental justice mandates the right to ethical, balanced and responsible uses of land and renewable resources in the interest of a sustainable planet for humans and other living things.
- Environmental justice calls for universal protection from nuclear testing, extraction, production and disposal of toxic/hazardous wastes and poisons and nuclear testing that threaten the fundamental right to clean air, land, water, and food.
- Environmental justice affirms the fundamental right to political, economic, cultural and environmental self-determination of all peoples.
- Environmental justice demands the cessation of the production of all toxins, hazardous wastes, and radioactive materials, and that all past and current producers be held strictly accountable to the people for detoxification and the containment at the point of production.
- Environmental justice demands the right to participate as equal partners at every level of decision-making including needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement and evaluation.
- Environmental justice affirms the right of all workers to a safe and healthy work environment, without being forced to choose between an unsafe livelihood and unemployment. It also affirms the right of those who work at home to be free from environmental hazards.
- Environmental justice protects the right of victims of environmental injustice to receive full compensation and reparations for damages as well as quality health care.
- Environmental justice considers governmental acts of environmental injustice a violation of international law, the Universal Declaration On Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention on Genocide.
- Environmental justice must recognize a special legal and natural relationship of Native Peoples to the U.S. government through treaties, agreements, compacts, and covenants affirming sovereignty and self-determination.
- Environmental justice affirms the need for urban and rural ecological policies to clean up and rebuild our cities and rural areas in balance with nature, honoring the cultural integrity of all our communities, and providing fair access for all to the full range of resources.
- Environmental justice calls for the strict enforcement of principles of informed consent, and a halt to the testing of experimental reproductive and medical procedures and vaccinations on people of color.
- Environmental justice opposes the destructive operations of multi-national corporations.
- Environmental justice opposes military occupation, repression and exploitation of lands, peoples and cultures, and other life forms.
- Environmental justice calls for the education of present and future generations which emphasizes social and environmental issues, based on our experience and an appreciation of our diverse cultural perspectives.
- Environmental justice requires that we, as individuals, make personal and consumer choices to consume as little of Mother Earth's resources and to produce as little waste as possible; and make the conscious decision to challenge and reprioritize our lifestyles to insure the health of the natural world for present and future generations.
Correction
In a May 16 blog post about the possibility of Dennis Paustenbach being appointed to a federal asbestos committee, we said that Paustenbach's firm ChemRisk "committed scientific fraud on behalf of a client" by placing in a scientific journal an article concluding that chromium-6 does not cause cancer. The study was published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health in 1997 under the byline of a Chinese scientist without disclosing ChemRisk's involvement in the study.
Our statement that ChemRisk committed scientific fraud was in error. The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health did retract the study, but it stated the reason it was doing so was that "financial and intellectual input to the paper by outside parties was not disclosed. Although it is impossible to know what the impact of such disclosure would have been, it is possible that full knowledge of the circumstances may have altered the review process or the subsequent interpretation of the study by readers."
On Dec. 23, 2005, The Wall Street Journal cited court documents that "indicate the . . . study was conceived, drafted, edited and submitted to medical journals" by ChemRisk, working for Pacific Gas & Electric Co., "a utility company being sued for alleged chromium pollution." The Wall Street Journal has not retracted or corrected these statements.
Defining the global environmental justice movement
I've been talking a lot about environmental justice lately, and I've had a couple of people question exactly what I meant. Not having an official definition at hand, I've had to cobble together something halfway accurate. Here's a little secret for you: I'm really good at knowing what words mean, and not so good at actually defining them. So when friends asked what exactly environmental justice is, I told them something along the lines of "It's.. it addresses the fact that some people -er, some disadvantaged communities are more likely to be stuck, um, dealing with the environmental impacts of ...stuff."
Luckily for me (and for you, too), an article in the latest Environmental Health Perspectives contains both a succinct definition and a longer explanation:
Environmental justice was defined by Robert Bullard, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, in his seminal 1990 work Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality as "the principle that all people and communities are entitled to equal protection of environmental and public health laws and regulations." In countries around the world, the concept of environmental justice can apply to communities where those at a perceived disadvantage—whether due to their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, immigration status, lack of land ownership, geographic isolation, formal education, occupational characteristics, political power, gender, or other characteristics—puts them at disproportionate risk for being exposed to environmental hazards. At a global scale, environmental justice can also be applied to scenarios such as industrialized countries exporting their wastes to developing nations.
Enviroblog tends to emphasize environmental health issues in the US (with the exception of Jovana's writing, which often has an international bent), but the article from which the quote above was taken offers a great overview of who's doing what globally to promote environmental justice. In Brazil, The Brazilian Network on Environmental Justice brings together 100 member organizations to attack the issue of environmental injustice from all sides. The Indonesia-based Via Campesina organizes small and medium agricultural producers, has members in 56 countries. The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives coordinates efforts to stop incineration and has members in more than 77 countries. Our friends at Friends of the Earth International have been charting the course for international environmental justice initiatives since 1971, and now have more than two million members in 70 countries.
Enough from me. I'm sending you over to the article now -- it's an inspiring read, especially if the intersection of health, equality, and international politics interests you.
The unknown toothpaste hero
Until today’s article in New York Times, the name Eduardo Arias meant nothing to me. However, Eduardo is responsible for worldwide awareness of the presence of diethylene glycol in toothpaste.
Mr. Arias, a 51-year-old Kuna Indian living in Panama, made his discovery by reading the label of a toothpaste imported from China. The government, or should I say the governments of 34 countries affected by this discovery, overlooked it.
Diethylene glycol is toxic to humans and animals and can even lead to death. Until recently, the best-known poisoning case is the Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster that caused the deaths of more than 100 people and led to the passing of the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
It is very troubling that no one noticed that this poisonous ingredient--found in products not intended for dental hygiene, such as antifreeze--was being sold all around the world until Mr. Arias raised the red flag. Maybe there should be better laws about monitoring imported products. Or maybe laws should have public health in mind.
Until then, we should all be Eduardo Arias.
