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]
In Neodesha, BP stands for Big Problems
"Um, thanks, but I don't generally print my email. . ."
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
November 29, 2007
Ah, for the toys of my childhood. . .
First lead, now asbestos: Holiday toy shopping is tougher than ever.
When I was a kid, the dangerous toys didn’t come in a box you opened to play with on your bedroom floor. They were BB guns, skate boards and lawn darts. Oh, how I miss the good old days. At least if you got hurt with one of those it was more than likely your own fault. Nowadays, all a kid has to do is list a CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit or a certain brand of play clay on his or her holiday wish list and bingo! Instant asbestos exposure at levels that may some day result in cancer.
Call me crazy, but the sting of a BB or a skinned up knee from a fall from the skateboard sound more appealing to me.
Low level lead exposure causes lowered IQ
Blood lead level considered "safe" by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control: 10 µg/dL
Blood lead level shown to have a negative impact on intellectual functioning: 5-9.9 µg/dL
Child IQ at these levels: 4.9 points lower
Did you follow that? If it's a little early in the day (or, um, the year) for you to be thinking in mathematical terms, allow me to translate into plain English: A study (pdf) published last week demonstrates that children with lifetime blood lead levels between 5 and 10 micrograms scored, on average, about 5 points lower on standard IQ tests at age 6. Since the CDC considers anything below 10 micrograms to be normal, the study concludes that children's intellectual functioning is impaired even at low blood lead levels. In case you're wondering, the study included measures to adjust for maternal IQ and other factors that might affect a child's IQ.
If you've been holding out because that recalled toy is little Suzy's favorite and she doesn't put it in her mouth anyway, I'd say this study is a pretty good sign that it's time to let it go. The more research we see, the more it looks like any lead exposure is too much lead exposure.
November 28, 2007
Google: Making green by being green
The thing about business is this: the goal is to make money. In fact, if a corporation does not act in its own best financial interest, it's legally liable to shareholders. That's a fact that often gets overlooked in the environmental community, where we seem to believe that companies should switch to sustainable practices out of the goodness of their hearts, regardless of how much it will cost them. "Please," we think, "they're a multi-billion dollar company. They can afford to make a change." Rest assured, any time you see a corporation go green it means that those in charge believe they can increase profits with a green initiative.
Which isn't to say that their heart isn't in it. Case in point: Google. They've just announced a program to develop renewable power resources to the point that they're cheaper than coal:
The initial goal will be to produce 1 gigawatt of renewable energy -- enough to power a city the size of San Francisco -- more cheaply than coal-generated energy within five years, Google energy czar Bill Weihl said.
The action is spurred in part by the amount of energy the company requires to run, and the lack of clean energy to run it on. Google plans to hire 20 or 30 engineers, and Google.org (the company's philanthropic venture) will invest in renewable energy. The company's investors seem a little nervous -- after all, Google makes its money on search and advertising, not by being environmentally responsible. I'm pretty sure there's a master plan there at Google HQ, though. I wouldn't worry too much if I were them.
November 27, 2007
In Neodesha, BP stands for Big Problems
In Neodesha, Kansas, BP is a dirty word. Residents of that city, along with the county, the school district, and a pair of private landowners, are suing the corporation for $423 million. They allege that BP intentionally mislead the community by promising to clean up pollution left by their own company and their predecessors while they actually never intended to at all.
BP says the contamination is no big deal (and we're all shocked, I assure you). It was not, they argue, a result of negligence, and anyway the pollution doesn't "pose any health risk to people who live and work in Neodesha." Which is kind of a funny thing to claim, since pollutants found in the town include a number of known and suspected carcinogens and dangerous heavy metals. Well tests performed in 2003 found benzene in wells at levels thousands of times higher than what's considered safe. And then there's this: Investigators
discovered a layer of pure petrochemical sludge riding above the groundwater. The test wells estimated the sludge layer was up to two feet thick in several places, and was measured at almost six feet thick at one well.
The judge has set the bar fairly high -- In order to find in favor of the plaintiffs, the jury will have to feel that there's sufficient evidence that BP "carried out an intentional and well-rehearsed business plan to defraud the city and its residents and avoid paying for the removal of the pollution." My feeling is that, whether they never planned on cleaning up Neodesha's pollution or they were just putting it off a while longer, BP needs to roll up their sleeves and get down to the dirty business of cleaning up their mess.
November 26, 2007
"Um, thanks, but I don't generally print my email. . ."
Last week the LA Times ran an article about a trend in which email senders add a tag line to their outgoing messages, encouraging the recipient to “consider the impact on the environment before printing this email.”
I’m all for considering the impact of our actions on the environment, and there’s nothing wrong with the occasional reminder. Sure, it may come off as a little smug, especially when the tag is appended to an unsolicited email from someone looking for a favor – but as far as I’m concerned, there’s a bigger problem with the “don’t print this email” trend.
Who the heck prints their emails?! Seriously. Are people getting long, involved emails that need to be printed and read away from the computer? Are many of your emails filled with critically important information that needs to be paper-filed? I’ll admit that I occasionally print longer articles that I don’t have time to read at work, or reference materials that will be more useful in a paper copy. But most of the emails I receive are only a few lines long. I read an email, and then I either respond, delete it, or save it for later. Whenever I see a tagline admonishing me not to print all I can think is why on earth would I?
Maybe I’m out of touch. Maybe the offices I’ve worked in have been too hip to do something silly like print emails on a regular basis. But I’m incredulous, and I’d wager a bet that the “don’t print” tagline has outlived its usefulness.
Time to move on. I propose a new tagline: Please remember to turn off your computer when you leave your office. I know a lot more people who leave their computers on than people who print their email.
November 21, 2007
SMM: Holiday shopping edition
Well, here we go folks -- the holiday shopping season is in full swing. If you're the type that spends the post-Thanksgiving break shopping 'til you drop, I wish you the best of luck. Me, I'm hanging out in my PJs, drinking hot chocolate and listening to Dean Martin's holiday album.
You may have heard a thing or two about some product recalls over the past several months. Sierra Club and the Consumers Union have both come up with humorous but informative cartoon takes on what, for many, is an extremely stressful situation. The videos can't be embedded, so you'll have to go watch them individually. While you're there, check out Consumer Union's Not In My Cart campaign and sign their petition, and send a message to people in important places from the Club's website.
Right above us, and way ahead on curbing chemical exposure
It seems Canada is not only physically above the United States, but ahead of us as well when it comes to reducing the exposure of its most vulnerable populations to toxic chemicals. The Province that 1 in 3 Canadians calls home is moving forward with plans to possibly ban outright the use of Bisphenol-A (BPA) in the production of baby bottles due to study after study showing the hormone disrupting chemical to have potentially harmful impacts on babies. Meanwhile, here in the United States, due to the 1 or 2 chemical industry spokespeople who continue to ignore the science and claim BPA is just fine, the well-spun media in the States continues to report that there is “debate” over the chemical’s impacts on people.
And now we learn Canada’s equivalent to our Secretary for Health and Human Services has just announced a $4 million, 5-year body burden study tracking the chemicals in about 2,000 pregnant women and their babies.
Kudos Canada. There are some folks below the border who could learn a thing a two from their neighbors to the north.
EnviroHealth in Blogs: Cold coffee blues got you down?
A little light reading for your pre-holiday perusal. . .
Siel's got some tips for greening your computer use -- and even though you've probably heard them all before, I bet you could use a refresher. Make sure you turn off your computer over the long weekend!
The worst effects San Francisco Bay oil spill could have been contained, says Mark, if only we didn't wait so long to learn our lessons.
Cold coffee generally isn't a problem here at EWG -- the stuff doesn't last long enough to get cold. Hey, we've got to keep those researchers going somehow. Anyway, if you've ever wondered whether it's more Earth-friendly to nuke a cold pot of coffee or just toss it and make a new one, Umbra's got your answer.
California is taking legal action against 20 toy companies they say violated that state's toxics law. The companies could be fined up to $2,500 per day per violation for the unlawful amounts of lead in their products.
A lot can happen in a year -- especially a year without Richard Pombo. Sierra Club's Carl Pope reports.
Beauty Snob has the rundown on a cosmetic product recall. Apparently Age Intervention Eyelash by Jan Marini contains a medication that may increase pressure in the eyes and cause vision problems -- and yet somehow it made it to market. I feel safe, don't you?
Chocolates for the environment
Finally, the story I was waiting for- we should all eat more chocolate! I can’t be happier!
While there is pretty wide agreement that chocolate is good for you (ok, at least I agree with that), there is indication that chocolate is good for the environment as well since it can help global warming.
NPR’s story takes us into a blooming part of rainforest in eastern Brazil. Rainforest trees store large amounts of carbon, and their destruction can lead to more carbon dioxide and less clean air.
However, we all know that there is less and less rainforest and there will be none left if we continue destroying it in current pace.
According to Dario Ahnert, a plant expert at the State University of Santa Cruz in Eastern Brazil, farmers need incentive to farm in the remaining forest and chocolate can be that incentive.
Cocoa, used to make chocolate, can be farmed without destroying the forest if grown in special ways. This would be good for the forest, the land, but also for farmers as there is a growing demand for environmentally friendly chocolate.
Sometimes, the little things can make a difference. Not for the whole world, but for this corner of the world. If we all took some steps, we could all make some difference. And think about the chocolate. . .
November 20, 2007
The business of green: My Burt's Bees prediction
Late last month, Clorox (makers of bleach, amongst other things) bought Burt's Bees (makers of "natural" personal care products) for nearly $100 million. A day or two later, the green blogosphere had a fit.
It's understandable. It's always sad to see a small independent producer gobbled up by a megacorporation. And, people wondered, what will happen to the products? Will they end up just as bad as all the other stuff on the shelves?
Here's what I think: Clorox won't change much about the line. I'm not saying consumers shouldn't be vigilant -- we absolutely should keep an eye on this situation. But think about it: What would a company that mostly makes cleaning products want with a safer cosmetics line?
What they want is a share of the eco-conscious marketplace. Clorox had seen their worth drop over the course of a year, and everyone knows it's good to have an environmental ace in the hole. There are two ways to go about that: green (or greenwash) your own products, or pick up a new, greener project. Since bleach would be, um, kinda tough to green, Clorox went the other route.
Making significant changes to Burt's product formulations could potentially ruin the entire venture for Clorox. I could be wrong, but impression is that Burt's Bees users tend to be very plugged into the "natural" community, both online and off. If a new formulation of a products makes it into Skin Deep and word gets out -- as it has a tendency to do -- Clorox loses it's share of the green market, and they're out nearly a hundred mil.
Tom's of Maine makes for an illustrative example. Colgate bought the company a while back, but a quick Skin Deep search shows that Tom's brand toothpaste still tends to score better than Colgate brands. It'll be harder to make such comparisons with Clorox, since as far as I know they don't own any other personal care products companies, but I'll be surprised if Clorox doesn't follow in Colgate's footsteps.
Meanwhile, Burt hasn't been involved with his Bees since 1993, although his folksy face continues to adorn the packaging. The company moved out of Maine ages ago, and in 2003 the majority of the company was sold to a firm that exists solely to buy small companies, increase their worth, and sell them off to bigger corporations.
They've managed to hold on to the small-company feel thus far, and product formulations didn't change much, although some critics point out that there's a lot more plastic packaging these days than there used to be. Of course, many of those who hear the news will stop buying Burt's because they don't want to support Clorox, which I can understand. And, as Julie points out, Clorox isn't exactly going to advertise its relationship with Burt's, meaning some consumers may never even realize just who they're supporting.
November 19, 2007
Three more things you can do to help the planet
Somehow, nearly 20 years after the publication of 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth, the fact that our everyday decisions can have an impact on the future of the planet is still news.
It's true: Every time you turn off that extra light, hang your clothes to dry, and choose to recycle those glass bottles, you're taking a big step in the right direction. This weekend, in the special Living Green issue of the Sunday magazine, The Boston Globe featured 84 ways you can help the planet, but they left off a few things. Here are three more steps you can take to protect the planet.
- DITCH THE ANTI-BACTERIAL HAND SOAP. Triclosan, the ingredient in antibacterial soap that kills microbes, ends up in our water sources, where it accumulates in the fatty tissue of animals. It may be a hormone disruptor and a carcinogen as well. Antibacterial soap doesn't offer any better protection than plain old soap and water, so why not skip it?
- SCRUTINIZE YOUR PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS. Your shampoo, your deodorant, your toothpaste -- they all carry a hidden environmental impact. You can cut back on pollution in water and the pollution in you by reading the labels on your products and knowing which chemicals to avoid. Or, use Skin Deep to search for better products.
- WHENEVER POSSIBLE, CHOOSE ORGANIC. Okay, the Globe did mention this one briefly, under the heading "vote with your dollars." We think it's important enough to deserve its own directive. By supporting organic (and, when possible, local) agriculture, you're changing the cycle of demand. There are so many people buying rBGH free milk, for example, that Monsanto had to call in the big guns to try and stop it. Not only is organic healthier for the planet, but choosing organic produce and dairy products reduces your exposure to potentially harmful pesticides, antibiotics, and artificial hormones. Need to prioritize when it comes to organic fruits and veggies? Food News can help.
Okay, so they left some stuff out. They also included a lot of great information -- here are a few of our favorites:
REDUCE, THEN REUSE, THEN RECYCLE. Someday there will likely be a wide variety of packaging that can be composted or endlessly reused and recycled; until then, consuming less that's new, reusing anything you can, and recycling what's left are your best options.
CLEAN UP YOUR CLEANING PRODUCTS.Some conventional household cleaning products contain known and suspected carcinogens and hormone disrupters, and many can induce asthma and other respiratory illnesses.Want to know a little more about your options? Here are some suggestions from Women's Voices for the Earth.
PASS ON PARTICLEBOARD. Indoor air quality is affected by formaldehyde and other volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, found in carpeting, plywood, subflooring, paint, and furnishings. You don't have to remodel your entire house, but choose lower-VOC options going forward. Strong fumes are one indicator of harmful gases, but some products, including interior paints, indicate whether they are "low-VOC" on their packaging.
STOP HAND WASHING THE DISHES.The average energy-efficient dishwasher uses just 4 gallons per cycle, saving as much as 5,000 gallons of water per year compared with hand washing, as well as $40 in energy costs and 230 hours of washing time, according to the EPA.This one's a personal pet peeve of mine. I can't stand it when people insist on "just rinsing" the dishes before they put them in the dishwasher. More often than not, the dishes are practically clean before they're even loaded, and all that water savings goes down the drain. (Pardon the pun. Completely unintentional, I promise.)
November 17, 2007
SMM: The Garbage Game
Okay, so I'm not really sure if my score is very good, but the game was interesting. The Garbage Game was designed for the Gotham Gazette. It says:
...this week New Yorkers threw away 64,000 tons of garbage. That comes out to almost 7 billion pounds of garbage every year.Whisking off the detritus of our daily lives costs the city more than a billion dollars a year.
That's a lot of trash, and a lot of money. Lucky for you, it's only a game -- unless you live in New York City.
November 16, 2007
Plantation workers v. Dole:
Whose victory was it?
The trials are over, and Dole has been ordered to pay a total of $5.7 million to banana plantation workers. The Nicaraguan employees were not warned that the pesticide they were being exposed to had sterilized workers in California, and -- well, the Nicaraguan employees won't be having any children either. Aside from being incredibly unjust, it also has a sort of dystopian eugenics feel to it, doesn't it?
Trial lawyers on both sides are claiming victory following yesterday's announcement from a Los Angeles court that Dole would pay another $2.5 million in damages, on top of the $3.2 million already awarded. A lawyer for Dole told the LA Times that "It doesn't even pay [the plantation worker's] costs, much less their bills." Boy, he sounds like a really nice guy.
Meanwhile, the attorneys for the plantation workers says it isn't about the money. Said one:
"It lets [Dole] know that they're accountable for what they do, even if they do it south of our border," Miller said. "Our reputation as a country is partially dependent on the reputations of our corporations doing things overseas."
And another:
"What really matters is that Dole sterilized these peasants and thousands more humble Nicaraguan peasants, and in the rest of Central America, and we proved it. That is what counts, and I'm proud of it," Ordeñana said.
I'm not entirely convinced that the workers would agree, and the LA Times article mentions a couple of times that the award is much less than many were expecting. For a company like Dole, $5.7 million is hardly a slap on the wrist. Maybe the worker's lawyers are right -- maybe the outcome of the trial will send a message to Dole and other corporations. Hopefully the message isn't "Do whatever you want, it won't cost you much."
One last thing: Wasn't it Dow who produced the sterilizing pesticide? Where are they in all of this?
November 15, 2007
Monsanto thinks they've got you fooled
If you live in Pennsylvania, you should know that your state's Secretary of Agriculture thinks you're stupid.
Actually, he seems to think all consumers are stupid, but his reach only extends to those in his state. Unfortunately, Monsanto's money and influence extends a lot further.
If you buy dairy products, you may have noticed that some (or much, depending on where you live and shop) non-organic dairy is now labeled rBGH-free, or some variation thereof. The artificial growth hormone is used to increase the amount of milk a cow produces, but it's banned in Europe and Japan and many in this country question its safety.
Monsanto, producer of GM seeds and pesticides you probably want to avoid, also produces the growth hormone, and they've been lobbying hard to prevent rBGH-free labeling. There's no scientific proof, they say, of a difference in milk from cows treated with the hormone. They finally got a foothold in Pennsylvania, where as of January first, milk producers won't be able to tell consumers what isn't in their products.
What is the Ag Secretary's reasoning? There's no scientific proof (gee, where'd he get that line from?), and oh -- it's too confusing for consumers. Their poor little minds just don't understand the complexities of shooting cows up with hormones.
Monsanto thinks we're all dumb, too -- they think consumers won't notice that their megacorporation is lobbying to put the kibosh on a movement that's threatening their profits.
November 14, 2007
Decisions, decisions?
There are two sides to every issue, including global warming. Nope, I am not talking about the "is it really happening" aspect, because we all know there are no questions that our lovely planet is in a poor shape.
A recent article in the BBC series Bangladesh River Journey summarizes it well:
In the West, it is all about greenhouse gases, and the political processes involved in trying to get countries to cut their carbon emissions.But in countries like Bangladesh - where emissions are comparatively minimal but the potential impact of climate change is enormous - it is about anticipating what will happen and preparing in advance for a world where the sea levels are higher and the weather is more extreme.
This is known as "adaptation."
BBC World Service reporters are traveling the rivers of Bangladesh and looking at the effects of global warming on the people and the country.
It is interesting, as they point out, that people are well “adapted” for many emergencies in countries like Bangladesh, since they know they will be heavily affected by it.
However, it is worrying that many of the places people think of as good shelter are so run down from previous disasters and overall lack of funds that they could be dangerous if people actually go to them.
Meanwhile, the people of Bangladesh didn't make the choices that led to global warming. Choices made in one part of the world have reduced possible choices in this other part of the world.
Envirohealth in Blogs: Bad news for the bay
A little light reading. . .
It's looking like the farm bill debate will resume in the Senate this morning. Meanwhile, The Washington Times is confused about payment limits. Dan Owens at CFRA straightens them out.
Toxic chemical law is weak and outdated, and at their meeting last week the American Public Health Association voted to make TSCA reform one of their policy goals. The Pump Handle fills us in.
Looking for unleaded holiday gifts for the kids in your life? Kris at Moms Speak Up has some ideas, plus some other resources.
"It's been a bad week. . ." Mark at Blogfish pulls together some news about the recent oil spills in the San Francisco Bay and the Black Sea. At Green Wombat, Todd describes how California's disaster response authorities missed the 2.0 boat.
On the global warming front, Eco Child's Play has some advice about talking to your kids about climate change. No kids? Marguerite offers a funny list of 15 ways being green lets you be lazy. If only it was that easy!
November 13, 2007
Consumed by air pollution
I grew up in rural western Massachusetts, in an old farmhouse with a brook running through the yard and an old barn in the back. It sounds quaint until you find out who the neighbors were.
My grandparents bought the eight-acre property in the late 1930s, but in sometime before I was born the government paid my grandparents for the four back acres and put in the last stretch of the Turnpike. The location proved to be perfect for investors looking to put in a truck plaza, complete with diesel, a restaurant, and rooms for rent. As soon as the truck stop went in next door, the road in front of my house became a constant thoroughfare for eighteen-wheelers looking to fuel up, grab a bite, and catch some shut eye. Problem was, many of them didn't want to spend the money to rent a room. Instead, they'd idle their trucks while they slept. For hours. All night sometimes. During the winter the pollution was so thick that it made you want to hold your breath outside.
I grew up in rural western Massachusetts with the Turnpike in the back, a major, well-traveled road in the front, and a truck stop right next door, but it sounds a lot less quaint when you put it that way. By the way, I was three when I was diagnosed with asthma.
The diesel fuel used to power the eighteen-wheelers whose pollution I breathed growing up is much less dirty than the bunker fuel used to power ocean-going ships, and freight trains produce their own problematic pollution. It's called "Goods Movement Pollution," and it's a product of our enthusiasm for consumption. As a part of the American Public Media series Consumed, Marketplace ran a segment titled It's enough to take your breath away. Want to know who's responsible for goods movement pollution and what could be done to curb it? Have a listen, or read the transcript.
November 12, 2007
Trailers exceed maximum formaldehyde exposure levels
Who do you turn to when the government agency that comes to your rescue ends up making you sick?
More than a year after initial reports that high levels of formaldehyde in trailers and mobile homes given to victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita were making residents sick, FEMA still hasn't done its own large-scale testing. The results from private tests performed by the Sierra Club and a Galveston, TX law firm demonstrate that the problem might be much worse that anyone suspected.
Of the nearly 600 trailers tested, only nine actually fell below the CDC's long-term exposure limit. Another 14 were at about twice that level. The rest greatly exceeded it. Some of the travel trailers came in at 70 times the long-term exposure limit. Even the larger, airier mobile homes came in above the recommended levels, which at least one researcher believes indicates that the mobile homes were not built to HUD standards.
You may recall the internal emails in which FEMA employees were advised to postpone testing:
One June 2006 e-mail stated that FEMA’s Office of General Counsel "has advised that we do not do testing" because this "would imply FEMA's ownership of this issue." Another agency attorney advised "[d]o not initiate any testing until we give the OK. While I agree we should conduct testing we should not do so until we are fully prepared to respond to the results. Once you get results and should they indicate some problem, the clock is running on our duty to respond to them."
Well, they've done it again -- FEMA put off planned testing earlier this month,saying that they needed more time to determine "what level of exposure would be acceptable." In the meantime, they've stopped distributing the travel trailers and are working to re-house the 52 thousand people currently living in the trailers and mobile homes into permanent housing.
November 10, 2007
SMM: Food for faith
The documentary Renewal is
the first feature-length documentary to capture the breadth and vitality of America's religious-environmental movement. In rural communities, suburbs and cities, people of faith are rolling up their sleeves in practical and far-reaching ways.
This clip is from a segment of the film called "Food for Faith." Enjoy!
November 9, 2007
CDC confirms: Exposure to BPA exceeds safety standards
A new CDC analysis demonstrates that when it comes to bisphenol A, EPA's so-called safety standards are woefully inadequate.
The dose EPA considers safe is based on decades-old data. Many scientists have said for years that the number is much too high, but the new CDC analysis shows that common exposure actually exceeds that dangerously high dose.
The analysis looked at samples from more than 2000 Americans and found detectable levels of BPA in 92.6%. The results indicate the continuous exposure of people living in the US to significant levels of BPA. Analysts also found that for many, BPA exposure exceeds the dose the EPA considers to be "safe." In fact, levels in many cases exceeded those known to cause negative health effects in animals.
Other interesting (read: scary) facts from the analysis:
- Children had higher levels of BPA than adolescents, and adolescents in turn had higher levels than adults. That shouldn't come as too much of a surprise -- while adults are primarily exposed through the lining of food cans, babies also have to contend with the lining of formula cans, and many toys designed for children contain BPA.
- Women in the study had higher levels of BPA than men. Although some nail polishes contain BPA, that doesn't seem sufficient to explain women's consistently higher levels. I'll be interested to see what scientists think may be the cause.
Want to know more about BPA? Go to EWG's research, or read how to minimize your exposure.
November 8, 2007
Latest recall: Aqua Dots laced with "date rape" drug
I occasionally talk to people who don't understand why lead in children's toys is such a problem. "I grew up exposed to lead paint chips," they say, "and I turned out fine." I might beg to differ -- I'm not sure that anyone who would willingly expose a child to lead is "fine" -- but I think even the most dubious among us would stand behind this latest toy recall.
Aqua Dots were to be one of the stars of the holiday season. Recommended for ages four and up, the little beads can be arranged into patterns and then sprayed with water to fuse. The beads are coated with a chemical that officials say metabolizes into a chemical that induces drowsiness, unconsciousness, seizures, and coma. Exposure can be life threatening. The compound, gamma hydroxy butyrate, is sold illegally as a "date rape" drug.
The most disturbing part of the AP article was slipped in without mention.
A 20-month-old has recovered completely, while the other child, whose age was not known, has been released from a hospital after five days and is recovering, he said.
[Ed.-- Emphasis mine]
Five days. Does that mean that it took them five days to link the illness back to the toy? That seems possible, but unfortunate. Still, I'd rather believe that than that it took them 5 days to issue a recall. I'd be interested to see how the timing played out in Australia, where the toy was recalled on Tuesday.
Tell everyone you know who's started holiday shopping: Aqua Dots are an aqua-don't.
November 7, 2007
Envirohealth in Blogs: Tell Senators to support Dorgan-Grassley!
A little light reading. . . but first, a call to action:
The Senate began its discussion of the farm bill on Monday, but that doesn't mean it's too late to call your Senator and give him or her your opinion. Their response may surprise you. Do as Tom Philpott says and ask your Senators to endorse the Dorgan-Grassley Amendment, which would put a cap on subsidy payments.
Go now! Call! Then come back here and read the rest of the roundup.
Done? Okay, on with the show.
Angry Toxicologist weighs in on FDA's (recommendations on children's cold medicines and) inability to get anything done. "Something's rotten at the FDA," he says, "and it smells like bureaucracy."
Jennifer at Green Options has a tip that can be good for your wallet, your health, and the planet -- if you do it right. Find out how to buy in bulk.
Over at The Good Human, David has a remarkably comprehensive guide to cleaning your house without commercial cleansers. Seriously, everything's there, from polishing the silver to uncloging the shower drain.
Industry groups have been funding travel for CPSC acting chair Nancy Nord. The Pump Handle points out that it may have been legal, but that doesn't make it ethical.
Treehugger points us to an interesting quiz of sorts: how ecologically conscious are you? This isn't another measure-your-footprint quiz. You may already recycle, but do you know which way is north?
Particularly observant Enviroblog readers may have noticed a new edition to the blogroll. Green Right Now is a team blog covering the small steps, big impact approach to environmentalism. The writing is smart and thoughtful without being overly-hip, and (thank goodness) it's not another "buy your way to a green lifestyle!" blog.
Pretty By Nature's Noel discusses KleenKanteen and upping your water intake: "It’s cheaper than microdermabrasion."
The Evangelical Ecologist think the church should be asking folks to contribute directly to those in need, rather than asking the government to take their money and do it for them.
Still reading? Thanks! Now, did you call your Senators yet?
Fishy facts on seafood imports
Sometimes, all it takes to get a point across is a clear statement of the facts. Let's have a look at some startling ones, shall we?
- Most of the seafood we eat in America is imported.
- Only one percent of imported seafood is inspected by the FDA.
- What seafood is inspected is frequently found to contain levels of chemicals that make it unsafe for human consumption.
Now listen, I'm no math genius, but it seems unlikely to me that the FDA happens to pull the one percent of seafood that's largely tainted. It's more likely that seafood imports across the board are tainted in similar proportions. And then there's this great quote:
Sparks said he has seen firsthand how tainted foreign seafood can be. He's traveled to Vietnam and witnessed fish farmed in sewage.
Mmm. Tasty.
A plan announced yesterday by the Bush administration would give the CPSC the authority to inspect foreign factories where imports are produced. It would also give the FDA mandatory recall power. Although some have called the President's plan too soft, it does seem to signal a willingness to work with Congress to create a plan, which means at least that some action will be taken.
November 6, 2007
White House has a plan for consumer safety
The Bush administration will unveil a plan today to give the FDA and CPSC more authority over imports. Congress, you may know, is already considering what action to take on consumer safety; their plan has been met with resistance by manufacturers (shocked, aren't you?) and, unfortunately, by the administration.
Now, this could go a lot of ways, but I'm going to try to look on the bright side -- the side on which Congress passes strong, meaningful consumer safety reform legislation -- and I think there are two ways this could turn out well.
- The President's plan is strong on imports, and Congress adopts many of the points in question and expands on the plan to improve consumer safety.
- The President's plan is lousy and way too soft on imports, spurring Congress into action and creating consumer safety legislation that actually protects consumers.
Of course, in the latter case, the administration may just respond by vetoing the legislation. But I'm thinking positive here. Of course, it's hard to think positive when the acting administrator of the CPSC opposes reform tha