ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG TODAY
We need you to help protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
Get EWG widgets & blog badges.
ENVIROBLOG TO YOU
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
EnviroHealth in Blogs: Organic growth. . . kind of.
Mulch: Farm Bill ripoff passes Senate, 79-14
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Infant formula: How to choose it & use it
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
Monthly Archive
What have they been waiting for?
Readers Dear- spotty internet access while traveling this week has led to an unfortunate dearth of posts, for which I apologize. I'm visiting family and friends in New England, New York, and New Jersey (and wondering why on earth our forebears weren't more creative when naming their new homes). I hope your year is wrapping up nicely and that you're looking forward to 2008!
This video, from the League of Conservation Voters' What Are They Waiting For campaign, highlights the inane and ridiculous questions that have been asked of presidential candidates, while questions about global warming have been almost entirely ignored.
When I brought the video up to friends, one of them asked an interesting and pertinent question. Why didn't this campaign start months ago? Why, he asked, did environmentalists wait so long to bash these journalists, months and months, thousands of questions, and right up to the very end of the primary season, when there are so few debates left? Why did they wait until their best windows for introducing these questions into the campaign were already shut?
That's a good question. We're not sure what they were waiting for, but we're glad the League is speaking up.
Yes, mining can be even more polluting!
Recently, Newmont Mining was cleared of a pollution and environmental damage lawsuit in Buyat Bay in Indonesia.
The judge found that there was not enough evidence to prove that Newmont polluted the environment. However, Indonesia's Environment Ministry found that food chain was contaminated by arsenic and mercury dumped by Newmont in 2004.
In addition, Mother Jones found that "the waste on Buyat's seafloor had arsenic concentrations 16 times higher, and mercury levels 8 times higher, than those at which adverse environmental effects are frequently expected."
And according to Mother Jones blog, "A 2004 study by the Indonesian government found that wells in Buyat Village had "arsenic concentrations up to six times the Indonesian drinking water standard" and that "tests Newmont conducted before opening the mine found no arsenic."
Mining is already the number one source of pollution in the US. It is scary to think that many levels found internationally are even higher then are already lax acceptable standards in North American.
If you can stomach it
Editorial pages across the country are ripping apart the Senate's recently passed version of the farm bill, much as they excoriated the House version of last summer. Under either bill, billions of taxpayers' dollars that could have been spent expanding the supply of organic and local foods, protecting the environment, and making school lunches edible and healthier -- helping small and mid-sized family farmers along the way -- will be spent instead on the same plantation-scale commodity farms we've been subsidizing for decades. As The Salt Lake Tribune put it, "If you want to know why the American people have such a low opinion of Congress, do a little reading about the $286 billion farm bill the Senate passed on Friday."
My colleague Don has compiled some of the dozens of pro-reform editorials into a single post over at Mulch. As long as they keep coming in (and we bet they will), we'll keep posting them.
More to flame retardants than PBDEs
If you follow these things, you've probably heard of the flame retardant chemicals PBDEs. They're in many electronics (possibly even that computer screen you're reading right now), and in the foam in mattresses, car seats, couches and the like that were sold before 2005. They're associated with brain and developmental problems in lab animals and possibly cancer as well. Pretty much everyone in this country has been exposed to PBDEs (although we do have some tips to minimize your exposure).
Now, two new studies published in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology reveal that people in industrialized countries may be experiencing large-scale exposure to flame retardants beyond PBDEs. One study identified a flame retardant called HCDBCO in relatively large quantities in a Canadian home. It was the first time HCDBCO had been identified in the environment. (Also: Seriously? A six letter abbreviation? The actual name of the flame retardant is 44 letters long. I kid you not.)
The other study identified another common flame retardant, HBCD, in its highest recorded residential concentration yet. Studies have linked HBCD with neurological and thyroid problems in rats and cancer in humans. The studies suggest widespread exposure to flame retardants other than PBDEs, but more research is needed to determine human exposure levels and, in the case of HCDBCO, toxicity hazards. From ES&T:
Scientists suspect that children are at the highest risk from dustborne contaminants because they are thought to consume much more dust than adults. Harrad cautions that no one knows exactly how much dust the average person ingests. The study nonetheless estimates that a toddler living in the U.K. home with the highest concentration of HBCD could—per unit of body weight—be exposed to substantially higher concentrations of the flame retardant than an adult working in a manufacturing facility where HBCD is used.
We'll keep you posted as we hear more on these flame retardants.
EnviroHealth in Blogs: Organic growth. . . kind of.
A little pre-vacay light reading. Enjoy!
You may not know Phil Howard by name, but you probably know his work -- and if you don't, Ethicurean can help.
Once again, the market steps in where government fears to tread. Once mainstream media caught onto the Popcorn Worker's Lung story, microwave popcorn manufacturers realized they had better step it up or risk taking a hit from the controversy. Commentary at Effect Measure.
David at Solve Climate has an eyewitness report of the Bali conference on global warming, and it's something you probably won't hear a lot about in mainstream media. The US rejected the compromise language during the last session of the event, and this was the reaction:
Then occurred one of the most remarkable sounds that has perhaps ever been heard in the annals of international diplomacy--like a collective global groan--descending then to a murmur, then increasing in volume to a full-throated expression of rage and anger and booing and jeering, lasting for a full minute, so that finally the Minister had to call the meeting back to order.
Gosh, guys, you'll never believe this, but there's evidence that hexavalent chromium may cause stomach cancer. I guess ChemRisk couldn't get their hands on this report. The Pump Handle has the details.
Mindful Momma Micaela has the details on two websites to help parents keep track of recalls, which may prove especially useful after next week's holiday.
CNN: Not quite a hero
A few days ago, I blogged about the CNN Hero Awards and my personal favorite, Pablo Fajardo. In the meantime, Pablo won for the Fighting for Justice category. Also in the meantime, my post drew a note with disturbing information from Amazon Watch Managing Director Paul Paz y Mino, with whom Pablo has worked to stop Chevron (formerly Texaco) from polluting the Ecuadorian Amazon.
According to Amazon Watch, after Pablo was named the winner, CNN caved into pressure from Chevron to remove its name and other information from the network's website. Amazon Watch is not the only one that says so. An article in The New York Post also states that
"CNN never named Chevron, a big advertiser on CNN, as the oil company. While the CNN Web site has "How to Help" links for all the other "heroes," the link to chevrontoxico.com, the Web site of Fajardo's Amazon Defense Coalition, was removed two days before the show aired. "
After several days, CNN has reinstated the link, including the reference to Chevron. While I agree with CNN that they should not take sides on legal disputes (that's what blogs are for, after all), it is crucial to provide all information about the case to the public.
Amazon Watch also states that during a live CNN broadcast, Pablo, who speaks Spanish, named Chevron several times, but the company's name was left out by the network's English interpreter. To read more about Pablo's struggles with Chevron, please check out this web site. Thank you, Paul, for bringing this to our attention.
Mulch: Farm Bill ripoff passes Senate, 79-14
And what a shameful abdication of leadership it represents.
If enacted, this bill will cause billions of dollars in federal subsidies to pour out to farms earning record net incomes. Billions of dollars will find their way to a narrow group of megafarms at the very top of the subsidy pyramid, taxpayers' money that they'll use to buy out tens of thousands of family farms beneath them. Billions more will go to farms that harvest disaster checks as often as they harvest crops.
The added funds for conservation and nutrition are mere down payments, at best, that will still leave most of the nation's agricultural resource and environmental challenges unaddressed, and America's poorest and hungriest underserved.
As for the sham reforms to limit subsidy payments to the biggest, richest farm operations in the country, EWG's online database of subsidy recipients will show in the years ahead just how outrageously the subsidy lobby and its defenders in the Senate have misled the American people.
Let me rephrase that: When politicians say this bill is going to significantly curb excessive subsidy payments to the wealthy, they're lying.
EWG has no intention of giving up the fight for a fair, equitable farm bill, starting with our next major update to the farm subsidy database, coming next month.
This entry was written by EWG President Ken Cook and was originally posted to his agricultural policy blog, Mulch. I thought Enviroblog readers who've been following the bill would appreciate knowing where it stands at the moment. --Ed.
Reading, writing and risk
Nearly 10 years ago, when EWG and other California environmental groups were sounding the alarm over the dangers of methyl bromide and other airborne pesticides drifting from farm fields into schools and subdivisions, the state’s pesticide agency tried to pooh-pooh our concerns with this twisted logic:
"[Just] because there is a presence of something doesn't mean you are at risk from it,” said Department of Pesticide Regulation spokeswoman Veda Federighi. “[Millions of] Californians live within a half-mile from a freeway. Does that mean they are at risk from auto exhaust?"
Well . . . yeah.
In the years since, there’s been a steady stream of science documenting that kids who live close to traffic corridors are at increased risk of asthma and stunted lung development – damage that may lessen if the child moves to an area with cleaner air, but still lasts for a lifetime. Last week, the LA Times reported:
Recently, studies have shown that the lung capacity of children who live within 500 meters (1,650 feet) of a freeway is significantly reduced compared with those who live more than 1,500 meters (4,950 feet) away.For kids who already live in an area with high levels of pollution, living near a freeway is "adding insult to injury," says Dr. John Balmes, professor of medicine at UC San Francisco and professor of public health at UC Berkeley.
The new findings, by a team of USC researchers, were published in the prestigious British medical journal the Lancet. They found that, over an 8-year period, kids who lived in a heavily polluted city like Los Angeles and lived within 500 meters of a freeway had almost 10 percent worse lung function than those who lived farther away or in less smoggy cities.
In recognition of the risk, four years ago California passed a law prohibiting schools from being built within 500 feet of major freeways, with exceptions allowed only if there’s no other available location or the school district takes steps to reduce the exposure.
So why is the Los Angeles Unified School District, according to the Times, planning at least seven new schools within 500 feet of a freeway?
The Times didn’t say how LAUSD – where there are an estimated 700 existing schools serving 60,000 students within 500 feet of freeways – is getting around the law. Given the vast web of choked freeways in LA County, our guess is the "no other available location" loophole. The district did say they’re now ranking schools for a variety of air pollution risks, including the number of students, the number of years students spend at the school, distance to freeways and the volume of diesel trucks that travel the nearby freeways. At the same time, the district is exploring “all options” for reducing exposure at the most at-risk schools.
And we certainly agree with the district on the most important point: The best way to protect students is for state and federal regulators to enact rules that reduce air pollution at its source. EWG research found that reducing smog to the levels set by the Air Resources Board would mean 3.3 million fewer school absences a year. Since attendance determines how much money each district gets from the state, cleaner air would mean an additional $82 million in school funding a year. There's just one problem: California's smog standards are only goals, and not legally enforceable.
GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE DEPT.
We don't know if the AP's Terry Chea reads Greetings from California. But a few days after we posted last week's entry on once-and-maybe-future governor Jerry Brown's global warming crusade, Chea filed a national story taking the same angle. The right-wing Pacific Legal Foundation complains that the attorney general is "using the courts to set national social and environmental policy . . . [and] trying to force certain types of solutions on very difficult problems."
Well . . . yeah. Isn't that his job?
Copperhill renewed
Stories of renewal come from the strangest places -- like, for example, The New York Times' travel section. This is a good one, and well timed. I, for one, could use a little hope today.
Fifty years ago, the pretty hills and valleys of Copperhill, Tennessee, had been reduced to an unnatural desert. Logging had stripped the land of its trees, and gas produced by the mining that timber fueled had killed of all of the other green life. Residents had to sweep their front yards to keep them tidy, since there was no grass. The water was polluted and the air was smoggy.
When the mines closed in 1987, things seemed even more desolate for a while. Now, in addition to pollution and barren hills, the residents of Copperhill had to deal with increased unemployment. But sometime in the 90's, signs of renewal began to appear.
Coordinated mine cleanup efforts began in 2001: Reforestation, massive water purification systems and the removal of contaminated soil all began to bring life back to the hills. Today, there's wildlife in the fields and streams, and slowly but surely the people are returning too.
Although, come to think of it, they'll probably return a lot more quickly once they read this article in the Times.
Skip the diamonds: A parent's wishlist
The following is a guest post from EWG Senior Analyst Sonya Lunder.
As working parent, sometimes the only "news" I have the energy for is the style section of The New York Times. And I couldn't help but notice an article recently suggesting that, as the mother of a 2 year-old, I might be over-due to receive a stylish and expensive gift for giving birth. Diamonds, perhaps?
The exhaustion of parenting a toddler has dimmed many memories of what the Times has singled out as the defining moment of motherhood, but in the subsequent months I came to understand the true weight of this tremendous commitment. Nursing my son and marveling that up to that point, every cell in his body had come from me, cast a new light on my food choices and the products that littered our home. The results of baby's first lead test, showing the fingerprint of industrial society within his tiny toddling self.
Parents deserve a safe, healthy world to bring their children into; they deserve clean water, access to health care, and to know that their children's playthings are safe. They also deserve a world free from unnecessary exposure to toxic chemicals. I'm not so sure about "push presents," but if you want to honor parents (including you own) and their tireless efforts to protect us, how about supporting efforts for a more just and healthy world?
I indulged myself with a little wishlist -- for myself, my family and the planet. Universal health care perhaps? Or clean and safe drinking water? Flying home from my in-laws with a suitcase full of toys that don't threaten my son's growing body and brain development?
Or how about a bag full of goodies to help reduce your favorite family's exposure to toxic chemicals? EWG's Pollution Solutions gift bag provides the opportunity to ease a parent's mind while making a donation to an organization that works tirelessly to protect children and parents alike. The organic cotton bag is printed with the Pesticide Guide and stuffed with useful information, a stainless steel water bottle, an 8-inch cast iron pan, and a bar of organic chocolate for relaxing after the kids go to bed.
We all do our part in different ways; I'm lucky enough to spend my days working at EWG where I research kids exposure to harmful chemicals and products that may threaten their health. Your donation will help us protect your health and the environment with targeted research and policy change. Make your donation by the end of Friday, December 14th to receive your gift bag in time for Christmas!
EnviroHealth in Blogs: Calling all candidates!
A little light reading. . .
Now that's my kind of gift guide. We've seen a lot of gift guides for children around these parts lately, and while that's certainly important, I haven't seen any great guides for like-minded adults -- until now. Ethicurean's got the goods. (Although, it should be noted, it's not all "goods" in the traditional consumer sense. Adopt a tree, anyone?)
Calling all candidates. The folks at The Pump Handle have joined the cry for a presidential science debate, and we're right there with 'em.
In short, scientific federal agencies are not able to use science as they should to protect our air, water, drugs, and food and to address large-scale health and environmental problems. It is imperative that the next president reverse these damaging trends and restore scientific integrity to federal policy.
You can read a list of questions the Pump Handlers have for the candidates, or click here to join the call for a science debate.
Mmm, organic latkes. . . Culinate has a helpful guide to what to buy organic in the winter -- it's like a seasonal version of Food News!
Nature is more than skin deep.One of the blogs I follow is Pretty by Nature, so you can imagine I was happy to see a post about the Skin Deep cosmetics database the other day. Noel recommends that you do your research, and I second that.
No right to know? Effect Measure summarizes the latest goings-on with the Toxic Release Inventory Program (definitely worth a read, especially if you're not sure what that is), and ends with this clever quip:
I expect to hear any minute, though, that we can't let terrorists know what toxic materials are being intentionally released into our communities just in case they might get the idea of intentionally releasing those materials into our communities.
California may add BPA, caffeine to Prop. 65
A new prioritization process has bumped caffeine and bisphenol A to the front of the list of toxic chemicals for review in California this year.
Under the state's Proposition 65 law, the governor must publish a yearly list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. The panel responsible for compiling the list, The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee, has chosen eight chemicals for possible review. They'll decide which will go through further research before possibly being placed on the Prop. 65 list.
Caffeine, in large quantities, can cause reproductive complications. Many women avoid it altogether when pregnant, although the Sacramento Bee spoke with a nutrition expert who points out that caffeine is generally considered safe at levels below 200 milligrams per day. For reference, a cup of coffee contains between 80 and 175 milligrams, depending on how it's made.
Bisphenol a, that toxic industrial plastics chemical we all know so well, is an endocrine disruptor which may cause damage to the male reproductive system and has been linked to cancer. The federal government undertook to review BPA earlier this year, and a panel of experts determined that there was cause for "some concern" -- which, for me at least, is enough to make me want to avoid the BPA as much as possible.
We'll keep you posted about chemicals added to Prop. 65 as California's review process moves forward.
Where government fails, the market steps in
It seems that investors are planning to use the power of the market to influence the production of plastics and the problems that go with it. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is reporting that there have been a remarkable number of shareholder resolutions filed for publicly held companies for their use of potentially toxic chemicals. Seven have been filed for 2008 already.
Bart Mongoven, who knows about these things, says "The use of shareholder resolutions is, I think, the most effective way of making this an issue for the executives of the corporation." He's VP for public policy intelligence at a national consulting firm. I imagine (with my limited understanding of how these things work) that he's right, but I can't help but think: Shouldn't the government be making this an issue for company execs?
The federal government has been slow to put safeguards in place to ensure that chemicals used to make the products we use in our homes every day are, in fact, safe -- so now shareholders will force the issue for them. This is not a "Cheers and Jeers" column, but if it was. . . I think you know where my votes would go.
The once and future king?
It’s no secret California Attorney General Jerry Brown wants to return to the governor’s office he held from 1975 to 1983. But for a guy whose family name is synonymous with “Democrat” and is viewed nationally as a beyond-liberal lefty (far from it), it’s interesting that on the environment he’s staking out the same turf as Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Arnold’s signature issue, of course, is global warming, but the man once known as Gov. Moonbeam is working hard to steal the spotlight. In the space of a month, Brown filed suit against the Bush Administration for its delay in deciding whether California can set its own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles; petitioned the EPA to regulate GHG emissions from airplanes; and struck a deal to reduce GHG emissions from ships, trucks and trains at the Port of Los Angeles.
A look at Brown's press releases, speeches and articles since he took office last January shows dozens of items about global warming, compared to just a couple on other environmental issues. The AG's website now has its own global warming section. Earlier this year, when Republicans in the Legislature (who have no enthusiasm for Arnold's green agenda) tried to freeze Brown's budget to keep him from going after U.S. auto makers, The Sacramento Bee's "Hot House" blogger, Stuart Leavenworth, observed:
Dang, if the Republicans keep casting him as such a crusader against global warming (which most California voters are highly worried about) he might even have the juice to retake his old job. . . . I tell ya, the guy is running for governor. My only question is, if he gets elected again, will he recycle his old Capitol portrait? Or get a new one?
These are all good things that Brown's doing, and in keeping with the state’s international bellwether role on climate change. And it’s not such a surprise that that Brown would take on global warming, since three decades ago he was an early champion of renewable energy. Still, it’s a marked shift from former AG Bill Lockyer’s focus on toxins in food and consumer products. Under Lockyer, the attorney general's office went after lead in lunchboxes and imported Mexican candy, mercury in seafood, contaminants in vended water, and many more.
AG insiders say there’s a lot less enthusiasm now to go after bad-actor corporations, and a lot more on identifying issues that will generate Brown vs. Bush headlines. Legislators are also trying to out-green the governor, although many lawmakers' focus is on tougher chemical regulations. But Schwarzenegger's outflanking them there also, with his "Green Chemistry" initiative.
To which we say: Cool. It's easy to view politicians' agendas with a cynical eye. But looking back just a decade to the Wilson administration we never thought we'd see the day when a Democratic attorney general and Democrat-controlled Legislature were trying to out-green a Republican governor. That's real progress.
Image: California State Library
SMM: The Story of Stuff
Free Range Studios has done it again, this time by teaming up with sustainability and environmental health expert Annie Leonard to produce The Story of Stuff, a twenty-minute film documenting the reality behind the "materials economy." From resource exploitation and environmental degradation to planned and perceived obsolescence, we're not running the materials economy -- it's running us.
This video is really something -- full of facts and concepts, many of which you'll already know, put together in such a way that it's both a revelation and easy to grasp. The website is full of resources, and there's even a handy list of ten recommendations for another way of doing things.
I'm sharing this video with friends online, but with my friends (and I'm sure you'll identify), it's kind of preaching to the choir. What I'm really excited about is talking my 17 year old sister into hosting a screening for her friends, who are already so much a part of the consumer culture that they work long hours outside of school so that they can buy more stuff. There starting 'em younger and younger these days. . .
Must read: Avoiding World War III
In a post earlier this week, Sierra Club president Carl Pope discusses the "dangerous distraction" of nuclear power:
The President in his press conference today was questioned about the new intelligence report that suggests that, after all, the government of Iran has not been pursuing prohibited nuclear weapons technology for the past several years. In fact, as it claimed, it has simply been pursuing its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to master the entire civilian nuclear fuel cycle -- including reprocessing. A byproduct of reprocessing, though, is plutonium, which is what you need for a nuclear weapon.
Pope goes on to point out the strong motivation any sovereign nation would have to master that nuclear fuel cycle, because if a nation cannot produce energy from the inside -- well then, they'd have to rely on other nations to produce it for them:
In the wake of today's intelligence report, for example, the Chicago Tribune urged in an editorial that we "continue to push international efforts to persuade Iran to give up its enrichment efforts and accept an agreement to be supplied fuel [by] Russia." Well, today's regime in Iran may have some trust for today's regime in Russia. But why, if the Iranians really are going to rely heavily on nuclear power, would they put themselves in a position that if Russia decided in the future to reassert its historic vision that Iran was part of its sphere of influence, they would have to cave in or shut off the power? Why would any sovereign nation with even illusions of independence accept such ground rules?
It's a great post -- go give it a read.
Ask EWG: What is "fragrance"?
Question: Is it true that the cosmetics industry can put any chemical into a product’s "fragrance" without showing it on the ingredients list? What do they put in there?
Answer: It's true. When you see "fragrance" on a personal care product's label, read it as "hidden chemicals." A major loophole in FDA's federal law lets manufacturers of products like shampoo, lotion, and body wash include nearly any ingredient in their products under the name "fragrance" without actually listing the chemical.
Companies that manufacture personal care products are required by law to list the ingredients they use, but fragrances and trade-secret formulas are exempt. An analysis of the chemical contents of products reveals that the innocuous-looking “fragrance” often contains chemicals linked to negative health effects. Phthalates, used to make fragrances last longer, are associated damage to the male reproductive system, and artificial musks accumulate in our bodies and can be found in breast milk. Some artificial musks are even linked to cancer. And if you've got asthma, watch out-- fragrance formulas are considered to be among the top 5 known allergens, and can trigger asthma attacks. The same kinds of chemicals are often used for fragrances in cleaning products, scented candles, and air fresheners.
To avoid those unpleasant side effects, choose fragrance-free products, but beware labels that say "unscented." It may only mean that the manufacturer has added yet another fragrance to mask the original odor. Check ingredient labels carefully, or search Skin Deep to find products that do not list "fragrance" as an ingredient.
The best solution is not to allow cosmetics companies to get through this loophole. They should be required to list all of their ingredients on the label where consumers can find out what they're buying. On top of that, cosmetics manufacturers regularly include ingredients with known or suspected links to cancer, reproductive toxicity and other negative health effects. The federal government must set safety standards for personal care products.
If you're concerned about the chemicals you use on your body every day, sign EWG's petition at cosmeticsdatabase.com and urge the FDA to make personal care products safe.
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.
BPA in formula: This is not a call to panic.
Making the decision to have a child - it's momentous. It is to decide forever to have your heart go walking around outside your body.
—Elizabeth Stone
Being a parent, as I understand it, involves a lot of trust. You have to trust your pediatrician, eventually you'll have to trust a babysitter, and of course you have to trust all the well-meaning relatives who just want to hold her for a minute. Then there are all the companies you have to trust to protect your child: the company that made the car seat, the one that made the crib, the toys, the pacifiers. But of all those companies parents end up trusting, formula companies may be the most inherently risky. We all know breast milk is best, but seventy percent of babies in the US will be given some formula by the time they're three months old. For most babies, formula will be the very first manufactured food to pass their lips, and parents are left with little choice but to trust that the formula manufacturers are doing what's right for children.
Which is why it's such an outrage that every formula manufacturer in the U.S. puts infant formula into cans lined with the toxic plastics chemical bisphenol A. EWG spoke with representatives from each of the companies three times to ascertain the answer, and it's true: liquid formulas packaged in cans, and powdered formulas packaged in canisters with metal tops and bottoms, are exposed to a toxic chemical that is known to leach into food. Based on BPA levels found in ready-to-eat liquid formula,
1 of every 16 infants fed the formula would be exposed to the chemical at doses exceeding those that caused harm in laboratory studies.
Are you angry yet? Because this is not a call to panic. This is a call to action.
The use of BPA to line infant formula cans is, as Izzy put it in an email, unconscionable. Here's what you can do:
- Switch to powdered. If you're currently bottle feeding a baby and using liquid formula, switch to powdered right away. Powdered formula has lower BPA exposure because only thirty percent of the container (the top and bottom) is lined with it.
- Pay it forward. If anyone you know is formula feeding a baby, pass this information along (our one-page parent's guide to bottle feeding makes a good fact-sheet).
- Make noise. Formula companies actually do care what you think -- after all, parents, you're their best customers. We've compiled email addresses for each of the companies, and we've even written a sample email to give you a jumping-off point.
- Make MORE noise. Join the community at Moms Speak Up and League of Maternal Justice (yup, even if you're a dad), because there's power in numbers.
- Be vigilant. The internet is full of resources to help play it safe when it comes to chemical exposure. Websites Safe Mama and SAFbaby will keep you updated on the latest, and Z Recommends does research to bring you useful reports like this one on BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups.
Someday soon there will be even more you can do -- and believe me, I'll let you know when that day comes. In the meantime, let manufacturers know: We may have trusted them blindly in the past, but now they're going to have to work for it.
There's BPA in infant formula.
Did that get your attention?
Unfortunately, it's true. EWG released a report today detailing our analysis of children's exposure to BPA through infant formula. Look for a more detailed post here tomorrow.
In the meantime, go check out EWG Senior Analyst Sonya Lunder's guest post at the League of Maternal Justice. Sonya is mom to a two-year-old boy, so for her, it's personal. LMJ liveblogged the conference call we held for bloggers this morning, so while you're there, you can read the real-time transcript of what Sonya had to say about the report.
psst. Are you a blogger who'd like to be involved in EWG blogger calls in the future? Send me an email!
Envirohealth in Blogs: The greenest gift you'll get all year
A little light reading for your mid-week enjoyment. But first:
Do you have a friend who has everything? If you're looking for a creative holiday gift that will show off your style and your ethos (and help reduce your friend's exposure to toxics), consider making a donation to EWG and getting the Pollution Solutions Gift Bag. It's stuffed with stuff to make the season bright, including yummy chocolate, a Klean Kanteen water bottle, and a three-pound, eight-inch Lodge pre-seasoned cast iron pan. I kid you not. And it all comes in an organic cotton Pesticide Guide shopping bag, so you'll never wonder whether to buy your apples organic again. All the details are right here!
And now, to the blogs.
Kathy at Non-Toxic Kids has a holiday primer for those of you celebrating Christmas. For starters, don't put breakable ornaments on the bottom third of the tree -- use cloth instead.
A new study says divorce is bad for the environment, and the Evangelical Ecologist points out one more reason why. I've gotta say, I'm surprised the researchers didn't think of this.
An FDA-sponsored report calls FDA to task. Yes, you read that right. Details at The Pump Handle.
Overfishing and pollution are wreaking havoc on Chesapeake Bay blue crab populations, says Mark at Blogfish.
The Neighborhood Toxicologist prepares to lead a high school course on the environmental impact of clothing by playing around on the Patagonia website. Man, I wish my high school teachers had been that cool.
My CNN hero
For a while now, CNN has been running CNN heroes series, where people had the chance to nominate outstanding leaders in their communities. Over 7,000 of people from 93 countries were nominated by the readers and 18 finalists were selected by the panel of judges. On Thursday, December 6, "CNN Heroes: An All-Star Tribute" will select the most outstanding hero in each of the six nominating categories: Championing Children, Community Crusader, Defending the Planet, Fighting for Justice, Medical Marvel and Young Wonder.
I was impressed with every single individual I read about. However, I think I found my hero from the Fighting for Justice category- Pablo Fajardo from Ecuador. Pablo grew up in the Amazon, where he attended night school to finish his high school education while he labored on a plantation during the day. Working for the oil company, he became concerned with unsafe workers conditions and was fired after organizing union.
Pablo just finished law school after waking up at 3 30 every day for six years and his first case is his former employer, Texaco. According to CNN:
Over the more than 40 years since oil exploration began in the Amazon rain forest, at least 12 billion gallons of toxic waste were dumped in an area that was home to six indigenous tribes.The area now records soaring cancer rates, severe birth defects and pollution that has killed the aquatic life, cattle and livestock. The resulting famine is threatening the tribes with extinction. Fajardo faces teams of corporate lawyers from Ecuador's ruling class as he seeks more than $6 billion for the estimated cost of cleaning up the waste.
To read more about amazing Pablo, check out his interview in Vanity Fair or with Oxfam America.
Making use of urban bounty
A friend visited from California a few weeks ago. Sitting on the couch in my apartment, he noticed the pomegranate sitting in my fruit bowl and smiled.
"We've got more of those that we know what to do with," he told me. "My neighbor has a tree in her back yard, but she doesn't really want more than a few, so she's been letting us take them. I never knew there could be so many from one tree! We juiced a bunch, and froze some, but they just keep coming."
I blinked.
"Same for persimmons," he said, "There's a tree nearby that nobody harvests. We've been eating persimmon pudding every day for two weeks,"
Now now, Northeasterners, try to control yourselves. I understand that we all get a little agitated when our West-Coast friends talk about having free, abundant, in-season fruit -- and who can blame us? The idea of a pomegranate going to waste over there, while I pay $2.50 apiece over here, is almost enough to make you want to pick up and move house. EWG California office, here I come.
In Albuquerque, New Mexico, an enterprising team of environmentalists want to do something with all that food that would otherwise go to waste. By micro-harvesting from backyard fruit trees and berry bushes (with the home owner's permission, of course) and connecting that fruit to local markets, processors, and food banks, they would fill some of the need in a local market where fruit is often shipped thousands of miles to end up in a grocery store. The idea was selected as an IdeaBlob finalist in November (the winner hasn't been selected as of this posting), and a win would provide some of the startup cash needed to get the program moving.
It's like those endless baskets of zucchini from your Aunt Barbara's kitchen garden, or an old fashioned victory garden, but revamped for a new era. Kudos to the Urban Harvesting team, and good luck!
SMM: Feed me, EWG!
There's a lot going on here at EWG headquarters. I know that, since you're such a loyal reader, you've already subscribed to the Enviroblog feed (haven't you?), but now we've got another way for you to stay up-to-date on EWG's environmental health work. Friends, meet the Toxics Feed.
Here's how it works: You sign up to receive the feed, either in your reader of choice, or by email. We send you updates from our toxics and human health program: research, communications, news releases, and news clips related to toxics. You read the content at your leisure, and voilà: you are informed!
Of course, there's more to EWG than just environmental health. We also work on agricultural policy and natural resources issues, and you can get feeds for those too. In fact, we've got seven different feeds for you to choose from!
Not quite sure what all this "feed" business is about? It's a really easy way to get information from your favorite websites delivered right to you. Here's a good explanation for beginners: