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
Perchlorate: You might not know how to pronounce it, but it's in you
Holy Mackerel! Sushi trouble in NYC
PA loses label ban; Monsanto cowed
White House worked to weaken pollution reporting for communities
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
Political turmoil, public health catastrophy
It's hard to talk about the situation in Gaza without being political. And having grown up in 90's in Serbia, a country that experienced severe electricity and water restrictions during its political troubles, makes me very sympathetic to the struggles of people living under similar conditions.
However, unless you had my growing up experiences, you might not be inclined to stop and think how political turmoil can threaten public health for people living in the area.
Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas in the world, has such numerous problems because of its political turmoil -- the most recent problem being the lack of fuel in the area. Because of the lack of fuel, streets started to turn into sewers, carrying mix of human and animal waste.
Last week, Israel ceased delivery of fuel and all supplies to Gaza, which stopped the sewage treatment plant work. The consequences have been alarming and the local ministry of health has declared this situation an environmental catastrophe.
A recent World Health Organization statement raised the concern over the continuity of basic health care. According to WHO:
"Frequent electricity cuts and the limited power available to run hospital generators are of particular concern, as they disrupt the functioning of intensive care units, operating theatres, and emergency rooms. In the central pharmacy, power shortages have interrupted refrigeration of perishable medical supplies, including vaccines. WHO consignments of essential medicines and consumables have recently been delayed at the border.WHO welcomes the easing of movement of some fuel and supplies today. However, WHO calls for additional measures to ensure no further disruptions. WHO further calls for restoration of electricity to health facilities, lifting of restrictions on the movement of medicines and essential commodities to Gaza, and for patients to have access to health care outside Gaza."
To read more about this, check out this article.
EnviroHealth in Blogs: Can I recycle that?
Mark at Blogfish reports that the National Fisheries Institute, the industry group that brought us the "eat more fish!" study last fall, are pretty ticked about the New York Times investigative report on mercury levels in sushi. They claim that the piece was unbalanced because it didn't discuss in detail the benefits to be derived from eating fish, among other things. Someone's got their underwear in a bunch.
I once coordinated recycling efforts for a house of 53 college students. Let me tell you -- people are confused about recycling. What can be recycled and what can't be, should they be washed, what about the lids . . . And often, when they don't know the answer, people's recyclables will end up in the trash. If you want to know how it got so confusing and what the real answers are, I recommend you check out this article on recycling plastic from GreenRightNow.
This was a new one for me, although I suppose I'm not surprised: Those little fabric softener sheets you toss in the dryer with your laundry? Yeah, they're full of nasty chemicals. And to think I used to use them to rid my hair of static cling when I was a kid. Katy at Non-Toxic Kids has the scoop.
David Sassoon says "Clean Coal" is dead -- for now, at least. If only it was as easy as throwing a bucket of water on it.
And finally -- this is almost too absurd to be true -- President Bush is considering replacing acting CPSC chair Nancy Nord with a woman who has made her living defending industry. She's consulted for Big Tobacco and worked on projects funded by pesticide makers and the energy industry. And it gets worse. This is the woman our president thinks should be defending consumer interests?
Photo: Rubbish at Recycling by Caro's Lines.
Mixed Greens 002: Mmm, rocket fuel! Plus, ditch the anti-bacterial soap.
In this second edition of EWG's podcast Mixed Greens, we discuss the possible connections between plastics and obesity, the rocket fuel in our drinking water, and more! Give 'er a listen below, or subscribe in a reader or in iTunes.
Want more? Here are some related links:
- Is plastic making us fat?
-Story: The Boston Globe
-EWG Chemical Index: Endocrine System - Congress to investigate BPA in baby formula
-Story: Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
-EWG statement: Congressional demands follow on heels of EWG study
-EWG report: Guide to Instant Formula - FDA testing shows widespread exposure to perchlorate
-EWG analysis: Children consuming contaminated tap water and food at risk; EPA tap water safety standards are critically needed - Tip: Avoid products with Triclosan
-Skin Deep ingredient listing: Triclosan
-EWG report: Down the Drain
Sky-high lead levels in Galveston, TX
In Galveston, Texas, as many as one in five children have blood lead levels elevated enough to cause learning disabilities.
One in five. Can you even imagine? But to date, not a single thing has been done about it. City officials have known for years that lead poisoning was a problem, but the diagnostic system used by many of the city's doctors differs from the one the CDC requires -- and that means that, in the government's eyes, Galveston is doing just fine. They won't be able to get funding until they can demonstrate that lead is a big problem, using the federal government's own diagnostic system.
In order to make those tests happen, Galveston is considering implementing a mandatory blood lead level test, possibly as a prerequisite to entering daycare. Until they can demonstrate that lead poisoning is a considerable problem, the city's task force can do little to change the status quo.
Galveston's lead problem appears to come largely from its many old houses with peeling lead paint on both the interior and exterior. Some houses had their exterior paint sandblasted off many years ago, which increased lead levels in the soil.
Lead was mostly phased out of paint by the end of the 1970's -- and yet here we are, nearly 30 years later, still dealing with the effects. Makes you wonder what toxic chemical's effects we'll be dealing with three decades from now.
Photo: Crossing Galveston Bay, by OneEighteen
Perchlorate: You might not know how to pronounce it, but it's in you
In an ideal world, rocket fuel would not be in people. But we don't live in the ideal world, and perchlorate, a potent chemical ingredient of rocket fuel, is in all of us.
A new EWG analysis of FDA data shows that three quarters of 285 commonly consumed foods and beverages are contaminated with perchlorate, a toxic rocket fuel ingredient. That means that every day, the average two-year-old is exposed to more than half of the EPA "safe" dose of perchlorate from food alone.
This is especially troubling in the 28 states that also are exposed to perchlorate through contaminated tap water.
Perchlorate can affect the thyroid gland, and adequate levels of thyroid hormones are necessary for normal brain development. In addition, toddlers are particularly vulnerable because they eat and drink substantial amounts of food and water relative to their small size.
Also affected by perchlorate levels are women with lowered iodide levels. That is about 1/3 of women in the U.S.
What we need is a federal standard that would protect the public from this potent chemical. Perchlorate in food is harder to manage because the source of contamination is still not clear. However, people can control their intake of perchlorate in the water by using good filtration system. The best first step is to call your local water utility and see if they found perchlorate in the water you are drinking. Jennifer Bowles has more on pending legislation on her blog.
Photo: Lunar Launch by jurvetson
Holy Mackerel! Sushi trouble in NYC
Note to sushi lovers from the Big Apple: Maybe stick to the pastrami on rye.
The New York Times recently tested sushi from 20 different popular stores and restaurants in Manhattan and found extremely high, possibly even dangerous levels of Mercury in the sample pieces they had tested.
This reminds me. . . Remember last October when the seafood industry lobby and some well-spun members of the press, namely the Washington Post, reported that the federal government’s own guidelines of no more than 12 ounces of seafood a week for women was hogwash? And, instead decided “At least” 12 ounces a week seemed more appropriate? I’d advise women use the Times’ own thorough investigative piece over the Post’s article that swallowed the industry’s spin hook, line and sinker when deciding how much sushi and seafood they should eat each week.
Photo: Sushi by Alexandre Chang
PA loses label ban; Monsanto cowed
And they would've gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for that meddling governor!
Remember a few months ago when I told you that Monsanto thinks you're stupid? And that Pennsylvania's Secretary of Agriculture was going right along with them by banning labels on dairy products indicating that the farmer hadn't used synthetic growth hormones?
Last week, following a review by Governor Rendell, Pennsylvania's Department of Agriculture backed off the ban. New guidelines allow dairies to label their products as "rGBH free" as long as they also include language explaining that the FDA has found no difference between milk from treated and that from untreated cows.
The FDA might not see a difference, but others have -- and Canada and Europe prohibit the use of the synthetic hormone. A recent commenter here at Enviroblog thinks it may be against freedom of speech to tell people what they can't say about their own product if it's true. I'm no lawyer, but that makes sense to me. We're thrilled that, this time, good sense won out over big business.
White House worked to weaken pollution reporting for communities
In response to White House pressure, the U.S. EPA broke its own longstanding procedures for scientific and economic review of pollution reporting rules for thousands of factories nationwide in a bid to reduce the regulatory burden on corporate polluters, according to a little-noticed November 2007 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’ watchdog agency.
The 2006 proposal to weaken the program, known as the Toxic Release Inventory, caused an uproar nationally, but the White House role has not been thoroughly documented until now. According to the GAO [.pdf]:
GAO concluded that, while EPA estimated that its rule would affect reporting on less than 1 percent of the total release pounds nationwide, this aggregate national estimate masked the disproportionately large impact the rule would have on individual communities across the country. GAO’s analysis indicated that EPA’s rule would allow more than 3,500 facilities to no longer report detailed information about their toxic chemical releases and waste management practices. As a result, more than 22,000 of the nearly 90,000 TRI reports could no longer be available to hundreds of communities in states throughout the country. In addition, many commenters including the attorneys general of 12 states and EPA’s Science Advisory Board stated that the changes will significantly reduce the amount of useful TRI information.
EPA’s estimated savings from the reduced reporting burden associated with the TRI rule—3 percent of total annual burden hours, worth about $6 million annually—are likely overstated.
The TRI only requires companies to report their pollution; it doesn’t require them to do anything about it, through regulation or any other means. But the mere publication of pollution levels to air, water and land has prompted thousands of embarrassed companies to cut the harmful waste they dump on their neighbors in thousands of communities. It’s just about the most cost-effective federal pollution law on the books, and as a group that harnesses the “the power of information” to protect the environment, we’re big TRI fans.
So EPA slashed the program, blinding hundreds of communities from seeing pollution data for thousands of facilities, all for the sake of overstated savings of a few million bucks for the polluters. Twelve state attorneys general protested the rule change.
EWG took a hard look at this problem in California as it would affect reporting of the some of the worst chemicals in commerce: persistent bioaccumulative toxins.
EPA's proposed rollback of the TRI would terminate reporting of all pollution and disposal information for 228,000 pounds of five PBTs at 123 facilities in 35 states. Ohio would be hardest hit, losing data on 22,000 pounds of hazardous pollutants at 14 facilities.
Photo: MapCruzin'.
A turning point for the Chesapeake Bay?
Last December, the Maryland legislature approved a new $50 million “Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund” to help clean up the decades-dirty Bay. The “2010 Trust Fund” will provide money to help move the state closer to achieving water quality goals set back in 2000 by the 2010 deadline. Everyone has accepted these goals will not be achieved in time, but public trust in the state’s ability to even make a dent is waning.
This year, state officials have a chance to strengthen public confidence that they are actually doing everything they can to clean up the Bay by announcing they will spend the Fund using a “cost-effectiveness” principle. Though seemingly simple and straightforward, this common sense approach to spending the public’s money is a radical departure from the past when funds were largely distributed on a first-come, first-share basis.
Among the various options for reducing the nutrient pollution ailing the Bay, agricultural best management practices deliver the biggest bang for the nutrient-reduction buck. That means Maryland’s farm conservation programs should get most (if not all) of the Fund. But in order to truly have an impact, Maryland’s farm conservation programs should spend the fund in the most cost-effective way they can. Maryland’s agriculture, environment, and natural resource agencies should commit to following a three-step approach:
- Identify and prioritize the highest nutrient loading watersheds,
- Identify and prioritize the highest nutrient loading farmland locations within the
priority watersheds,
- Identify and prioritize implementation of the most cost-effective and site-appropriate conservation practices.
Only by targeting the new funds to achieve the most nutrient reductions per dollar will the Chesapeake Bay have a chance to recover.
SMM: ZapRoot and Mixed Greens
Are you watching ZapRoot yet?
ZapRoot is an unconventional bite-sized news show that covers the fat changing world of the modern Green Revolution. With sarcasm, silliness, & sanity, ZapRoot encourages you to have a better time while making a better world.
We think they mean fast changing world. Then again, maybe not. Host Jessica Williamson has great comic timing and a charming accent, and producer Damien Somerset has also worked on TreeHuggerTV and GOOD magazine's videos -- and you know how we love those. This week's episode feature's the dorkiest high-mileage car you've ever seen, plus EPA's new pollution mapping tool. This is some of eco-entertainment's finest, so go check it out.
P.S. Have you checked out Enviroblog's new Mixed Greens podcast yet? Everybody else is doing it. . . But y'know, no pressure or anything.
Driving into the presidency
It's that time again when everywhere you turn, its all about presidential elections. Debates, political views and attacks (some personal, some not) are the hot topic of every conversation -- especially here in DC, the city that talks politics 24/7.
Not only are politics in fashion, green is too. A recent study shows that four out of five Americans want climate action now, the vast majority (88 percent) want the phasing out of fossil fuels in favor of clean, renewable sources, and three of four also want tougher federal fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles.
So, what do the two have in common, besides Al Gore wining Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar, while hanging out with Leonardo de Caprio? Much! The candidates so far have not focused much on the environment, but they had to focus on what they drive when they were in Michigan, a state that once was a safe bet for Democrats but has been shifting more towards Republicans in last few elections.
A opinion piece in The Detroit News questions what Presidential wannabes are driving and also if they practice what they preach.
So, here are the results:
The Republicans:
Mike Huckabee drives a Chevrolet Silverado truck while his family's main car is a 2007 Chevy Tahoe. Just FYI, those two SUV's are also the biggest SUV's on the planet.
John McCain's wife drives a Lexus while his daughter owns a Prius hybrid. He drives a Cadillac.
Mitt Romney drives Ford Mustang convertible and a big Chevy pickup, while his wife drives a Cadillac crossover vehicle.
Ron Paul drives a Buick in DC, a secondhand Lincoln and Ford truck in Texas.
Rudy Giuliani does not own a car.
The Democrats:
Barack Obama owns a 340 HP Chrysler 300C. However, when his choice was made known to the public, he bought a more PC hybrid.
John Edwards drives a hybrid as well, but he was apparently caught driving a bigger SUV a while ago. He also own Chrysler Pacifica.
Hillary Clinton drives a fashionable Mercury Mariner hybrid, which by the way does not score all that well on mileage counts.
So, maybe candidates driving choices don't say much about their values on the environment. But, maybe they do, just a little bit. You decide.
Photo: American Car by tobyleah
Ask EWG: How should I wash my fruits and veggies?
Psst. . . You can also hear scientist Kristan Markey answer this month's Ask EWG question on EWG's podcast Mixed Greens!
Question: How should I wash my fruits and veggies? Is water enough, or should I be using one of those bottled produce washes they sell in the supermarket?
Answer: There are three reasons to wash your produce: Soil, microbes, and pesticides. No one likes biting into a gritty salad, and the problems connected with contaminated produce have been well publicized. Pesticides are designed to be toxic, and their effects on people aren’t well understood, so it’s best to avoid them when you can.
The Food and Drug Administration advises against using soap or commercial produce washes, because they haven’t evaluated the safety of residues that could be left on produce and because the effectiveness of produce washes is not standardized. They recommend washing all produce thoroughly in cold water. Whether you bought it in the grocery store or at the farmers’ market, or even if you grew it yourself, you should wash it carefully. You should even wash produce that you’re going to peel. Scrub firm produce, like cucumbers and potatoes, with a stiff-bristled brush. You don’t have to wash produce that comes in a sealed bag marked “pre-washed,” but an extra rinse won’t hurt. Always cut off bruised or damaged sections.
But washing your fruits and veggies, with or without a commercial produce wash, won’t get rid of all of the pesticide residues on them. When testing for pesticides, the FDA washes and peels fruits and veggies just like you would, and more than 93 percent of the conventionally grown apples tested still had pesticides on them after being washed. There’s a growing consensus in the scientific community that these low-level exposures, especially during fetal development and childhood, can have lasting effects.
The best way to minimize your exposure to toxic pesticides is to wash your fruits and veggies thoroughly in cold water, eat a varied diet, and buy organic produce whenever possible. Prioritize your spending on organic by buying the foods your family eats the most often, and those on the Dirty Dozen list, organic.
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.
Photo: Fernando on Flickr (license).
EWG serves up Mixed Greens
Okay people, get excited: EWG has a brand new podcast. Mixed Greens is your environmental health news update, featuring inside info from our staff of scientists and researchers and hosted by yours truly. You can download it, subscribe to it, or listen to it right here, and you can find links mentioned in the stories in the show notes here on Enviroblog.
The first episode features stories about:
- The proper way to wash your fruits and veggies
-http://www.foodnews.org
- A federal review of BPA with industry's fingerprints all over it
-Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
-More on BPA
- A new way to recycle compact fluorescent lightbulbs
-Order Recyclepaks from Veolia Environmental Services (Look for Supply123D)
-More on CFL recycling
Plus, you won't believe how long the government has been dragging their feet on this study! (Nurses' Health Survey)
Looking for the answer to this month's Ask EWG question, "How should I wash my produce?" You can listen to the podcast and hear scientist Kristan Markey answer, or take a look at the text answer.
EnviroHealth in Blogs: What's green and fits in a manila envelope?
A little light reading for your mid-week enjoyment.
John DeFore of Green Right Now is reporting that three federal agencies have made a commitment to choose EPEAT-certified computers from now on. NASA, the Department of Defense, and the General Services Administration will all be using eco-friendly computers from now on, and so can you -- if you're in the market, check out EPEAT's recommendations.
On a related note: In his keynote speech at the MacWorld conference yesterday, Steve Jobs announced a new environmentally forward-thinking notebook:
Apple is also paying attention to the environment with this new notebook, giving it an enclosure made out of recyclable aluminum, a mercury-free and arsenic-free LCD and glass display, PVC-free internal cables, less power consumption than any other Mac, and even the packaging is less than half as much as other MacBooks and made from 100% recycled material. Heck, the packaging shouldn’t be much with something this thin; Jobs even pulled it from a simple manila envelope in the keynote speech.
Katy is calling on Vermont's Cabot Creamery to stop using rBGH. What's the hold-up, Cabot? You can send them a message from the link on Non-Toxic Kids.
A controversial wind farm off of Cape Cod has been given preliminary approval based on evidence that it won't harm sea-life, tourism or trade. Planetsave has the story.
Liz at The Pump Handle discusses a recent study linking lead exposure and Alzheimer's in primates. Just another reason for stronger regulations.
Baby salmon take shelter in (often disgustingly polluted) urban streams during storms. Just another reason for stronger regulations. (Oh wait -- I think I may be repeating myself.)
Siel's got a lot to say about Clorox's new Green Works line, which features the Sierra Club logo. It may been greener than bleach, but it's not the greenest product on the market, so why does it get special treatment?
And finally, The Greenwash Brigade has a list of websites that you can use as resources when doing your research. How very useful!
Air pollution linked to genetic mutations in mice
Okay, so you know that breathing polluted air is bad for your heart and, of course, your lungs. But did you know it might be bad for your swimmers, too?
In a study performed in an industrial Canadian city, scientists raised mice in a shed downwind of a highway and two steel mills. After just three weeks, the test mice's sperm was showing a greater level of genetic mutations that the control group, which breathed filtered air. By the end of the study,
DNA in the sperm of the mice in the polluted area contained 60% more mutations, had more strand breaks, and had more bases that had been chemically modified via the addition of a methyl group. That modification, called DNA methylation, can affect whether a gene is expressed.
The link between air pollution and reproductivity has been studied in humans, but most studies focus on the outcome of pregnancy rather than on the effect on male reproductive capacity. Studies of the effect of air pollution on human male gametes have generally been considered skewed by uncontrolled variables like lifestyle and diet, but this research makes a pretty clear case for more human studies. Anyone have any statistics on the change in rates of male fertility in the past hundred years?
Play the dirty air game!
Imagine you're a board member of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The Valley has the dirtiest air in California, including four of the 10 smoggiest cities in the country. Childhood asthma is epidemic. Educated workers, fearing for their families' health, are leaving or declining to move to the area.
Among the worst sources of dirty, dangerous air are smog-forming emissions from diesel trucks. Cleaner diesels are coming but 60,000 old trucks will remain on the roads for decades. Do you:
(a) Install advanced catalytic converters on older diesels, cutting emissions by 164 tons per day at a cost of $1.8 billion?
(b) Replace older diesels with cleaner ones as they become available, which will cut emissions by 192 tons a day at a cost of $18 billion?
(c) Ban all diesel trucks on days when smog exceeds safe levels, which will cut emissions by 237 tons a day – at a cost estimated only as "extreme?"
That's just one of the choices you'll make when you play "Fighting for Air," an online game from The Fresno Bee. The Bee, which has been dedicating considerable resources to crusading for clean air, has produced another ambitious, sophisticated and well-executed special report that examines the health and economic costs of air pollution from every imaginable angle. It's a remarkable package of stories, photos, videos, graphics and interactive features that shows just how complex the problem is, and how difficult to solve. (It also is an excellent example of how newspapers can use new media technology to do hard-hitting, public-service journalism online.)
The game challenges you to find cost-effective ways to remove, by 2012, more than 400 tons of smog-forming chemicals from the air each day – the amount needed for the region to meet federal clean-air standards. But you can only hit that target by choosing the strictest and most expensive control strategy for each emission source. (The air board has to worry about 100 kinds of sources; the game only makes you deal with 10.)
If you ban the use of diesels, farm equipment, construction vehicles, trains, portable engines, industrial furnaces, recreational boats and waste incinerators on smog-alert days, you'll get rid of 438 tons of pollution – but at a cost of more than $40 billion. And at each step along the way, you'll have to endure the wrath of farmers, builders, commuters, boat owners and everyone else who says they want clean air but don't want to have change their behavior to get it.
I don't think the Bee's game will replace Dragon Fable around my house, but it is eye-opening. How are we going to find the money to ensure that all of us can breathe safely? Not that I think clean air is too expensive – just the opposite. As numerous studies have shown, dirty air costs hundreds of millions of dollars a year in health care, sick days and school attendance and other hidden costs. Hard choices are part of the price, and we can pay it now or pay it later.
Nord to reporters: Congress shouldn't ban lead
Good news, parents! The (acting) Chief of the Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn’t see a need for a ban on lead in consumer products.
That’s right, even after the onslaught of negative press she and her agency received after a number of imported toys were found to contain lead, Nancy Nord has taken a stand: Lead must not be banned from all consumer products.
Nord, a former industry lawyer, opposes key provisions, including a total ban on lead, and a requirement that the CPSC make consumer product hazard complaints public without prior approval by the manufacturer, as is the case now. [Emphasis ours, of course.]
Adding additional worry for consumers concerned about what the federal government can do to prevent dangerous products from coming into the country and onto shelves, President Bush pushed for an increase in the CPSC budget of $550,000 – a sum so paltry it would have required Nord to actually fire 19 inspectors. While the President and his handpicked former industry lawyer Nord didn’t see any reason to beef up the CPSC, the Congress did. They approved an in increase of $17 million, bringing the FY-08 budget for the Consumer Product Safety Commission up to $80 million.
Stick to those New Years Resolutions, they might add years to your life
Are you a nom-smoker that exercises, eats fruits and vegetables, and drinks alcohol moderately? If so, you might add 14 years to your life, according to a new study at Cambridge University.
The study monitored over 20,000 people aged 45 to 79 over a period of 11 years in Norfolk, UK observing those four behaviors. The finding indicate that the mix of these four simply defined "healthy behaviors" can predict a 4-fold difference in mortality over a period of 11 years for this age group. As the healthy behaviors increase, the risk of death decreases.
While these findings need to be confirmed elsewhere for definite conclusions, this study is at least a good encouragement for many resolving to live healthier life in 2008. They also confirm that even little helps. For some of EWG's tips for healthy living, click here.
Envirohealth in Blogs: Corn is not the devil
A little light reading for your mid-week enjoyment.
After a bit of an absence, Angry Toxicologist is back with a vengeance. "Those in glass houses," he says, "should not throw stones at China."
In a surprising turn of events, Bonnie of Ethicurean is defending corn! Okay, not exactly. But she does remind us that "corn in its natural state is not 'bad.'" She also gives instructions for making popcorn -- wait for it -- on the stove! Betcha haven't done that in a while.
The other day, while walking to work, I passed a couple dozen discarded Christmas trees waiting on the curb for pickup. One of them particularly caught my attention -- it still had the lights wrapped around it. How incredibly wasteful! Maybe whoever threw it out heard the news that there's lead on the outside of the wires. The Pump Handle has the story.
Marguerite issues a thank you to the Unknown Environmentalist -- those who don't run an organization or keep a blog, but who go quietly about their lives as a paragon of green.
Having a hard time keeping all the plastics and their associated qualities straight? It's hard to know what to avoid when you can't remember if it's #3 or #7 that leaches BPA. Katy at Non-Toxic Kids has a convenient plastics refresher -- you might want to bookmark it for future reference!
You Stink! has issued an award to the cosmetics/personal care company that cares the least about children. Are their products in your bathroom?
Hair product, or tasty treat?
"If you can't put it in your mouth," says Burt's Bees CEO John Replogle, "you shouldn't put it on your skin." Then, according to New York Times reporter Louise Story, he scoops out a fingerful of the company's Avocado Butter Hair Treatment and eats it.
As I read the article, I wondered if Mr. Replogle does that trick for reporters often. And if he does, does he always use the same product? Burt's Bees products have some of the best overall scores in Skin Deep, ranging from 0 to 6 (on a scale where 0 means "low hazard" and 10 means "high hazard"). Still, even their products wouldn't be my snack of choice.
Take, for example, Burt's Bees Coconut Foot Cream. Sounds pretty harmless and, who knows, maybe even tasty. It contains low-hazard ingredients like oat flour and rosemary leaf oil and, of course, coconut oil. But it also contains fragrance (of which you should always be skeptical), which is linked to asthma, allergies, and immunotoxicity. Also, although many of the ingredients received good scores, they have data gaps as high as 100% (sucrose distearate), which means there's a lot we don't know about them. Overall, the product rates a 4 out of 10, or "moderate hazard."
I would advise Mr. Replogle to avoid using the company's Radiance Eye Cream as an example. It carries a Skin Deep score of 6 for ingredients linked to developmental and reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption and bioaccumulation (among other things).
The product that Mr. Replogle was snacking on gets a low-moderate score of 3, mostly because it contains "fragrance," that commonly used allergen and irritant that often contains phthalates. Although it isn't the safest of Burt's products, the Avocado Butter Hair Treatment sure does sound like the tastiest.
Whether Burt's Bees is the brand for you is a judgment call, and there are a lot of factors to consider (from ownership of parent-company Clorox to Burt's Bees' environmental policies). If you're looking for a tasty treat, though, I'd look elsewhere.
Psst! Want to help build the Skin Deep database? A $10 donation through our I Feel Pretty campaign will add another product, and it could even help us win a grant.
It's not just about the weather any more
In the simplistic view of "the environment" common among policy makers and the press, an artificial line separates wildlife and natural resource issues – saving the whales, protecting the rainforests – from human health concerns like toxic chemicals in consumer products. (Look more closely, of course, and you realize that everything is connected.) Global warming, because its worst impacts lie sometime in the future and are, you know, global, is not usually discussed as a threat to your preschooler's health – right now, today, in your back yard. The week before Christmas, when the EPA denied a petition by California and other states to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and trucks, one of the Agency's arguments was that there is a lack of evidence linking carbon emissions to specific health effects.
Now Stanford scientists have produced the first study quantifying the health effects of air pollution attributed solely to climate change – in other words, they've found that the hotter it gets, the more unhealthy the air gets. It's already happening, and it's affecting states with the most severe air pollution, like California, more than other places. This strikes hard at the EPA's position that states can't regulate carbon emissions because global warming is a matter of national policy only. Mark Jacobson, the atmospheric scientist who did the study, told The Sacramento Bee:
"The study shows carbon dioxide is causing the health impacts, it quantifies those impacts and shows California has been impacted greater than other states. . . . They [EPA] should revisit their decision."
The study, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, predicts that for every 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Farenheit) increase in temperature caused by carbon dioxide, 1,000 more Americans will die annually – 300 more a year in California – and 20 to 30 more will get cancer. Jacobson says it's a clear cause-and-effect relationship, not just a statistical connection.
The killer is smog, or ozone, which forms more rapidly in hotter weather. But there's a feedback loop: Jacobson used computer models to show that warming speeds ozone formation more rapidly in cities that are already smoggy. California has six of the 10 smoggiest cities in the nation, so it's clear that global warming is a more immediate health threat here than in, say, Wyoming.
Jacobson's findings, and more studies to come, could have very far-reaching impacts, perhaps elevating global warming to a top-tier health concern. This would be a most welcome development, for the tendency to keep "nature" and "health" separate has led some elected officials to embrace an environmentalism Lite, standing up for wilderness and national parks but ignoring the need for reform of chemical policy, which might upset industry. Gov. Schwarzenegger, for one, has been far more aggressive in taking on global warming than tackling public health issues.
We'll also get to see how the Bush Administration reacts to evidence that California has a legitimate public health interest in trying to regulate greenhouse gases. The Administration has resisted every effort by the state for five years, so don't hold your breath. Then again, maybe you should.
SMM: Do you feel pretty?
How can you turn $10 into $50,000 and help us expand Skin Deep all at the same time?
One of the amazing things about the internet in general, and social media in particular, is the way in which philanthropy is no longer just for the old and wealthy. New giving programs put the emphasis on simply making a donation -- not on how much you donate.
Now, the Chase Foundation has teamed up with Facebook and the Causes application to present the Facebook Giving Challenge, where it's not amount of money donated that matters -- it's the number of donations. Each day the cause with the most donors gets $1,000, and at the end of the month the cause with the most donations overall will get a $50,000 grant to apply to their work.
That means that a $10 donation to EWG's I Feel Pretty cause will not only add another product to the Skin Deep database, but will also help us win $1,000 or even $50,000. Your $10 could be the $10 that puts us over the top! Plus, the person who recruits the most friends to the cause gets an organic cotton Pesticide Guide tote bag filled with the top safest products in Skin Deep.
Isn't it amazing how far $10 can go these days? If you're already on Facebook, join the cause and make sure to tell your friends. If you're not on Facebook, here are simple instructions for joining (it only takes a few minutes!) or spreading the word.
A rock and a hard place: Mercury pollution from common household products
This is a rather instructive story, I think:
Since the angelically named Clear Skies Act of 2003 was enacted, mercury levels in bodies of water in Lincoln County, Maine have risen steadily. So, in fact, have mercury levels in bodies of water around the country. The act "weakens controls on mercury pollution levels" and has resulted in increasing numbers of fish consumption warnings and the many other problems that go along with heightened methylmercury levels -- including, for the unfortunate loon population, reproductive and development problems. Lack of restriction on coal plants has played a large role in the increase in mercury pollution, and nine states filed a lawsuit against the EPA to that effect.
Meanwhile, according to an employee of the Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies (AMSA) as reported to The Lincoln County News:
"There's an effluent limit for our wastewater plant for mercury, and it's 20.9 parts per trillion," said Bowers, "and it's amazing to look at the AMSA's mercury concentration list of toiletries, common household and food products and find Kool-Aid Mountain Twists has 6,070 ng/kg (nanograms/kilograms) or 6,070 parts per trillion of mercury."
Kool-Aid Mountain Twists aren't the only household item containing mercury, either. Specific brands of toothpaste, soap, bathroom tissue and dishwasher gel also make AMSA's watchlist (note how the remnants of all of those products end up right back in the wastewater). It's not that mercury is included as an ingredient. It's that the process for manufacturing those particular goods uses mercury, and trace amounts remain when the product is finished. Larger amounts of mercury are found in household bleach and many soaps.
It's not as a direct threat to human health that these trace levels become a problem, although I admit I'm not pleased to think of any amount of exposure to toxic mercury. The real problem is when those trace amounts make it back into wastewater effluent, where mercury is metabolized by bacteria into bio-accumulative methylmercury. That's the stuff that builds up in bodies as it goes up the food chain, so by the time it gets to the fish you and I eat it's a big issue.
All of which leaves us precisely here: Railing against mercury contamination from coal plants while flushing more mercury into the environment. Wonderful.
So, what can we do?
- Don't get scared. Get angry. There's a temptation, when we find out about a source of pollution in our own homes, to get nervous. I know, because it was my immediate reaction. But even though parts-per-trillion levels of mercury ideally shouldn't be in our toilet paper, they don't pose an immediate health risk to us. As for risks to the environment -- well, that may be a different story.
- As much as possible, eliminate regular chlorine bleach from use in your household, since it tends to contain greater trace levels of mercury.
- Watch what you flush. Many other cleaning agents contain measurable levels of mercury, as well, so when you use a whole lot of them to clean the toilet or the tub you're flushing mercury (not to mention money!) down the drain.
- Buy "unbleached" paper products (toilet paper, paper towels, feminine hygiene products, etc.) whenever you can. Not only does this prevent you from flushing more mercury into the environment, it sends a message to manufacturers that we want cleaner products. Since the manufacture of the products releases more mercury than our use of them, having less manufactured would be a big step.
- Don't forget about the coal companies! The amount of mercury pollution they're contributing to the environment is far greater than the cumulative effect of your households' and mine. Add to that their CO2 emissions and you've got one dirty industry. It's time to find a better way to fuel our lives.
The culprit: Consumption or population growth?
The number 32 didn't mean much to me until today, when I read an op-ed by the amazing Jared Diamond in The New York Times. According to him:
"To mathematicians, 32 is an interesting number: it's 2 raised to the fifth power, 2 times 2 times 2 times 2 times 2. To economists, 32 is even more special, because it measures the difference in lifestyles between the first world and the developing world. The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world. That factor of 32 has big consequences."
We all know that many are concerned about the world population, but Diamond argues that we should be concerned with consumption and who consumes what and how much. He argues that growing population is not the problem because the part of the world where population is growing fastest is where there is least consumption. To read more, check out the article.
Jared Diamond is also the author of Pulitzer Prize winning Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse, a study of environmental degradation and its role in the breakdown of historical societies.
New Year's Resolutions for a safe, healthy 2008
When I was 12, my new year's resolution was to NOT keep my room clean. The two years before I'd made a resolution to keep it neat and tidy, and since I seemed to have a habit of breaking my resolutions I figured I'd turn the table on it.
I'm a little better at sticking to my resolutions now. Here's what's on my plate for 2008:
- Switch to safer cleaning products. I've been working on this one for months, but haven't been able to dedicate myself to it. Sometimes it seems easier to reach for the name-brand stuff, but it's often environmentally destructive and can be bad for your health. This year I'm keeping an eye on the worst chemicals, and using household products like vinegar, baking soda, and lemon juice whenever possible. I'll be using this as my guide.
- Take a toiletry inventory. Cosmetics and personal care products aren't regulated by the FDA, and companies regularly use ingredients with known or probable links to health problems like cancer and asthma. Not to mention all the plastic waste generated by bottles of body wash and conditioner. With useful resources like Skin Deep around, there's no reason to stay in the dark. When my next bottle of drug-store volumizing shampoo runs out, I'll be switching to something a lot better for me and the environment.
- Watch what I eat. Sure, lots of people will pledge this year to watch their weight, lose ten pounds, or stick strictly to the latest fad diets. Me, I've got other plans for my plate: I'm prioritizing my organic purchases, starting with potatoes. They rank at the bottom of the Dirty Dozen list, but conventionally-farmed potato crops are doused with pesticides that are bad for the environment and bad for us. I'll be buying my potatoes from the farmer's market whenever I can, and grocery-store organic when I can't.
I'm not the only one with reolutions, of course: Micela's cleaning house, the Ethicureans are eating well and paying it forward, The Daily Green advises us to be smarter than the bottled water companies, and Katy's got an enviable five-part plan. What are your New Year's Resolutions?