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]
Mixed Greens 004: All About Food
Not a drop to drink--Part 1: Down the drain
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
February 29, 2008
Just say no to downer cows?
UPDATE: If you're interested in this subject, you've got to check out the Doreen the Downer cartoon.
Something that's been glossed over in many of the news articles and blog posts about the recent HSUS undercover investigation and the resulting massive ground beef recall is the fact that downer cows -- those that are unable to stand and walk -- are entering our food supply every day. As long as they're looked at and approved by a USDA veterinarian, there's no law against slaughtering downer cows for processing.
There could be a law -- Congress brought up just such a strategy in a hearing yesterday with Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer. The suggestion that downer cows should be banned from the food supply altogether (and that security cameras should be installed to ensure compliance) didn't go over well with Schafer, who points out that penalties against Westland-Hallmark have been "strong and swift."
Maybe they have been -- the company is certainly in dire straits at this point -- but the fact that it took the work of a non-profit to get anything done at all is downright embarrassing.
Shafer assures that it's okay. They're going to do more unannounced spot checks now. That ought to solve the problem, right?
February 28, 2008
Poor and uninsured. Sound familiar?
We all know that rich and poor are differently affected by things in life. That fact is no different when we talk about the climate change, an issue that affects all of us. In fact, not only are they more affected then rich, but the world's poor might even need insurance to deal with their needs rising from the climate change.
The number of natural catastrophes is increasing and they are becoming more frequent and costly each year. It is becoming clear that demands for humanitarian assistance from consequences of the natural disasters will outgrow demands for war and conflicts assistance.
Migration will become another issue that will result from global warming. Not only animals and plants are moving away from the rising temperatures, humans have started doing the same. It is still early to have accurate projections, but some studies say that up to 50 million people could move from their homes because of climate change within near future.
While being the most affected and vulnerable from it, the poor are also least responsible for the causes. And we all know that governments usually don’t pay much attention to them either.
February 27, 2008
New York Times seduced by fragrance industry
A recent New York Times article glowingly portrays the lucrative business of developing patented fragrance ingredients, likening these new and exclusive fragrance chemicals to patented active ingredients in medications.
However, there are a few differences between fragrances and pharmaceuticals. For one thing, new drugs must be screened with batteries of health and safety tests before they reach the market, while no such requirements apply to cosmetic ingredients. There is no FDA approval process for ingredients in fragrance or body care products. Instead, individual cosmetic companies make decisions about what’s safe for all of us. Labeling loopholes further allow cosmetics companies to hide the chemicals making up their secret mixtures from consumers.
We know that common fragrance ingredients including phthalates and nitro- and polycyclic musks are widespread contaminants of people, existing in our bodies at levels similar to the prescribed doses of many medications. To reduce your own exposures to these and other untested chemicals, switch to products free of fragrance – check the list of ingredients. You can use our Skin Deep cosmetics database to find products that do not contain fragrance.
The Timesarticle claims that using these untested fragrance chemicals is an ecologically sound choice, as it reduces demand for natural resources. Not mentioned: the fact that ingredients in perfumes and body care products that we wash down the drain each day end up contaminating our rivers, lakes and oceans, creating potential problems for local fisheries and aquatic ecosystems. EWG research detected phthalates, common ingredients in fragrance, in wastewater from residences, a nail salon, laundries – and in treated wastewater heading to San Francisco Bay. Phthalates can build up in the bodies of fish and affect the levels of their reproductive hormones. Studies of another common class of fragrance chemicals, nitro- and polycyclic musks, indicate several are toxic to aquatic life at low levels.
An entire article about fragrance without a single mention of health or environmental complications? All that perfume must've gone to their heads.
Photo by Ayala Moriel.
February 26, 2008
Mixed Greens 004: All About Food
This edition of EWG's podcast Mixed Greens is all about food -- and it's dedicated to celebrity chef Tyler Florence. You can subscribe in iTunes or in a reader, or listen right here in your browser.
Want more? Check out these links:
- Cloned food
- EWG's Bottled Water Contest
- EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce
- Be our friend on Facebook!
Under fire
Every year, billions of gallons of fire retardants are dropped on forests across the nation. Those chemicals take their toxic toll, but then, so do forest fires. In fact, the National Interagency Fire Center has already contained 78 large fires this year.
Logging has a huge effect on forest fires. A logging company goes in for the valuable trunks of the largest, most fire-resistant trees, leaving behind young growth and dead, drying branches and treetops that are, of course, especially susceptible to fire. Since the mission of the Forest Service is, in a nutshell, "to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run," and since large-scale forest fires do no good for pretty much anybody, you'd think the Forest Service would be really careful about leasing out national forest land for logging.
You'd think, but you'd be wrong. Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, the former timber industry lobbyist who now runs the Forest Service, thinks logging is a great use of public lands. He proudly reports to the Associated Press that "We are now treating four times as many acres as we did when this administration came into office." In case you missed it, "treating acres" is a polite little euphemism for cutting down trees.
Rey's methods of handling fire prevention, if you can call it that, have come under fire by critics who point out that we could reduce the amount of toxic fire retardants dumped from planes each year by quite a bit if he'd just be a little more responsible with the land. At a hearing today, a judge will decide whether Rey has been skirting NEPA, a law that would in essence require him to tell the truth about the effects of logging on forests. Like that it causes fires. That Rey uses billions of gallons of poison to put out.
Let's not be naive about this. We all use products made from wood, and we're going to keep using them. We ought to be using them at a much more sustainable rate, but regardless, they have to come from somewhere. And there are sustainable ways to harvest lumber -- just ask the Forest Stewardship Council. But whatever you do, don't ask Mark Rey.
Photo by Rob Wallace.
February 25, 2008
Not a drop to drink--Part 1: Down the drain
With droughts parching extensive tracts of land from the Southeast to the Western states, worries over future water shortages sound ever louder and more urgent. Yet few of us actually imagine the bleak look of a world where water may be rationed, sold to the highest bidder or distributed by the government between various competing needs.
Is this future unavoidable? Will water shortages and water conflicts shape our lives – or do we actually have enough clean drinking water to last for a while if only we take good stewardship of our water resources?
Let’s talk for a moment about the daily shower. We all enjoy it; we take it for granted; we take offense when someone does not share our views on the necessity of it. Nobody wants to stand in a crowded bus next to a person who considers hygiene to be a matter of personal preference.
However, as we hurry through our morning routine (4 minutes and 56 seconds for the shower before gulping a cup of coffee), do we even consider how the chemicals that we send flowing down the drain may endanger our future sources of drinking water?
Research by EWG demonstrated that on average, each of us uses around 10 cosmetics or personal care products daily, most of which end up in wastewater. In combination, daily use of shampoo, soap, conditioner, toothpaste, body lotion, shaving cream, sunscreen, and deodorant exposes people’s skins to an average of 126 distinct chemical ingredients.
But the story does not stop there. Many of the long-lasting, biologically active ingredients in personal care products aren't filtered out in standard wastewater treatment plants, whose processes were never specifically intended to remove synthetic chemicals. And so, while the effluent from wastewater treatment facilities may be free from live bacteria, it still carries significant quantities of bioactive compounds, such as hormone-disrupting chemicals phthalates, bisphenol A and triclosan (for more information, see EWG's report on Sources of Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals in San Francisco Bay).
Another example of a very persistent chemical in personal care products is galaxolide, a synthetic musk that is used to impart fragrance to consumer products such as detergents, household cleaners, shampoos, and cosmetics, often in order to hide undesirable odors of other ingredients in the same item. Synthetic musks are labeled as “fragrance”; their identity, quantity or composition is generally not disclosed by cosmetics manufactures.
Galaxolide is resistant to removal from wastewater. It bioaccumulates in tissues, and, together with other synthetic musks, galaxolide is found at high levels in breast milk of US mothers. The toxicology of polycyclic musks is not well established, but these chemicals cause endocrine disruption in animals; they may also enhance toxicity of other compounds.
So, let us visualize the journey of water after it arrives to our homes. Water comes from the tap, gets filled with various persistent chemicals whose safety has not been adequately demonstrated, is flushed down the drain and moves where?
In old times of low population density and “water-rich” mentality, this wastewater could be, perhaps, released to the ocean. Now, as water scarcity comes upon us, recycling of wastewater becomes both a desirable and an unavoidable option. We need to make sure that recycled water is as clean as it can be. An important step towards this goal is minimizing the flow-through of long-lasting, bioaccumulative chemicals that come from personal care products. For more on that, stay tuned for Part 2.
UPDATE: This post was initially written as the first in a series, but shortly after it was published The Pump Handle wrote a post that said most of what we planned to say. If you're interested in the subject, check out their "What's in your sewage?"
February 22, 2008
Protecting our children shouldn't be this difficult
This is what it's come to: In a neighborhood in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, residents are being advised to avoid all contact with dirt and dust. The soil in Durrs is so contaminated with toxic chemicals resulting from a garbage incinerator that, for years, blanketed the future sites of buildings, yards and parks with a layer of ash.
Here's a money quote for you:
City officials repeatedly have stressed that a report on the site claims the level of contamination found does not present a public health hazard, although people are warned against breathing the dust. [Emphasis mine]
Boy, that sounds on the up-and-up. "No really, it's fine! We promise! Just don't breathe, okay?"
Soil in come areas of the neighborhood contains 240 parts per trillion dioxin -- one of the most toxic chemicals in existence and a potent carcinogen. According to state law, the dioxin levels are 34 times those that should trigger a cleanup.
But so far there is no cleanup, because no one -- not the city or the state -- is willing to pay for them. An attorney has pressed charges on behalf of residents of Durrs, but in a neighborhood where children can't play in the park without risking exposure to toxic chemicals it should not take a lawsuit to get the mess cleaned up.
The attorney pressing charges calls it "disgusting," and she's right. It's also absolutely shameful.
Photo by Remuse.
February 21, 2008
Future generations to face rising infertility rates
We’ve been talking about this for years--chemical exposures do add up and can have adverse health effects, including chronic diseases and infertility. A new study, published in the British Medical Journal proves that point one more time. According to the study, infertility will become even more common with future generations and can affect as much as 15 per cent of couples in affluent countries.
Jens Bonde, from Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, and Jørn Olson, from the University of California predicted that infertility might be come much more prevalent in the coming years because of combination of medical, environmental and social factors affecting fertility. It is hard to determine to what extent each is responsible for the problem, since the more studies are needed on the topic.
Currently, numerous studies show that about five to ten percent of American couples are infertile; up to half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage; three to five percent of babies are born with birth defects. The first step that ones should take would be to deal with avoidable causes.
February 20, 2008
Bad beef follow-up: Strip USDA's food-safety oversight?
The USDA may be looking at a change in its role following the scandal that lead to the recall of 143 million pounds of ground beef earlier this week.
Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT), who chairs the subcommittee in charge of USDA's finances, had this to say yesterday:
"Food safety ought to be of a high enough priority in this nation that we have a single agency that deals with it and not an agency that is responsible for promoting a product, selling a product and then as an afterthought dealing with how our food supply is safe."
When she puts it that way, you can't help but go "Oh, gee, y'think?"
No word yet on what the specifics of the proposal would look like. Obviously a secure food system would involve a lot more than taking power from the USDA and handing it to the FDA. After all, it's not like FDA's current resources allow them to do a stellar job.
I continue, though, to be impressed that an undercover investigation by the Human Society of the United States may, in the end, have wrought significant changes to the nation's food safety system. Kudos to them.
February 19, 2008
Video spurs largest ground beef recall in history
Thanks to an undercover investigation by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company has issued the largest ground beef recall in history.
The recall of 143 million pounds of ground beef follows on the heels of video footage released by HSUS in late January, showing cows too sick to stand being kicked and pushed with forklifts (it's really gruesome, heartbreaking stuff, so be prepared if you click the link). The so-called downer cows are not allowed in the food stream until they've undergone veterinary examination because they may harbor mad cow disease or another illness. That means that every cow that cannot stand is less money for the company.
The recall was spurred by the Department of Agriculture, which found that Westland/Hallmark did not always contact federal inspectors to examine downer cows. It applies to all beef sold by the company between February 2006 and February 2008, which means that it's largely symbolic. Most of that beef has already been eaten, much of it by children in their public school lunches for which Westland is a primary supplier. Both the Department of Agriculture and the company have acknowledged that there's little chance of illness resulting from the meat being recalled.
It would be nice to believe that this is an isolated situation.
It would also be unforgivably naive.
Photo: Mice Meat by sinsiwinsi.
February 18, 2008
Cheap salmon? Think again
How appropriate that after I had great wild salmon for dinner the other night, I saw this new report the next day. According to the Science article,
“Wild salmon have it tough these days, with dams blocking the routes to their spawning grounds and invasive predators congregating around their streams. But their worst enemy might be a familiar face. Contact with farmed salmon raised for supermarket shoppers seems to be killing off the wild fish, according to the first large-scale study of salmon farming's impact.”
Wild salmon have been infected by sea lice from farm raised salmon that live close to them. This is the case all across the globe, hundreds of small studies show. However, a new study that focused on Ireland, Scotland, and Canada has compared the population of wild salmon that lives close and far away form the pens where farmed salmon is raised. Even thought the results varied some across the countries, on average, the wild salmon population is cut in half if they live close to the fish pens.
Salmon farming is a huge industry, because of the large demand for fresh and cheap fish. But to be able to compete on the market, fish farmers leave part of the cost to the local environment. So, think again when you buy the cheap fish next time, it maybe isn’t the best deal after all.
February 16, 2008
Uranium mining in Virginia?
EWG has documented the explosion of uranium mining claims out West, including dozens of claims--and exploratory drilling operations hastily approved by federal authorities--in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon, driven by skyrocketing prices for the metal in anticipation of a nuclear power "renaissance".
But AP is reporting today that the mother lode of uranium in the United States may be a $10 billion deposit located in Virginia.
The existence of the deposit has been known since the 1980s, but a spike in the price of uranium has renewed interest in mining it. That is cause for hope by advocates in a region with an economy crippled by the loss of the textile and tobacco industries and angst among residents who fear radiation contamination.
Opponents of the prospective mine are leery of an offer by the company that owns the mining rights to pay for a study of its potential impacts.
Virginia Uranium's foes don't mind a study, but they don't think the state should conduct one in partnership with a private company. They also think it should be done by health care professionals who are knowledgeable about the effects of radiation, not theoretical scientists."Snake handlers are not afraid of snakes," said Jack Dunavant, chairman of Southside Concerned Citizens, which is leading the opposition.
February 15, 2008
This may be worse than we thought
Reusable plastic bottles leach BPA at room temperature
A lot of people have those reusable polycarbonate water bottles; you can’t go to a college campus these days without seeing students carrying these multi-hued bottles around as they make their way through classes.
Well, a couple weeks back researchers at the University of Cincinnati released a startling new study showing that many of these bottles leach bisphenol A (BPA), an endocrine disruptor, into water that is being stored within the container.
These researchers found that these plastic bottles leach BPA into room-temperature water. That’s bad enough, but if boiling water is put into these bottles, the rate of BPA leaching goes up by quite a bit.
All the evidence out there tells us that this stuff is not good for you; EWG tested canned foods recently, which are lined with the same BPA plastic as these water bottles are made from. As it turns out, foods from metal cans contain significantly more of the chemical than water from bottles.
We applaud the use of reusable water bottles to cut down on the environmental impact of bottled water, but with this new research, metal water bottles are looking better and better. Some have a plastic lining, but Klean Kanteen makes metal water bottles that are BPA free.
Parents who are concerned about baby’s plastic bottles should know that although this study didn’t look at baby bottles, it studied the same type of plastic. At this point, there’s enough research out there to justify the added expense of buying BPA-free or glass bottles. But an even more critical step would be to substitute powdered formula for liquid formula if your baby isn’t drinking breast milk. Babies don’t need to be getting extra endocrine disruptors in any form.
February 14, 2008
Links! Aww, you shouldn't have. . .
A handful of interesting links for your Valentine's Day (or Singles Awareness Day) enjoyment:
Want to show your love for the planet? If you support the Cape Wind project, which would create a wind-energy farm off the coast of Massachusetts, send a message to the government to tell them so -- they're accepting comments until March 20th. PlanetSave has more.
Want to make this pink-and-red holiday a little more green? Plenty Magazine's got some fabulous tips. And just so it's clear, anyone who serenaded me with I just called to say 'I compost' would win my heart forever. Seriously.
Oceana got all Discovery Channel for their new campaign, Mating Season. I can't decide if the video is hysterically funny or incredibly unnerving, but I sent it to all my friends, so I guess it's working! Also check out their awesome e-cards, like the one featured up above.
And finally, if you're considering buying your sweetie something smelly for the holiday, don't. Not only are most perfumes full of allergy-inducing chemicals, but wearing them in public or common spaces can cause problems for people with multiple chemical sensitivity. Plus, it sends a subtle message: "I love you, but I wish you smelled different." Romantic, eh?
Ask EWG: Which formula is best?
Question: I am unable to breastfeed for medical reasons. How can I choose the best possible formula for my child?
Answer: Your situation isn't unique. According to the Centers for Disease Control, most babies in the US receive some formula during their first year of life, with 70 percent of babies receiving some formula by 3 months of age. When breastfeeding isn't an option, there are several steps you can take to make formula-feeding as healthy as possible.
The number one most important step to take when selecting a formula is to choose powdered. A toxic chemical called bisphenol A leaches from the lining of the aluminum cans that baby formula is distributed in, and liquid formulas have more BPA in the lining. Ready-to-feed liquid formula, which doesn't get diluted at all before feeding, has the highest levels of all. Choosing powdered formula lowers your infant's exposure to BPA through formula.
Whether they're feeding formula or pumped breast milk, it's important for parents to know that BPA also leaches (to a lesser degree) from polycarbonate plastic baby bottles. Avoid hard, clear plastic bottles which are sometimes marked with the number 7. Instead, choose glass bottles or bottles made from BPA-free plastic. Use a clear silicone nipple and filtered water without added fluoride. Don't use soft plastic bottle liners, which create more waste. Warm bottles in a pan of hot water instead of in the microwave, which can heat unevenly and cause chemicals to be released into the formula.
There are many reasons why a family may rely on formula for some or all of their baby’s diet. These babies need a safe and healthy source of food, and formula should be manufactured in a way that avoids contamination with hormone disrupting chemicals. For more detailed information about bottle-feeding your baby, and to find out what action is being taken to make formula safer, visit ewg.org/babysafe.
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.
February 13, 2008
Envirohealth in Blogs: Dirty dishes, dirty MRF-ing
This week in the blogosphere. . .
Blogfish gets a makeover. Lookin' good, Mark!
Revere looks at a study that demonstrates a correlation between weight gain and eating no-calorie sweets made with saccharine.
Does your trash get recycled? Siel investigates dirty MRF-ing.
Barbara at GreenRightNow takes a look at how, actually, biofuels probably aren't the answer.
Tuvalu has issued a cry for help -- Solve Climate's David Sassoon reports.
Ah, the old handwashing vs. dishwasher conundrum. The Good Human says a good efficient dishwasher is better by a mile, but Green with a Gun says it's only better than the most inefficient handwashing. If you don't have a dishwasher (or even if you do), check out Green with a Gun's suggestions for cutting back your water usage.
And finally, Katy of Non-Toxic Kids had an opportunity to go before the Vermont Legislature to testify on behalf of a bill that would help protect the state's young'ns from lead exposure. Good work, Katy!
Photo by thenestor.
February 12, 2008
Mixed Greens 003: Fluoride in infant water?
In this episode of EWG's podcast Mixed Greens, we discuss fluoridated water marketed for use by infants, the impact of agriculture on the Dead Zone, and a new study documenting babies' exposure to phthalates -- plus, we give you a tip on improving indoor air quality. You can subscribe in iTunes or in a reader, or listen right here in your browser.
Want more? Check out these links:
- Fluoride in infant water?
-EWG Nursery Water Investigation
-Ask EWG: What can I do about fluoride in my water?
- Babies exposed to phthalates
-Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Elements in lotions may enter babies' skin
-EWG Parents' Buying Guide
-Enviroblog: Reduce household phthalate exposure
- Subsidizing pollution
-EWG: 75% of Dead Zone attributed to farming in 9 states
-Enviroblog: The science has spoken -- Will policy makers listen?
February 11, 2008
Grand Canyon threatened: Road trip, anyone?
If you've never been to the Grand Canyon, you might want to get there soon.
The Forest Service has approved drilling for uranium at as many as 39 sites near the Grand Canyon’s south rim, and we have every reason to believe that this is just the beginning. If mining companies find what they're looking for and are allowed to go in and get it, you can be sure that we'll be looking at a uranium rush.
Under the (unbelievably outdated) 1872 Mining Law, public land managers can't do anything to stop mining, even though it puts Grand Canyon at risk. As former Forest Service Chief Michael Dombeck explained in a hearing in January that "once claimed, it is nearly impossible to prohibit mining under the current framework of the 1872 Mining Law, no matter how serious the impacts might be."
And it's precisely because of that law, and the recent surge in metal prices, that the number of mining claims around Grand Canyon has jumped by nearly 40% since July.
The House passed a bill last feel that would begin to reform the outdated 1872 mining law. It would empower the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to prevent mining near our national treasures, but despite the immediacy of the threat to Grand Canyon the Senate has yet to move on the bill.
February 8, 2008
Congress investigates science-for-hire over BPA
"Manufacturing uncertainty." It's a common tactic for companies whose products have undergone scrutiny by the scientific community. Here in our nation's illustrious capital there's no shortage of science-for-hire firms, who make their money by producing dubious reports in defense of whatever industry is paying their bills this month. Even well-intentioned organizations, like the National Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition, are not immune to industry's money -- you may recall how, this fall, their board released an industry-supported statement advising women to eat more mercury-laden fish, despite the contrary position of every significant member-organization (including the FDA).
But with the recent flurry of news and reports around bisphenol A, one firm in particular is coming under scrutiny. The Congressional Energy and Commerce Committee has requested that the Weinberg Group produce records on their work around bisphenol A, that toxic plastics chemical found in polycarbonate water- and baby-bottles as well as the lining used in food cans. Evidence that the chemical has estrogenic effects is piling up, and committee chair Representative Dingell wants answers.
Why is the Weinberg Group suspect? Well, for starters, their findings on bisphenol A run contrary to what virtually every other respected scientific body has found. Then there's the group's history: In a 2003 letter to chemical manufacturer DuPont, the Weinberg Group offers to "harness, focus and involve the scientific and intellectual capital of our company with one goal in mind—creating the outcome our client desires.”
It's been a while since I've studied the scientific method, but I'm pretty sure you're supposed to form your conclusions after you've done the analysis.
Representative Dingell also recently sent letters to each of the major baby formula manufacturers, asking them to supply all of the information they have on their use of BPA-lined cans for distributing infant formula. Last fall, an EWG analysis estimated that at 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.
Congress and scientists are sorting out what to do about BPA, but you can take steps to minimize your exposure in the meantime.
Photo: The Mask by benjieordonez.
February 7, 2008
Church of England: Cut down carbon footprint for Lent
I know you are sticking to those New Years resolutions, because they're good for you, plus they might be adding years to your life.
However, you're not done yet. Lent, the forty-day liturgical season of fasting and prayer before Easter for Christians, started yesterday and according to the Church of England, you should change your relationship with carbon rather than some more typical things, like chocolate, smoking or alcohol.
But, you don’t have to be a believer to follow the Lent advice given by the Church of England. Some of the things you can do are to avoid plastic bags or remove prominent light bulb in the house. And you can do it year long, not just for 40 days!
The Times Online has more tips (including a tip for each day of Lent).
February 6, 2008
CPSC: Last person out the door, hit the lights
What’s been happening over at the ol’ Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) since the Giants beat the Patriots in last Sunday’s Superbowl? Not much. On Monday, the CSPC lost virtually all its power to protect U.S. consumers from hazardous products in the marketplace.
And the reason why may leave most Americans scratching their heads. The CSPC is run by a quorum. That means decisions over product recalls, safety standards, fines and penalties are made by three commissioners. However, the panel has been absent one person since the departure of the former Chairman back in July of 2006. Congress quickly moved to give the remaining commissioners the ability to make decisions, or quorum, but the President hasn’t nominated a replacement for the vacant seat. The temporary authority Congress gave the remaining CSPC members expired Monday, leaving the beleaguered Commission unable to order mandatory recalls. Oh well, parents shouldn’t worry. They can still oversee voluntary recalls, and besides, what could possibly happen?
Photo: Baby Toes by jgoldmania.
February 5, 2008
EWG applauds CPSC's move toward safer furniture
After a decade delay, CPSC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking last Friday that would set new fire retardant standards for home furniture. In a rare victory for public health the rules would require the fabric to be fire resistant instead of the foam inside.
Sound obscure? It is. Even some EWG researchers nod off when I talk about the details. But this bureaucratic move by a feeble government agency is actually a reminder of the obscure impacts that Big Tobacco and chemical companies have on your health.
Since 2002, EWG has documented the extent of contamination of fire retardants, known as PBDEs, in umbilical cord blood, mothers' milk, household dust and the environment. In January, CDC confirmed these findings with a study that detected PBDEs in the bodies of 99% of nearly 2000 Americans.
Somehow these obscure chemicals in couch cushions and carpet padding have found their way into all of us, and at levels that may impact babies' brain development. But the presence of toxic chemicals in furniture foam was neither accident nor oversight.
CPSC's vote ends a decade old stalemate between Big Tobacco, the handful of companies who make brominated fire retardants, and furniture-makers. As the Washington Post reported recently, this lengthy delay was largely the work of a single lobbyist, Peter Sparber, who was employed by both Big Tobacco and the bromine industry to fight restrictions on smoldering cigarettes, which are the primary source of furniture fires. Fire retardant fabric offers fire protection with significantly less chemical use, which isn't good for the bottom line if you are in the bromine business.
Individual states are now requiring that cigarettes be self-extinguishing, which dramatically reduces the risk of furniture fires. That alone is far more effective than loading our homes with toxic chemicals, including the one banned from children's pajamas in the 1970s.
In typical CPSC-style, this victory isn't complete. The regulations still allow the use of unknown and potentially toxic chemicals on foam, including Deca PBDE, HBCD, tris and other chemicals already shown to accumulate in people and the environment. EWG will be pushing for improvements to the final rule and keep you updated about the process.
But first we'll take a minute to savor this small victory.
Photo: Cigarette by SuperFantastic.
Chemical interactions put coral reefs in danger
About two years ago, my Grandma was on about 8 different medications when her primary doctor asked her to bring them all in to sort them out. Lo and behold there were a number of funny interactions and they dropped her down to four. We only wish the government and industry would take some responsibility to guard against interactions from chemicals that build up in our bodies and the environment.
A new study appeared last month in Environmental Health Perspectives (here's a nice summary) detailing how certain sunscreen and cosmetic ingredients (Warning, Skin Deep geeks only: oxybenzone, octylmethyl cinnamate, 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, and butylparaben) activated viruses that were already lurking in the ocean's coral, causing them to actually attack symbiotic algae that provides the coral with critical nutrients. This builds on other work showing that one of these ingredients (oxybenzone) may contribute to the feminization of male fish while another another (4-methylbenzylidene camphor) is no longer approved for use in the EU after a series of studies raised questions about the ingredient's effect on the thyroid of young children (This ingredient isn't allowed in US sunscreens... yet).
Eek, does this mean we should stop using sunscreens? Let's parse it out:
First, cosmetics and drugs already get a free pass when it comes to their environmental impact. Years of fragrances in cosmetics and detergents has led to the build-up of millions of pounds of musks in the Lake Michigan (not to mention, us). And yeah, there might be Prozac in your tap water. We've been testing water down the drain in San Francisco. EPA has a big research program trying to understand the probllem while helping local water utilities clean-up the chemical cocktail coming down the drain. However, until FDA actually requires some sort of forward thinking here, such as requiring companies to think about the environmental consequences of all these chemicals. . . nothing doing.
Second, there is no good way for scientists to identify chemicals that might be fine by themselves, but really wreak some havoc when there's something else around. In this particular case, the viruses don't target humans, so there is no danger to humans. Nothing requires companies to even consider this when creating new cosmetics or industrial chemicals. We know that, from birth we're pre-polluted with hundreds of chemicals. It is just too bad we don't know the effects. We'll come back to this topic in another post.
OK, so enough doom and gloom... Here's what you can do
- To not get burned AND prevent long-term skin damage like cancer, your best bet is to stay out of the sun (10 am - 4 pm).
- Wear a floppy hat.
- If you are going to go out in the sun, slather on the sunscreen, but use EWG's sunscreen ratings (which fold in environmental hazards along with what works best).
- Use fewer personal care products, and choose products with fewer ingredients (and avoid fragrance!).
For the bigger picture, FDA needs to start cracking down on chemicals that have an effect down the