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]
Envirohealth in Blogs: Warm and toasty
Mixed Greens 006: Water, water everywhere
PFCs may concentrate in breast milk
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
March 31, 2008
Hot enough for you? Just wait
On any given day, the hottest spot in the United States is likely to be somewhere in the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts that straddle the borders of California, Arizona and Nevada. Last Fourth of July it was 126 in Death Valley, and that wasn't even the hottest day of the year. (Weather geeks alert: USA TODAY has tables of the daily highs and lows in the continental U.S. dating back to 1995.)
Hold on to your sunscreen, because we ain't seen nothing yet.
According to a new study from the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization, global warming is heating up the West faster and to a greater degree than anywhere else in the U.S., and more than the planet as a whole. The LA Times reports:
For the last five years, from 2003 through 2007, the global climate averaged 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than its 20th century average. . . . During the same period, 11 Western states averaged 1.7 degrees warmer.
The Rocky Mountain Climate Organization – a coalition of local governments, business and nonprofits, including the Natural Resources Defense Council – based its report on data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. According to the Times, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming had their hottest Julys on record last summer, while Phoenix suffered 31 days above 110 degrees. And it's only going to get worse:
[T]he data suggest that the trend will accelerate -- with the West warming about 1 1/2 times faster than the global average. Martin Hoerling, a NOAA meteorologist, has predicted that the West could heat up as much as 5 degrees by mid-century. In Alaska, the annual mean air temperature has risen 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit over the last three decades.
The combination of higher temperatures, worse and more frequent droughts and booming cities is the recipe for a climate crisis, hitting the West ahead of the global curve. California and some other Western states are in the forefront of efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and tap into alternative energy sources such as sun and wind power, but will it be too little, too late? It would help if EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson would admit that because California and other states are more at risk from global warming they should be allowed to set their own greenhouse gas standards. Now, instead of stalling by taking months of public comment.
March 28, 2008
CDC finds toxic sunscreen chemical in 97% of Americans
My favorite time of year is coming up really soon: flip flops and outside patios in restaurants, and I will be a happy person! But it's also the time of the year when I start wearing sunscreens (and you should too). Last summer, EWG created a great guide to sunscreens that I will be using again.
Picking a good sunscreen is not an easy task, since we know that they are loaded with potentially dangerous chemicals. And new evidence is pouring in: A new study from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that nearly all Americans are contaminated with oxybenzone, a
sunscreen chemical that has been linked to allergies, hormone disruption, and cell damage. The same chemical was recently linked to low birth weight in baby girls whose mothers are exposed during pregnancy, according to a study from the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine.
EWG found oxybenzone in almost 600 sunscreens sold in the U.S. We also found it in lip balm, lipstick, moisturizers and fragrance for women.
FDA hasn't assessed oxybenzone's safety since the '70s. That's when they announced plans to develop comprehensive standards for sunscreen safety. Thirty years later, there are still no finalized standards -- instead, FDA asks sunscreen manufacturers to voluntarily follow draft guidelines, and you and I get exposed to chemicals like oxybenzone without ever knowing about their harmful effects. FDA, it's time to straighten out this sunscreen business!
March 27, 2008
Something stinks, but it’s not what you think
As a soon-to-be first time parent, I have spent many a weekend wandering the aisles at Babies 'R' Us and Buy Buy Baby getting all the things we need in preparation for the arrival of the new boss. Last Saturday was another fun-filled day trying to make the most informed decisions when picking out diapers, diaper bags, and of course the changing pad we’ll spend hunched over for hours, days and months. In an effort at full disclosure, the one and only time I’ve ever changed a diaper was a year ago, and I had to stuff tissue in both nostrils before entering my nephew’s bedroom. It was that bad. Oy.
Anyway, obviously, I am thrilled to death about becoming a father, and I’m sure holding my new son or daughter for the first time will be an experience like no other. But there are still a couple of new daily tasks I’m a little worried about – changing a dirty diaper is one of them. But those fears have been subsiding, and I was just coming to grips with the dirty job, feeling a bit more confident I won’t put my child at risk as the latest rookie to be sent into the big game.
Then I read that they've found unlawful levels of lead in changing pads, diaper bags and other baby care products.
They took it out of gas, paint and pencils but I guess when it comes to the mattress a naked newborn rolls around on 10 times a day – ahhhh, no biggie.
March 26, 2008
Envirohealth in Blogs: Warm and toasty
A little light reading for your mid-week enjoyment. Make sure to scroll to the bottom for a call to action, and when you're done with that, be our friend on MySpace!
Cold feet? Allie says get a bed warmer. I just picked up an old-fashioned hot water bottle that ought to do the trick -- that way I can keep the heat off at night.
When confronted with danger, baby sand dollars split in two to increase their chances of survival. Nature is awesome.
Pipes bring clean water into America's homes -- but in some cases, that's not all they bring. Revere discusses the salmonella poisoning in Alamosa, Colorado.
Plant a tree. No, seriously -- Barbara tells you how to get in on the Arbor Day action.
Maria at Red, Green and Blue isn't so sure about branded wind farms. It's probably the best way to get them built and running successfully, but that's a shame.
And finally, a call to action from the Ethicurean: tell EPA not to let Big Ag off the hook for emissions reporting.
Photo by ellentk.
March 25, 2008
Mixed Greens 006: Water, water everywhere
Between pharmaceuticals and fluorocilicic acid, this edition of Mixed Greens is all wet.
Mixed Greens is EWG's environmental health podcast. You can subscribe in iTunes or in a reader, or listen right here in your browser. Check out previous episodes for more Mixed Greens goodness!
Drugs in the water
AP Probe Finds Drugs in Drinking Water
EWG: Pharmaceuticals Pollute U.S. Tapwater
Fluorocilicic acid spill
Enviroblog: It's a dangerous industrial chemical. No, it's a drinking water additive.
The Times-Picayune: Leak could have been 'catastrophic'
More on water
Enviroblog: Choosing a water bottle
EWG: National Tap Water Quality Database
Enviroblog: Pepsi to label Aquafina tap water
PFCs may concentrate in breast milk
When EWG examined the cord blood of 10 American infants, perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) were among the 287 chemicals we found already circulating in their little bodies. PFCs make up the water and stain resistant coatings you might find in carpets, furniture, and clothing, and they're also the building blocks of the grease-resistant coating you'll find on a lot of packaged food containers.
Now, the first study of PFCs in human breast milk in the U.S. indicates that breastfed babies may be getting dosed with the chemicals again as soon as they're born. Forty-five breast milk samples, collected in Massachusetts in 2004, were studied for their PFC content. Not only did the team of researchers find significant levels of two of the compounds (PFOS and PFOA), but they also found that the level of PFOS in the breast milk was considerably greater than levels generally found in female blood serum. The implication, then, is that PFOS actually concentrates in breast milk.
PFCs are persistent and ubiquitous. They've been found in adults, infants, and wildlife all over the world, and they're associated with a wide variety of toxic affects, from immune problems to developmental toxicity. We're not just exposed through consumer products, either -- the manufacture of these industrial chemicals has insured that even if you avoid those products, you're still at risk for exposure through pollution. Some PFCs, including PFOA, are undergoing voluntary phaseouts by the manufacturers. EPA forced a phase-out of PFOS when it was found in human blood at levels near those that caused harm in lab animals.
Breast milk is still best, of course. But, is it just me, or does it seem absolutely criminal that mothers should have to worry that they're feeding their children polluted milk? Unfortunately there is no quick fix for this; the only way to get rid of dangerous chemicals and prevent new ones from making it to market is to legally require companies to prove that their product is safe.
Note: Since I'm always harping on others to consider the source of their information, I think it's worth mentioning that 3M (makers of Scotchgard) had a hand in this study.
Photo: Baby Seeks Breast by mollivan_max.
March 24, 2008
Dangerous industrial chemical or drinking water additive?
BRAITHWAITE, La. – A highly corrosive acid that leaked from a storage facility at a chemical plant could have eaten through adjacent storage tanks to cause a "catastrophic" mix of toxic chemicals. . . The dangerously corrosive material can irritate or burn the skin, eyes, lungs and other mucous membranes.
Last week's story in the New Orleans Times-Picayune sure sounded scary. To keep the acid from breaching storage tanks for other chemicals, workers at Stolthaven New Orleans LLC dumped almost half a million gallons of the chemical into the Mississippi River. Emergency personnel wore respirators and hazmat suits. The Coast Guard kept all vessels out of the contaminated area until midnight.
The chemical? It's called fluorosilicic acid. But most Americans, if they think of it at all, know it as fluoride, added to water supplies nationwide in the name of reducing tooth decay. Los Angeles is the latest addition to the club, adding fluoride to the water of 18 million customers of the Metropolitan Water District last fall.
Set aside for a moment the mounting evidence that fluoride not only does little for dental health, but increases chances of a rare bone cancer in teenage boys who drank treated water as children. Set aside the assurance of Louisiana officials and MWD that there's no harm if its diluted to parts per billion. Just think about whether you want a "dangerously corrosive" chemical that almost caused a "catastrophe" – one that is a waste product of manufacturing phosphate fertilizer – in your drinking water, where it affects not just your teeth but your whole body.
I didn't think so.
March 21, 2008
Contaminated fake fish show danger for real ones
Specially designed pseudo-fish constructed by U.S. Geological Survey scientists and suspended in the Potomac absorb chemicals including pesticides, herbicides, and artificial fragrances that contaminate the river, according to a recent Washington Post article.
The simulated fish consisted of a plastic-coated tube representing a fish’s permeable skin, enclosing a layer of fake fat. Chemical contaminants concentrated in this fat -– and scientists are concerned that these contaminants could cause disruption in the hormone systems of (real) fish.
Could eating fish contaminated with hormone-disrupting chemicals affect our health? According to the article, "Scientists said there was no evidence of a threat to human health." No one knows for sure, but a study presented at last year’s conference for the American Association for Cancer Research suggests cause for concern. In this study, researchers exposed breast cancer cells to extracts from fish caught in rivers near Pittsburgh. Some of the fish extracts triggered significant growth of these estrogen-sensitive cancer cells. The researchers concluded that people in Pittsburgh at risk for breast cancer may want to “avoid eating locally caught fish.”
The Potomac and Pittsburgh's rivers are not unusual - these days, you'll find traces of the same sorts of pesticides and industrial chemicals in any major river in America. That these chemicals end up in the fish we eat, and sometimes even in the water we drink, seems a recipe for disaster.
Photo: Fishing in the Potomac by sosico.
March 20, 2008
Lead: Still in 35 percent of children's products
A new study tested over 1200 children’s products still found on store shelves and found that 35 percent contain lead!
Lead, as we all know, is a potent neurotoxin that accumulates in body over time. It can damage the nervous system and can cause blood and brain disorders and because of its negative health affects, its use has been drastically reduced. However, we also know that there are no public health protective laws regulating chemicals in this country, so it should not come out as a surprise that many of the levels detected in children’s products are far above federal standards in place for lead paint, while only 20 percent of the toys have no trace of harmful chemicals.
Items with excessive lead levels include the Hannah Montana card game case, a Go Diego Go! backpack and Circo brand shoes and were purchased in stores like WalMart, Target and Toys R Us.
The group that did the study, the Center for Environmental Health, advises parents to avoid vinyl items. To read some of EWG’s research on lead, click here. Another excellent resource is the Consumer Action Guide to toxic chemicals in toys.
March 19, 2008
Enviroblogroll, updated!
Ladies and gents, it is high time for a blogroll update 'round these parts. Over there on the left you'll see our revised blogroll, filled with titles that we think will be of interest to you, our readers. Of course, this list doesn't begin to cover the vast array of blogs that I and the other Envirobloggers read on a regular basis, but there isn't room for a list that long!
First up is Allie's Answers, where Allie posts daily tips on living a more environmentally-friendly life, as well as other eco-news and links from around the 'sphere. Allie's a recent addition to my daily routine, and I already look forward to seeing what she's got to say every day.
The Angry Toxicologist uses his background and his anonymity to hammer on federal agencies and industry front groups that get in the way of real science. This man is not shy, and we enjoy his frank attitude even when we disagree with his opinions.
Siel started her career with a little blog called Green LA Girl, but her discussions of what's eco and what's not in her fair city landed her a gig at the LA Times. Emerald City takes on what's hip, happening and green in SoCal. And you know what they say: As California goes, so goes the nation.
Envirowonk is another recent addition to our reading list. We hide it well, but the truth is that we're all big science and policy nerds here at Enviroblog -- and Envirowonk fills that niche. Plus they're snarky. We love snark.
Fake Plastic Fish is the story of one woman's attempt to rid her life of plastic trash, one week at a time. Beth shows us once a week what plastic trash she's throwing out and recycling, and in between she discusses eco-ideas of every nature. You'd be amazed at how much plastic trash we all throw away every day without even thinking about it -- yes, even you eco-mavens out there.
Mulch is EWG's farm policy blog, where EWG president Ken Cook keeps us all up-to-date on the latest happenings with this long and drawn-out process called a farm bill. If you want to learn more about who gets how much money to grow what, and which politicians are happy to keep it that way, Mulch is the blog for you.
Parents who are concerned about their children's exposure to toxic chemicals will want to bookmark Non-Toxic Kids, where concerned mom Katy investigates and collects all the latest information on toxics in our environment and what you can do about them. Plus, she boils it down so that even busy, tired parents have a chance to read it. (Just a note -- the site appears to be in the process of moving right now, but I'm sure it'll be back up in no time.)
If you like food -- growing it, cooking it, eating it, and protecting it from agribiz -- you must read The Ethicurean. The team of writers covers news, recipes, politics, and everything else you need to know to eat ethically.
At The Good Human, blogger David discusses everything from global warming to toxic chemicals to prefabricated housing, all with an everyman attitude that convinces us that hey, maybe change really is possible. Plus, we love his tagline.
And, last but not least, The Pump Handle is a long-time favorite around here. It features a team of public health scientists discussing news, policy, and the federal agencies that manage our collective health. We really appreciate their investigative nature.
Okay, now I know you guys have favorites that I've missed. What else should we be reading? Tell us in the comments!
Photo by Gonzalo Barrientos.
March 18, 2008
Earthworms in the coal mine
Ah, the lowly earthworm. As the animal kingdom goes, it doesn't get more humble -- and as far as agriculture goes, it hardly gets more important. Without earthworms to plow up the undersoil and leave important nutrients behind them, our farms and gardens would be sad little places.
But a recent study by Environmental Science and Technology demonstrates that earthworms may also be the proverbial canary in the coal mine. You've heard of sludge fertilizers, right? That's where they take human "biosolids" from waste treatment plants, repackage them, and sell them as fertilizers. Along with human waste (which by itself would certainly be a valuable fertilizer), farmers and gardeners are treating their fields with a host of other household and personal care products. And the earthworms are soaking it up.
Not only are they absorbing the chemicals in the fertilizer (triclosan and synthetic fragrance chemicals, for example), but they're bioaccumulating them. That means the chemicals are getting stored in the worms' bodies, and it's adding up. In fact, for some chemicals, concentrations were an order of magnitude higher in the worms than in the soil.
This has a whole host of implications. What happens to animals that eat these worms? And to animals who eat those birds? For that matter, what happens to animals (including us) that eat plants grown in that soil?
Organic agriculture doesn't allow for the use of sludge fertilizers -- but even if you eat an all-organic diet, don't think that means you don't have to care. Runoff from sludge-fertilized non-organic farms easily contaminates organic fields. Even a ban on sludge fertilizers (which, for the record, isn't even being considered right now) would be a band-aid treatment. The only way to fix these problems is at the chemical and governmental levels, with toxic chemical reform legislation.
March 17, 2008
What's not for dinner? Wild salmon
One of the glories of life in Northern California is the annual harvest of wild chinook salmon. We mark the beginning of summer by the first backyard barbecue of grilled chinook (although many people mistakenly call it king salmon). Paired with a bottle of pinot noir, a perfectly charred salmon steak with a drizzle of Meyer lemon is enough to make you forget the cost of housing and the threat of earthquakes.
Not this year. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council decided last week that, in an desperate effort to save the dwindling stocks of wild chinook in California and Oregon, it will likely cancel the salmon season for this year. There may be a very limited season for sport fishing, but the commercial fishermen say they're already looking ahead to 2009 or 2010. There will be salmon from Washington state and Alaska, but it's much more expensive, and not quite the same, especially for those of us who take pride in being locavores.
The causes of the California salmon fishery's collapse are many, but the lion's share of the blame has to go to irrigated agriculture. The Central Valley Project and other taxpayer-subsidized irrigation systems have dammed and diverted the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, destroying the migration and spawning habitat needed by the fish. And we're actually paying corporate agribusiness to destroy the fishery, in the form of almost half a bilion dollars worth of subsidized water a year.
So what's the alternative this summer? Cheaper farmed salmon is tempting, but not if you know about the high levels of PCBs and other chemicals EWG found in farmed salmon a few years ago. After we filed a lawsuit, some growers and sellers of farmed salmon were able to show that their PCB levels had declined, but there's not enough data yet to give farmed salmon a clean bill of health.
The Monterey Bay Aquarium recommends California halibut (as long as it's line-caught) or black rockfish, usually marketed as sea bass. You can get their Safe Seafood Guide here.
March 14, 2008
"Natural" products contain carcinogenic contaminant
Let this be a lesson to us all: Just because a product is labeled natural or organic doesn't mean that there's nothing in it you want to avoid.
The Organic Consumers Association released a report today that details the presence of 1,4-dioxane, a carcinogenic contaminant, in 47 of 100 so-called natural cleaning and personal care products, including such popular brands as JASON, Kiss My Face, Alba, Seventh Generation and Nature's Gate Organics. (Click here to download a list of all the contaminated products as a pdf.)
But don't look for 1,4-dioxane on the ingredient list. It's an accidental by-product of a petrochemical process used to make harsh ingredients milder. That's right -- petrochemical, as in derived from petroleum, that stuff that's causing global warming. There's a simple way to strip the carcinogen out of the finished product, but most companies don't bother.
A quick analysis of our own data reveals that 1,4-dioxane is present in 28 percent of personal care products. Baby products and anti-aging products have some of the highest levels:
1,4-dioxane is a potential contaminant in
- 55% of baby bubble baths
- 57% of baby shampoos
- 55% of baby soaps
- 43% of body firming lotions
- 37% of anti-aging lotions
- 35% of around-eye creams
OCA's tests found that no USDA or German certified organic products contained the carcinogen. In a previous report on 1,4-dioxane, EWG had this to say:
To avoid 1,4-dioxane, read ingredient labels and avoid any of the 56 cosmetic ingredients that can contain the contaminant, including "sodium laureth sulfate" and ingredients that include the clauses "PEG," "xynol," "ceteareth," and "oleth."
Or, click here to search Skin Deep for products free of all cancer-causing impurities.
Your neighborhood pharmacy -- now just a faucet away?
Good news! Thanks to the crack investigative team at the Associated Press, Americans who commonly use prescriptions for such things as mood swings, cholesterol, infections, asthma, epilepsy, or just those general pesky pains many of us have from a life spent abusing our bodies may never need to wait in line at the pharmacy again. Traces of medications used to treat those and other medical conditions were found at low levels in the drinking water supplies of at least 40 million Americans. Who knows what other, more popular pharmaceuticals reside at low levels in our drinking water? I wonder if I should go ahead and cancel that prescription of Cialis I called into the pharmacy (for a friend, I swear). My friend may just get the required dose to do the trick by tossing back a few more glasses of H20.*
But, before anyone out there gets too excited that a little extra “help” may be as close as the kitchen sink, don’t reach for the glass just yet. Some feel the mere fact these pharmaceuticals are in much of the nation’s drinking water should be cause for concern, and a reason to ask some tough questions of officials over at the EPA. A Senate subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) is scheduled to hold hearings very soon to find out how this could happen, what if any health risks continued exposure to traces of these medications could have on our most vulnerable populations (children and pregnant women) and, oh yeah -- why did it take a small group of over-worked and under-paid journalists at the AP to inform millions of Americans that their drinking water is laced with various pharmaceuticals? Isn't that the job of the federal agency with thousands of employees and billions of dollars in taxpayer funds?
*We're kidding, obviously.
[Photo by Meredith Farmer.]
March 13, 2008
Your BPA questions, answered
When we posted a little analysis of the new research on the toxic plastics chemical bisphenol A (BPA) leaching from polycarbonate bottles, we had no idea how many questions it would inspire. This month, instead of the usual Ask EWG feature, we've put together a post in which we answer as many of your BPA questions as we can. We know you've probably got even more questions. Ask away and we'll do our best to answer, but keep in mind that there are some questions we just don't have the answers to yet.
First, a little review: What is BPA?
BPA is a chemical used in the production of certain kinds of plastics, including polycarbonate plastic (like hard, colored water bottles and 5-gallon drinking water coolers) and the lining of most food and beverage cans. BPA can leach from the plastic and into foods and beverages, especially when it's heated or used for long periods of time. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control found BPA in the bodies of 93 percent of the people they tested, which is especially troubling since the chemical is linked to breast and prostate cancer and neurobehavioral changes in offspring exposed in the womb. It's a good idea to avoid exposure to BPA whenever possible.
Stuff you drink out of
Polycarbonate bottles: As the original post mentioned, studies show low levels of BPA leach out of polycarbonate bottles (like Nalgene and other hard, colored water bottles) at room temperature. More BPA leaches when the bottles are filled with hot liquid. Generally these bottles will be marked with recycling number seven. Polycarbonate is hard, translucent or clear plastic.These bottles may be marked with the number 7. If you're going to use a polycarbonate bottle, be aware that it's likely that higher amounts of BPA leach out of older and damaged bottles. Although we recommend that you avoid drinking from polycarbonate bottles, it's important to note that your potential exposure to BPA through canned food is considerably higher.
One commenter mentioned recycling; as far as we know, #7 drink bottles are rarely recyclable. To be sure, check with your local recycling center.
Other plastic bottles: Don't reuse single-use plastic drink bottles (PET, or #1 plastic). It's a good instinct, but bacteria can build up on the inside, and they may leach chemicals too. Drop them in the recycling instead. Bottles made from flexible, cloudy-colored HDPE #2 are considered a safer option if you must have a plastic bottle.
Water filter pitchers and containers: These hard, clear plastic containers may or may not be made of polycarbonate. One commenter left a link to a Q&A on The Green Guide which reveals that Brita filter systems use containers made from styrene methylmethacrylate copolymer. Brita confirmed for us that they don't use (and never have used) polycarbonate plastics. Other filter brands may use polycarbonate plastics; check with them to find out. If your filter does use polycarbonate plastic, you could consider filtering water and storing it in glass bottles.
Camelbak hydration systems: Camelbaks's inner bladder is made from flexible polyurethane, which contains no BPA or phthalates. They have an antimicrobial silver lining. There's no risk of BPA exposure, but some scientists have raised concerns about antimicrobial silver.
Metal water bottles: Metal water bottles come in two variations: stainless steel and aluminum. Many aluminum bottles are lined with an epoxy or enamel, which is likely to contain BPA. Sigg, the Swiss company that produces a line of aluminum water bottles, recently produced test data showing that several new and used Sigg bottles did not leach BPA at levels greater than 2 ppb after three days of heating in nearly boiling water -- that's less leaching than polycarbonate bottles under the same condition. Stainless steel bottles, like Klean Kanteen, are not lined, so there's no risk of BPA exposure there.
Food containers
Canned Foods: No matter what brand you use or where you buy your canned food, the cans are almost certainly lined with an epoxy resin that contains BPA. If they didn't use it, the cans might rust, or you might end up with metal residues in your food. But because of the high temperatures used in the canning process, your potential exposure to BPA from canned food is much higher than your potential exposure from plastic water bottles.
Only one manufacturer that we know of uses non-BPA lining on some of their food cans:
Eden Organic Beans are packed in lead free tin covered steel cans coated with a baked on oleoresinous c-enamel lining that does not contain bisphenol A (BPA). (Oleoresin is a natural mixture of an oil and a resin extracted from various plants, such as pine or balsam fir). These cans cost 13.77 percent more than the industry standard cans that do contain BPA. This costs Eden $300,000 more a year. To our knowledge Eden is the only U.S. company that uses this custom made BPA-free can.
Eden's tomato products are still packaged in cans with a BPA-based lining. Have a look at EWG's report for lots more on BPA in canned foods, including certain canned pastas and soups that contained the most BPA.
Reusable food containers: According to Kathleen's comment, Tupperware has confirmed that their Rock'n'Serve line does contain BPA. Other reusable containers may be made of polycarbonate. If not marked with a number 7, these would be very rigid clear or translucent plastic (not cloudy or flexible like yogurt containers). As an extra precaution, avoid putting hot liquids in these or microwaving them. In general it's best to use safe ceramics or glass containers for microwaving whenever possible.
Plastic wrap: In 1998, it was revealed that some plastic wraps contained chemical plasticizers called phthalates, which can migrate into food. In 2006, the industry group American Chemistry Council reported that phthalates are no longer used in any US plastic wraps. Most plastic wraps are made of LDPE, which has fewer contaminant concerns. Companies aren't required to list what's in their plastic wrap, though, so your best bet is to be cautious: Avoid microwaving plastic wrap (use a paper towel instead), and if you must, make sure it's a microwaveable version. That much, at least, will be listed on the box.
More consumer goods
Products for baby: A few of you expressed concerns about products designed for babies, from bottles to formula to pacifiers. Luckily, we lay out the best choices for many baby products in our guide to baby-safe bottles and feeding. Some basics: Choose bottles made from glass or BPA-free plastic. Use a clear silicone nipple, and if you're feeding formula use a powdered version mixed with unfluoridated water. As for pacifiers, while the hard plastic part may be made of polycarbonate plastic, that part doesn't go in baby's mouth -- so get a version with a silicone nipple, and don't worry too much about the rest.
Dental fillings, dental sealants: These can be BPA-based. If you're concerned, ask your dentist to show you the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for the filling materials and look for bisphenol A or bisphenol A diglycidyl ether (BADGE), and bisphenol A-dimethyl acrylate (Bis-DMA). A fourth chemical, bis-glycidyldimethacrylate (Bis-GMA), does not appear to give off BPA during use. Try to avoid having dental work done while pregnant or breastfeeding. Remember that BPA passes through your body quickly.
Mouthguards: One commenter asked if mouthguards made out of polycarbonate plastic would be a concern. Contact the manufacturer directly for more information about the type of plastic your mouthguard is made of. If it is polycarbonate, then there is some potential for BPA leaching.
The science
European safety assessment of BPA: One commenter questioned the validity of the study mentioned in the post, based on a comparison with the European Union's assessment. We'd like to caution against holding the EU up as the paragon of chemical safety; while it's true that they're sometimes more cautious about chemicals than the US, that frankly isn't saying much. In this case, the EU assessment ignored the results of dozens of studies showing very low dose effects of BPA and assumed that rodents are far more sensitive than humans to this chemical--an assumption that is by no means universally endorsed.
Here in the U.S., the National Institute of Health (NIH) is currently trying to reconcile the results of 2 expert panels that came to very different conclusions about the potential harm of low dose BPA exposures. There results are expected some time in 2008.
Is BPA making me sick? Can I be tested? BPA passes very quickly through the body, so testing yourself would only give you a snapshot of the past couple of hours. In general, laboratories do not conduct BPA testing for individuals, and people must be part of a scientific study to be tested. Your best bet is to do what you can to limit your exposure to BPA, and support efforts to require that industrial chemicals are fully tested for safety before they are put in our food and in our homes.
March 12, 2008
EnviroHealth in Blogs: Goods4Girls and drugs in the water
a little light reading for your mid-week enjoyment.
Everybody's talking about drugs in the water. . . except the people who ought to be. The Pump Handle's got that story. And if you've got questions, Siel's got answers (thank goodness).
The Neighborhood Toxicologist offers an instructive comparison between the U.S.'s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the E.U.'s Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals legislation (REACH). It's true that TSCA is in desperate need of overhaul, but when it comes right down to it, REACH could stand to be quite a bit stronger as well.
Real estate experts advise that, when you're buying land, you should always ask lots of questions about water rights. While you're at it, you should go ahead and ask if there are any plans to build an ethanol plant in the area -- that may just use up all the water your county has. Solve Climate's on the story.
Seventh Generation has revamped their website and started a new blog to discuss environmental and health issues. Meet 7Gen!
Moving daylight savings a little earlier was supposed to save a whole lot of energy. Has it? EnviroWonk looks at a study that isn't so sure.
Ah, the sweet smell of chemical "clean." Allie advises readers to ditch the conventional, fragranced fabric softener and detergent in favor of something that will make your clothes smell like clean laundry instead of mountain springs.
Remember sewage sludge fertilizer? It kills cows, is full of toxic chemicals, and (we're going to go out on a limb here) probably has some of those pharmaceutical remnants in it too. As if it wasn't obvious enough that we shouldn't be putting this stuff on our fields.
Finally, I don't know if you read Crunchy Chicken, but this woman has the energy and perseverance of four of me. One of her recent campaigns is Goods4Girls, an operation she put together to send reusable cloth menstrual pads to women in Africa who otherwise are forced to stay home from school or work during their "time of the month." Why is this pertinent to an environmental blog? Here's your answer:
Providing disposable supplies creates an additional burden on some communities where solid waste disposal consists of burning the garbage. Since many disposable feminine hygiene products contain plastic, incineration potentially creates an environmental and health hazard.
Goods4Girls has seen amazing success so far. Go to the website to find out how you can help!
Photo by isdky.
March 11, 2008
Mixed Greens 005: Industry goes to Washington
Take the U.S. government, add a dash of industry consultants and front groups, and the results may be hazardous to your health.
Mixed Greens is EWG's environmental health podcast. You can subscribe in iTunes or in a reader, or listen right here in your browser. Check out previous episodes for more Mixed Greens goodness!
Links for this episode
More on rBGH:
- Center for Food Safety
- The Ethicurean: An open letter to Monsanto
The New York Times: Fighting on a Battlefield the Size of a Milk Label
EPA & conflict of interest:
- EWG: EPA Axes Panel Chair at Request of Chemical Industry Lobbyists
- Los Angeles Times: EPA Listens to Lobbyists, Boots Expert
Connect with EWG:
A shot in the arm for consumer safety
It was just about a year ago that the first of 2007's major recalls began. Tainted pet food was scary and shocking to the country's millions of pet owners. (My own dogs had been eating the food that was recalled, and in the midst of the whole debacle the eldest grew sick and passed away. We'll never know if it was the food or if it was just his time.)
Little did we all know that pet food was just the beginning, and before the end of the year, millions of children's toys would be pulled from the shelves for dangers as obvious and as unconsidered as high lead content and small magnets. From a product safety standpoint as well as a customer loyalty standpoint, 2007 was a hell of a year.
But good news may be on the horizon: After months of slow, bit-by-bit decision making, both the House and the Senate have passed bills that would revamp the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The CPSC could do with a shot in the arm; there are fewer than 400 employees tasked with protecting the entire nation from faulty products, and worse, the CPSC has never had much authority in terms of recalling products in a timely fashion. The CPSC's temporary authority expired earlier this year, leaving them unable to initiate mandatory recalls. At the moment, we're essentially depending on industry to police themselves. Or maybe we always have been.
I haven't had a chance to look at the two versions of the bill myself, but according to media reports the Senate version is the stronger of the two. Both bills would increase the CPSC's budget and authority and providing funding to update the Commission's decrepit testing facilities, and both would effectively ban lead in all children's products (a move which, you'll remember, acting CPSC Chief Nancy Nord opposed). They differ primarily in the amount of power given to Attorneys General to uphold federal safety laws and in the protections they offer for corporate whistle-blowers -- the latter argument is interesting, since President Bush's position is that offering protections would produce a lot of unnecessary litigation. I could be wrong, but if someone feels strongly enough about a situation to blow the proverbial whistle, is it likely to be unnecessary?
So, hope for stronger consumer safety protections is on the horizon. Don't hold your breath, though -- if the hold this bill up as long as they have the Farm Bill, we've got a while to wait.
March 10, 2008
Look, up in the sky: It's the green governor
Sacramento's not such a bad place: The summer heat and lousy air quality are balanced by the outdoor recreational opportunities and an unpretentious, small-town feel. But if you're a international movie star used to the bright lights of Hollywood and you somehow get yourself elected governor of California, surely you can't be expected to actually live there.
The first governor to fit that description, Ronald Reagan, had nothing against Sacramento per se, but Nancy found the historic governor's mansion near the Capitol a dump. The state built a new residence in the suburbs that became a white elephant after Jerry Brown decided he preferred a mattress on the floor of a studio apartment. Today we have Arnold Schwarzenegger, who at first toyed with the idea of buying a home and moving his family to Sacramento, then took up residence in a hotel penthouse across the street from his office. But he missed his kids in Brentwood, and he already had a private jet at his disposal, so of late he's been flying home at night and back in the morning. It's a three-hour round trip, not that extreme a commute in California today.
The governor pays for his jet-set commute from his own pocket -- more than half-a-million dollars a year. But wait? Isn't this the same Arnold Schwarzenegger who last year was featured on magazine covers as an environmental hero? The same one who flexed his muscles to lead California's fight against global warming? The one who must be aware of the vast amount of global-warming gases and air pollution his jet is spewing?
Yep, same guy. The Los Angeles Times' Evan Halper and Michael Rothfield broke the story last week:
The governor's Gulfstream jet does nearly as much damage to the environment in one hour as a small car does in a year, according to figures compiled by the Helium Report, an online publication for buyers of luxury items.Administration officials say Schwarzenegger is well aware of this and makes amends by purchasing pollution credits for the carbon dioxide his jet releases. The credits fund efforts worldwide to reduce greenhouse gases, such as projects that harness energy from wind, landfill gas and farm waste, although they don't eliminate the pollution from Schwarzenegger's plane.
Flying the Gulfstream and other jets the governor uses costs as much as $10,000 an hour. Some conservationists say Schwarzenegger is essentially attempting to buy a clean conscience with the carbon offsets, which cost about $43 an hour.
"He has been very bold on all these [environmental] initiatives, so it is sad to see him undercut that," said Denis Hayes, president of the Bullitt Foundation, a philanthropy that funds conservation efforts in Western states. "If you are going to be talking about an issue, you should be living the reality you are trying to embrace."
Don't get me started on pollution credits, but it's better than doing nothing. To be fair, Arnold shouldn't be singled out as the only climate hypocrite in government. Even the greenest members of Congress fly back to their home districts every weekend, and some members of the Legislature who live as far from Sacramento as the Bay Area drive back and forth every day, in state-supplied vehicles. As someone who lived in the Big Tomato for a few years, back when it was hard to find an espresso, I know about the lure of I-80 or Southwest Airlines on Friday afternoon. If you've got your own jet, why not every day?
Here's why not: This governor has gone out on a limb to promote himself as a global warming warrior. It's a laudable stance that has genuinely helped move America toward a greener politics. This latest flap is a rare PR slipup for a master of the game, but it could make some Californians – like, all of us who don't own a jet – think twice about how well his walk matches his talk.
March 7, 2008
Speaking of gadgetry. . .
I received a perfectly-timed email from Beth of Fake Plastic Fish this morning -- if you're sick and tired of gadgets that break and can't be fixed, and especially if you've got a story to share, you'll want to keep reading.
Here's how it happened: Beth's HP computer monitor broke. She brought it in to be repaired, and the repairman figured out what was wrong with it and what part he needed to fix it. He called the company, and they refused to sell him the part he needed. They would only sell a whole, brand new monitor.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what's called planned obsolescence, and it is absolute-- well, this is a family blog, so I can't say exactly what I think it is. But you get the picture. When a company intentionally makes products that won't last too long and can't be fixed or upgraded, they're disrespecting the planet and their consumers. If they can't find a better way to make money for their shareholders, maybe they ought to find a different line of work.
The Electronics Takeback Coalition normally works to get companies to take back and recycle their broken electronic products, but after receiving an (angry) email from Beth, they replied that they're interested in expanding into a campaign about dead gadgets. To quote extensively from Beth's post, which quotes extensively from an email she received from the ETC:
We have focused on the recycling end of the e-waste problem. But we want to do more on promoting reuse, and green design concepts that allow us to hang on to our electronic products longer, and to upgrade them to keep up with advances in technology. So far, the industry has focused on energy as the primary criteria for “green design.” While we don’t disagree that energy use by the product is important, the energy used to create new products is even more significant, and could be reduced if our products simply lasted longer.We want dead gadget stories!
We would love to receive stories just like the one you documented on your blog, showing clearly how products simply can’t be fixed or upgraded, because of clear choices made by the product designers.
Please send your stories to stories@deadgadgets.com and include the following information:
- Make and model
- Year they bought it. Is it under warranty?
- Why it’s dead. (Doesn’t turn on, won’t reboot, can’t upgrade it to run certain software, etc)
- Steps taken to try to fix it, or cost to fix it. (Here’s where your story was