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]
Odds and ends: Monsanto, PFOA, the hunger crisis and more
The rich, the poor and the environment
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
April 30, 2008
Graver danger from a common herbicide
This is a post by EWG social media intern Howie, who prefers his greens herbicide-free.
New research suggests that atrazine, a possible carcinogen and the second most common herbicide used in America, is present in greater amounts in average Americans than previously thought.
The good people over at the Centers for Disease Control came to this conclusion after they upgraded their atrazine monitoring method to look for traces of certain types of atrazine byproducts that their older measurements did not account for. CDC’s new research shows that the old method underreported the average level of atrazine in Americans so severely that 98 percent of the atrazine byproducts found in volunteers who said they did not know if they were exposed to atrazine would not have been accounted for under the previous method.
These new findings strengthen the case for taking serious action against the use of atrazine in America. The European Union banned the use of atrazine in its member nations in 2003 after it found traces of atrazine in some of its drinking water supplies. In America, people are mostly exposed to atrazine through drinking water that has been contaminated as a result of using the herbicide to control weeds on farms and golf courses.
The government must take action beyond asking Syngenta, the main manufacturer of atrazine used in America, to monitor atrazine levels in streams with more than three times the amount of atrazine that the EPA considers harmful to humans. Continued failure to raise regulations on atrazine will continue to hurt Americans.
In a previous post, we briefly mentioned that overexposure to atrazine has been linked to breast cancer development. Syngenta’s own research shows there may be a link between atrazine overexposure and prostate cancer. Cardiovascular problems, muscle spasms, damage to the retinas and adrenal gland damage may also result from overexposure to atrazine.
Now that we know there’s even more atrazine in us than we care to have, we have all the more reason to advocate for our health and restrict its use.
Photo by Toby M.
April 29, 2008
Cheatsheet: Perfluorochemicals (PFCs)
What is it?
Perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) are widely-used water, grease and stain repellents. They're found in carpets and on clothes, on fast-food wrappers, and on the inner lining of pet food bags. You might know them as Teflon, Scotchgard, Stainmaster and Gore-Tex. They pollute water, are persistent in the environment, and remain in the human body for years.
What are the possible health effects?
PFCs have been associated with cancer, reproductive problems, birth and developmental defects, and (recently) with immune system suppression.How do I minimize my exposure?
- Forgo the optional stain treatment on new carpets and furniture, and find products that haven't been pre-treated.
- Choose clothing that doesn't carry Teflon or Scotchgard tags and isn't labeled stain- or water-repellent.
- Avoid non-stick pans if you can. Opt for stainless steel or cast iron instead.
- Cut back on greasy packaged and fast foods, which often come in treated wrappers.
- Some personal care products contain PFCs. Check ingredient labels for anything beginning with perfluoro.
Where can I learn more?
- Learn more about PFCs as global contaminants.
- Ask EWG takes on Scotchgard in clothes and Stainmaster treatments on carpets.
- PFCs have been associated with lowered birth weight and immune suppression.
- California may ban the use of PFCs on food packaging.
- PFCs may concentrate in breastmilk.
Photo by Jenny P.
April 28, 2008
Play, don't spray
For months, the biggest environmental issue in Northern California has been the state's plans to conduct aerial spraying of pesticides to eradicate the light brown apple moth, a native of Australia that is smaller than a penny. Agriculture officials say the invasive moth could devastate more than 200 California crops worth millions of dollars, or as state ag Secretary A.G. Kawamura says, it "threatens the safety of our agriculture, environment and economy."
But the state's solution – dive-bombing the 7 million-plus residents of the Bay Area with a synthetic moth pheromone that hasn't been adequately tested – threatens public health. The warning label for the pesticide, CheckMate, says: "Harmful if inhaled. Avoid breathing vapor or spray mist. . . . Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift." After a first round of spraying last fall in Monterey and Santa Cruz, hundreds of people reported respiratory problems.
The standoff has led to packed town hall meetings and public hearings, protests, petitions and no less than 5 bills from state lawmakers to stop or postpone the spraying. Last week there was finally a victory for common sense, as a Santa Cruz County judge ordered a halt to any more spraying there, and Gov. Schwarzenegger put the scheme on hold until safety tests are conducted.
The judge rejected the state's arguments that the moth infestation is an emergency. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Schwarzenegger said "he remains convinced the chemicals used for spraying are safe but called for the temporary halt to allow for a series of tests on possible eye, inhalation, respiratory and other potential irritants."
"I am confident that the additional tests will reassure Californians that we are taking the safest, most progressive approach to ridding our state of this very real threat to our agriculture, environment and economy," Schwarzenegger said.
Safest? Progressive? We went through this a decade ago, fighting the state over the spraying of a toxic nerve gas, methyl bromide, on strawberry fields near hundreds of schools. When people got sick from methyl bromide exposure, too often state and local officials' response was to assure folks that their symptoms were imaginary or not related to the pesticide. The precautionary principle would argue that even if you're "confident" the chemical is safe, when people are getting sick, something's causing it. Hey, who are you going to believe, the state's studies or your own wheezing lungs?
If you'd like to learn more about the apple moth and the spraying plan, check out Play Not Spray. And if you want to let the governor know what you think of the plan, you can e-mail him here.
April 25, 2008
Odds and ends: Monsanto, PFOA, the hunger crisis and more
We've got a few loose ends to tie up before the weekend. In no particular order:
Angry Toxicologist posted on Monday about a report showing that PFOA PFOS (a chemical in the PFC family, related to Teflon) acts as an immune suppressant. I haven't read the report myself yet, but I'm very interested in the mechanism by which that might work, so I'll keep you posted. Other studies have found related PFCs to be immune suppressants, as well. [Edit: Accidentally misidentified the chemical studied -- thanks to a reader for pointing that out!]
Vanity Fair has a really interesting in-depth report on Monsanto. Whatever the potential benefits of GM crops, the way that company does business is just shameful. The article is a fascinating, if frustrating, read.
We talk a lot about making better food choices 'round this corner of the blogosphere. It's true that buying local, organic or biodynamic food has a positive impact on the environment as well as the local economy, but how lucky are we to be able to make that choice? Especially now, with food prices on the rise internationally. Lynn at Organic Mania has more to say about that, and about how you can help.
Last but not least: Beth of Fake Plastic Fish has given Enviroblog the Blog of Distinction award! Here are the nice things she said:
[...]I've decided to pass it on to the blogger and organization who refuse to pull their punches but give us the gritty details time after time about chemicals in our air and water, the scrubs on our faces and coatings in our pans. Amanda Hanley is the blogger and EWG's Enviroblog is that blog. So please, Amanda, accept this award for all the hard work you and the group do.
Beth, we couldn't be more flattered if we tried. Thank you! (And hey, people, sign this petition!)
Now it's our turn to pass it along. I'm tagging Katy, whose blog Non-Toxic Kids tirelessly analyzes, sorts and distills the most important information on environmental health into a format that even tired parents can handle. And let me tell you -- that's no easy task! So thanks, Katy, for your wit and your wisdom and for helping to spread the word about toxic chemicals in our everyday lives.
April 24, 2008
The rich, the poor and the environment
Is there a divide between rich and poor when we think of the environment? Absolutely. They are divided in many other ways, so the environment is no different. The field of environmental justice deals exclusively with these issues, arguing that environmental risks and benefits should be equally distributed among all populations.
There are numerous differences between the two groups indeed. Often, the economically disadvantaged groups live in areas where there is less enforcement of the regulations and laws, as well as less knowledge about those laws. Higher income often means higher level of education, and more financial means for “shopping a way out” of exposure to dangerous chemicals in products. It also often means better insurance to deal with health problems since the poor are often uninsured.
This issue is a global one. A recent La Monde article explores this issue even further, studying the divide between the two groups. Check it out for more info.
Photo: Haitian Flag by carrib. Haiti is one of many nations that continues to be devastated by environmental degradation.
April 23, 2008
Farm Bill: 411 and Counting
Today we updated our farm bill pro-reform editorial map. The tally now stands at 411 reform minded editorials published in American dailies since January 1st, 2007. After the jump I break down some of the papers pushing hard for a change in the inequitable and wasteful farm subsidy system.
Cross posted on Mulch.
Starting in the West:
Seattle Post Intelligencer - 10 pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: Making It Worse - Apr 1, 2008
"Congress has largely neglected reform and the savings that would have followed. "
--
San Francisco Chronicle - 9 pro-reform editorials
Latests entry: Bumper Crop of Big Spending - Apr 16, 2008
"From the fiscal watchdog perspective, the bill is a sign that the new Democratic leadership is as profligate as the Republican leadership it replaced. Make that more profligate. "
--
Los Angles Times - 10 pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: The Hunger Threat - Apr 17, 2008
"He shouldn't hesitate to haul his bully pulpit up to Capitol Hill and ask Congress to correct some of the most misguided U.S. agricultural policies -- starting with the expensive and environmentally destructive farm bill."
--
Colorado Springs Gazette - 5 pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: A Bumper Crop of the Same Old Subsidies - Nov 1, 2007
"Democrats blew it by passing a bill in the House that kept the status quo in place."
--
Dallas Morning News - 11 pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: Bush, Environmentalists Right to Oppose Farm Bill - Apr 15, 2008
"There's another funny point about that handout to wealthier farmers. The same Democrats who like to beat up Mr. Bush and the Republicans for being too friendly to the wealthy on taxes have gone stone-cold silent on this farm bill's generosity to this sect of wealthier Americans."
--
Omaha World Herald - 6 pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: The Senate Disappoints - Dec 17, 2007
"Politics as played by the House and Senate deserves the blame for the subsidy-heavy farm bill. An important election year is coming, after all. But overfeeding a few farmers and landowners who don't require subsidies, while continuing to shortchange the smaller farmers whom the subsidies are supposed to assist, is not an acceptable long-term farm strategy, politics or no."
--
Minneapolis Star Tribune - 8 pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: One Last Chance for Farm Subsidy Reform - Dec 27, 2007
"The Senate passed a $286 billion farm bill that makes only minor changes to the bloated agricultural subsidy system that rewards rich farmers for being farmers."
--
Des Moines Register - 7 pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: Don't Create Another Farm-Aid Boondoggle; Block Misguided Creation of Disaster Fund - Oct 29, 2007
"The full Senate should just say no. The fund would further bloat subsidies to farmers in a handful of states, while neglecting needed investments around the country in conservation and rural development"
--
Wisconsin State Journal - 7 pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: Opponents of Reform are Protecting the Wealthiest Fraction of Farmers at Everyone Else's Expense - Apr 10, 2008
"The battle over a cap on annual subsidies provides just a glimpse of the shameful manner in which the majority in Congress is squelching efforts to reform the nation's costly, outdated farm subsidy system."
--
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - 9 pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: Seven Lost Years - Apr 16, 2008
"The US should reconsider the rich subsidies that are larding up the current version of the farm bill, which is still being debated in Congress. "
--
Kansas City Star - 9 pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: Fix the Crop Subsidy System - Jan 4, 2008
"When Congress returns to work this month, lawmakers need to improve a farm bill by modernizing the way taxpayers subsidize crops."
--
St Louis Post Dispatch - 7 pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: Growing Catastrophe - Apr 13, 2008
"At a time of record grain prices, it makes no sense to subsidize grain farmers."
--
Chattanooga Times Free Press - 17 (yes, 17) pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: Spend-Fest in Congress - Mar 21, 2008
"Suburban families are receiving large farm subsidies for the grass in their back yards, subsidies that many of these families never requested and do not want. Over half of all farm subsidies go to corporate farms with average household incomes of $200,000."
--
Orlando Sentinel - 16 (again, that is correct) pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: It's Outrageous to Give Farm Subsidies While Food Prices are Skyrocketing - Apr 16, 2008
"In fact, if the subsidies were pared back, there would be more dollars available for hunger programs, both at home and abroad."
--
Washington Post and Washington Times combined - 22 pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: Food Lessons - Washington Times Apr 18, 2008
"The unfairness and waste of these subsidies are well-publicized; they still must be lifted."
--
The New York Time and Wall Street Journal combined - 17 pro-reform editorials
Latest entry: Amber Waves of Green - Wall Street Journal Mar 13, 2008
"Yes, thank heavens for that millionaire safety net."
--
Hopefully, someone is listening.
Cheatsheet: Bisphenol A (BPA)
What is it?
Bisphenol A is a toxic plastics chemical found in polycarbonate plastic and the resinous lining of food cans.
What are the possible health effects?
In April of 2008, the National Toxicology Program raised concerns that exposure to BPA during pregnancy and childhood could impact the developing breast and prostate, hasten puberty, and affect behavior in American children.How do I minimize my exposure?
- Limit canned foods. BPA leaches into canned food from the lining. When possible, and especially when pregnant or breastfeeding, limit the amount of canned food your family eats. Particularly avoid canned soup, pasta, and infant formula.
- Avoid polycarbonate plastic. Hard, translucent plastic marked #7 is probably polycarbonate, which leaches BPA, especially when heated. Ditch your polycarbonate water bottles in favor of a stainless steel bottle. Don't microwave plastic -- use ceramic or glass instead.
- If you're formula feeding your infant, consider using powdered formulas packaged in non-steel cans. Also, choose baby bottles made from glass or specially-marked plastics that don't leach BPA (like polypropylene or polyethylene).
Where can I learn more?
- For an overview, check out Bisphenol A in your body.
- For lots of in-depth answers to your BPA questions, read Your BPA questions, answered.
- For news and scientific analysis about BPA, visit EWG's bisphenol A page.
- Concerned about your baby's exposure? Take a look at EWG's Guide to Baby-Safe Bottles and Formula.
- For a look at the history of BPA, check out this timeline.
Questions? Comments? Leave 'em here!
Photo by ryanmack.
April 22, 2008
Mixed Greens 008: Big news for BPA
The National Toxicology Program has changed its tune on BPA, and it looks like bigger changes are in the works. Plus, meet a mutt on a mission.
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!
Want more? Follow these links:
Big news for BPA:
EWG: Federal Health Agency Reverses Course
Houston Chronicle: Nalgene to nix BPA bottles due to consumer concern
Washington Post: Wal-Mart to Pull Bottles made with Chemical BPA
A Mutt on a Mission:
Sign up for pet health updates
Visit Eddie's wall of cute
Get healthy pet tips
Read about the research
Last Action Hero 3
A year after he mocked environmentalists as "Prohibitionists at a frat party," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered another big Earth Day speech – this time at Yale – with the same theme: The environmental movement is a failure because it tries to make people feel guilty about what we've done to the planet, rather than promising an exciting and fun-filled green future. He says the movement needs to move from "hand‑wringing and whining to [an image] that is hip, . . . cutting edge, forceful and self‑confident and even sexy."
Much like an action movie franchise on its third installment, most of the Yale speech is recycled from last year's address at Georgetown. But Schwarzenegger – not content simply to ignore those who point out that his jet-set, industry-friendly walk doesn't always match his save-the-planet talk – picked an old and very tired wedge issue to try to make his critics seem like nerds in the punchbowl: He says environmentalists' zeal for protecting endangered species is blocking progress in the war on global warming:
[T]he whole world ‑‑ the Germans, the French, the Canadians, the Japanese ‑‑ they all want to come out to California and put solar power plants in the Mojave desert and in other places. The only thing is that the problem is getting that new energy to the power grid because of environmental hurdles.San Diego Gas & Electric wants to develop solar geothermal fields in Imperial Valley and build 150 miles of transmission lines to go and take this power right into San Diego, but it faces opposition even though it would replace an old carbon‑based power plant.
So the point I'm making is it's not just businesses that have slowed things down, it's not just Republicans that have slowed things down, it's also Democrats and also environmental activists sometimes that slow things down.
And even my own agency that I'm supposed to be the head of and the boss of I found out is slowing things down. Now, this gets very complicated, I tell you. For example, our Department of Fish and Game is slowing approval of a solar facility in Victorville. It's because of an endangered squirrel, an endangered squirrel which has never been seen on that land where they're supposed to build the solar plants. But if such a squirrel were around, this is the kind of area that it would like, they say.
Now, the department wants the power company to buy three acres of land to protect these little creatures for every acre of solar land that is being used so that the squirrel could be saved if it exists. So a squirrel that may not exist is holding up environmental progress on a larger and more pressing fight against global warming. What they have here is a case of environmental regulations holding up environmental progress. I don't know whether this is ironic or absurd. But, I mean, if we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it. (Applause)
Shades of the Fresno kangaroo rat, a tiny critter former Gov. Pete Wilson picked on for standing in the way of suburban sprawl in the Central Valley. The tactic of blaming an endangered species for blocking progress has been used again and again, in battles over the snail darter, the spotted owl, and many other species. What's fiendishly brilliant about Schwarzenegger's twist is that it pits one environmental good (saving endangered species) against another (promoting solar power). Divide and conquer: Good military strategy, not a way to show environmental leadership by bringing people together.
As for the facts of the case, Schwarzenegger's complaint seems to be that foreign companies hoping to develop solar plants are simply having to comply with the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Lisa Belenky of the Center for Biological Diversity, which is working to protect endangered Mojave species, told me they support solar plants and transmission lines in the right places.
"There are many areas of the desert where habitat has already been destroyed, and the plants can go there, and the transmission lines can be routed along freeways," Belenky said. "The fact that industry has suddenly discovered that there's money to be made in solar energy, which environmentalists have been talking about for 30 years, is no reason to declare open season on the California desert."
What about those San Diego transmission lines? Utility Consumers' Action Network of San Diego says it's "a 20th Century solution to a 21st Century problem." Instead of buying power from a huge facilty in the desert and piping it 150 miles through sensitive habitat, UCAN says San Diego Gas & Electric could generate the same amount of power through solar panels on warehouses and other rooftops-- and save customers tens of millions of dollars a year.
As for the rest of the speech, it doesn't take a progress-blocking environmentalist to see the holes in Schwarzenegger's dismissal of "the kind of guilt I'm talking about ‑‑ smoke stacks belching pollution to power our hot tubs and large‑screen TVs, or in my case flying around with a private plane or driving my big Hummers. Now, it's too bad that we all can't live simple lives like Buddhist monks on straw mats. But you know something, it's not going to happen."
Nice sound bites from the Schwarzenegger speech factory. Unfortunately, the governor was preceded to the podium by Rajendra K. Pachauri, the head of the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog notes:
The IPCC boss, following other recent warnings that the developed world will have to shoulder most of the burden for tackling climate change, opened his keynote speech somberly warning that “excessive consumption of fossil fuels” was a key factor driving climate change. The vegetarian also warned that “lifestyle changes are going to be important,” such as reducing meat consumption and other energy- and resource-intensive activities—not including keynoting climate conferences on different continents.Just don’t unplug my jacuzzi, responded the governor of one of the world’s largest economies. Gov. Schwarzenegger said, “Let’s face it, people are not going to give up their energy-burning plasma TVs.”
Not when there's another rerun of Last Action Hero. You can catch it on cable, or most any day in Sacramento.
April 21, 2008
Cute pets (for the environment)
That Eddie. Such a multi-talented dog. He blogs, he lobbies, he investigates complex scientific issues... and now he makes movies, too. I'll be honest, I'm a little concerned for my job.
But there's no denying he's good at what he does -- here's his latest video, a big thank you to everyone who's supported him so far. Way to go, Eddie.
But it's "clean coal" isn't it?
This is a guest post by EWG's Lauren Glickman, who is not afraid of the boogieman.
The myth of clean coal should be filed somewhere between stories of the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the magical pot of gold at the end of rainbow. It's like a fairy tale you believe in as a child, something to ease your fears of the dark and the boogieman. You grow out of some fears like the boogieman, while others you learn how to face. Unfortunately, we are not going to grow out of our energy dependence, and we won't wake up one day to find it gone forever. But turning to a fantasy like "clean coal" as a solution is like depending on the pot of gold to pay off your credit card bills.
Last week I spent time with over a hundred individuals from across the country lobbying Congress to stop mountaintop removal coal mining. Mountaintop removal is just that: The coal industry is blowing up mountains all over Appalachia in order to get to the coal underneath. The top of the mountain is removed and then dumped in the neighboring valley. Cleaning the coal results in a sludge that is full of toxic chemicals, which is then dumped into our rivers, exposing thousands to a public health epidemic we can scarcely begin to comprehend. Appalachian families are bathing their children in water laced with arsenic, lead, and other hazardous chemicals. In the mean time, one by one, the mountains in their community are being destroyed.
The bottom line is that coal is dirty from the moment of extraction to the moment it is burned in any of the thousands of coal-fired power plants across the country. It's easy to overlook when we are constantly reminded of our dependence on oil, that its actually coal running through the veins of this country. At the current rate Appalachian coal will be depleted in a couple of decades; Appalachian communities may not have that long. That's why I spent my mornings last week on Capital Hill, lobbying Congress and meeting with delegates from my home state of New York. The ask was simple: co-sponsor the Clean Water Protection Act, a piece of legislation (currently in the House) that would make it illegal to blow up our mountains and pollute our water. Fairytales make great bedtime stories but they are nothing to build an energy policy upon. It's time to grow up and take that first step towards a clean energy future.
April 18, 2008
Tell Clorox: Take back the filter!
We're always telling you to filter your water 'round these parts. It's true, a good carbon filter will get rid of most common pollutants (though not all), and they're a lot less expensive than a reverse-osmosis system. But every couple of months or so, you're left with a grit-filled hunk of plastic that can't be recycled. There's nothing to do with an old filter but throw it out -- and that hardly seems eco-friendly.
Unless you live in Europe, where the German company that makes Brita pitcher and faucet-mounted filter systems has created a filter takeback system. Returned, used filters are taken apart and reused or recycled. Unfortunately Clorox, who hold Brita's distribution license in the U.S., has no such program.
Enter the incomparable Beth Terry. In her quest to rid her life of plastic trash, those Brita filters were becoming a roadblock. Apparently she decided the roadblock needed to come down. Now, with a team of concerned citizens from across the country, Beth has created the Take Back the Filter campaign -- because if they can do it in Europe, there's no reason they can't do it here. Go to the website to sign the petition and write a letter to Clorox execs. You can even send your used filters to the Take Back the Filter team, and they'll deliver them en masse to Clorox!
We shouldn't have to choose between clean water and not creating trash. Tell Clorox to Take Back the Filter!
April 17, 2008
EWG pet health study spurs launch of new organization
Ed. note: This post comes to us from a friend and colleague of ours, Eddie. For more of his work, visit Pets for the Environment.
Let's say, just for the sake of example, that you were a dog. Or a cat, if you prefer (although I can't imagine why you would). You'd spend your days lazing about, taking naps, playing outside, and eating treats. Humans would pat your head and tell you how cute you looked.
Sounds like a pretty neat life, right? Lighthearted, carefree, simple. . . I bet you're a little jealous.
Well, I thought it was pretty neat too, until I found out that pets are full of toxic chemicals. And that really burns my brisket, because see, I am a dog.
EWG took samples from 20 dogs and 40 cats to test for toxic chemicals in our bodies, and I'm one of those dogs. They found 48 of the 70 chemicals they looked for, including PCBs, PBDEs, phthalates, and heavy metals, and lots of other stuff. In fact, we were more polluted with 43 of the chemicals they found than most humans are! Scientists think that other cats and dogs (and birds and lizards and fish and rabbits) have the same chemicals in them. Humans call it body burden. I call it really lousy.
It turns out we're all exposed to this stuff every day, in lots of different ways. There's pollution in the air and water and chemicals in the housedust, on the carpet and the couch, and probably even in our food. Humans created all these chemicals, and now they might be making us sick!
That's why we pets have decided to step in. We've formed our own organization, and we're calling on humans to clean up the mess they've made. It's time for the humans' government to pass chemical safety standards that will keep all of us, pets and people, safe and healthy.
In the meantime, we're finding tips for keeping pets healthy. So if there's an eco-pet in your household, send them on over to Pets for the Environment. We need all the paws we can get!
April 16, 2008
Synthetic chemicals: The unfortunate predicament
Ed. note: This is a post by Howie, EWG's social media intern. Howie's a student at American University here in DC.
We’ve discussed the fact that breast cancer rates around the world have dramatically increased over the last few decades. And we’ve reported on various factors some scientists believe might be responsible for the increases. Women who were exposed to the pesticide DDT before they reached puberty were found to have up to a fivefold increase in their risk of contracting breast cancer. The presence of hormone disrupting chemicals in cosmetics and fish in polluted rivers might also been linked to the increased incidences.
It might not come as much of a surprise that all of these factors are linked to certain synthetic chemicals that could and should be avoided.
Breast Cancer Fund’s 2008 State of the Evidence report identifies new developments in distinguishing the linkages between synthetic chemical exposure and increases in risk of breast cancer.
New studies seem to confirm older findings that American and European women born in recent decades, in which there were increases in the amount of synthetic chemicals produced in those areas, have higher risk for breast cancer than women born in earlier decades.
Exposure to the pesticides atrazine, chlordane, malathion, heptachlor and 2,4-D are associated with increases in breast cancer risk.
Overexposure to bisphenol A (BPA) during development stages in the prenatal period or around the time of birth can alter mammary tissue structure and make women more vulnerable to mammary tumors later in life.
The report includes other new developments regarding the links between synthetic chemicals and increased breast cancer rates as well as a summary of previous related research.
Photo: spakattacks.
April 15, 2008
Out of the frying pan: Sludge fertilizer as the antidote to lead poisoning
For a second, there, I thought I was reading The Onion. No such luck.
In separate studies in Baltimore and St. Louis, government-funded researchers spread sludge fertilizer on lawns and vacant lots in poor, black neighborhoods to see whether the fertilizer would inhibit lead poisoning in children. In case you need a refresher (who doesn't now and then), sludge is what's left over at the waste treatment plant -- a semisolid mess made up mostly of human waste, with a few goldfish and anything else we've flushed down the drain. It's likely to contain heavy metals, antibiotics, lots of that stuff that's ending up in our water, and who knows what else. Recent studies show that earthworms in sludge fertilizer absorb all kinds of chemicals.
The idea behind the project is that iron and phosphorous in the sludge can chemically bind lead, preventing it from being bioavailable to children (or other animals) who eat the soil.
Go ahead. Read that last paragraph again.
Do they actually mean to say that soil amended with sludge fertilizer is safe to eat?
I applaud the researchers' attempt to find a low-cost way of mitigating lead exposure. I really do. But the government has been trying to find an economically beneficial way of disposing of human waste for the past 30 years, and it seems to be getting a bit out of hand. That these studies were carried out in poor black neighborhoods and, according to the AP story, there's no evidence that the subjects had follow-up medical exams, makes the whole endeavor a little smelly.
Photo by hufse.
April 14, 2008
50 things, simple and not so simple
Twenty years ago, in a Berkeley attic, freelance journalist John Javna wrote and self-published one of the most important books of 20th Century environmentalism. 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth went on to sell 5 million copies. It was a great success, but also caught some backlash – I recall Gar Smith of the Earth Island Journal writing a parody called "50 Really Hard Things You Can Do to Save the Earth." ("1. Get rid of your car.") The book eventually went out of print, but its concept – an accessible list of things average citizens might actually feel they can do – has been copied and modified hundreds of times.
Now Javna, inspired anew by the environmental consciences of his two teenagers, has returned with a new edition – this time paired (of course) with a website, www.50simplethings.com. And this time, his list of things isn't quite so simple.
The new 50 Simple Things partnered with 50 environmental groups, including EWG. Each group picked one issue to explore in depth, telling you how to start close to home but keep pushing for change at the state, national or even international level. For example, EWG's chapter and web page, "We've Got Chemistry," includes our Everyday Pollution Solutions, but also urges readers to support the Kid Safe Chemical Act, federal legislation that would require that chemicals are safe for kids before they're allowed on the market.
Most of the nation's major environmental groups are in the new 50 Simple Things, but there are plenty of groups I was glad to learn about, like CoolCities and 1Sky. My favorite (non-EWG) group in the book: Interfaith Power & Light, run by EWG board member the Rev. Sally Bingham.
April 11, 2008
Phthalate-induced asthma: Gasping for breath
The smell of a new car, that new shower curtain odor, and those off-gassing carpets recently installed in your office have one thing in common: these consumer products contain plastics chemicals that can become volatile, spread through air and hit our olfactory systems. And we are accustomed to consider such chemical smells a good thing. Who wouldn't like to have the status symbol of a new car, volatile chemicals and all?
It turns out that the “plastic smell” is not quite so innocuous as people used to believe. One of the most common plastic materials is PVC, polyvinylchloride, which is used extensively for covering of interior building surfaces, food wrappers, water pipes, and many other applications. On its own, PVC is a pretty rigid material; its flexibility is achieved by addition of plasticizers, especially a family of chemicals called phthalates. We have already heard many concerns about phthalates in cosmetics and in children’s toys because these chemicals pose great risks to development of reproductive system in baby boys.
However, an article published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives highlights a new, previously unforeseen systemic danger of phthalates as allergy-inducing chemicals.
Two scientists at the Institute of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Birmingham conducted a thorough analysis of research literature on allergy and asthma and identified 41 papers that indicated a likely link between phthalates and these illnesses. Our review of the literature further identified 4 more studies, now bringing the total to 45. These 45 studies include research in animals, case studies of occupational exposure, and broad-range epidemiological studies in people of different ages. Is it time to sit up and take notice?
- Seventeen different animal studies demonstrated that phthalates from PVC products can prompt development of allergy. In these studies, phthalates increase production of IgE antibodies and immune signaling molecules that are associated with allergies and asthma attacks.
- Nine articles reported cases of occupational asthma related to PVC fumes. For example, PVC-linked asthma has been observed in meat-packing workers, workers employed in production of artificial leather, and fire-fighters exposed to fumes from residential fires involving now-ubiquitous plastic laminates.
- Finally, nineteen articles described epidemiological studies that show an association between PVC fumes and asthma and respiratory symptoms. Most worrisome, five of these studies unambiguously demonstrated the effects in children where phthalate exposure in the home is linked to the risk of asthma and allergies.
EWG has repeatedly called for governmental action on phthalates, such as risk assessment and setting of regulatory limits and phase out programs. In addition to established reproductive toxicity of these chemicals, a huge body of research evidence now confirms that exposure to phthalates in homes and work increases the risk of asthma and allergies both in children and in adults. It is now time for quick and decisive action. Children's health -- in fact, all of our health -- cannot wait.
Photo by PhylB.
April 10, 2008
Can I have a glass of Placenta 1000 with that?
Ah, it’s a great day to be a woman! In fact, every day is a great day to be a woman, especially when it comes to the sacrifices made for beauty. Women are known to make numerous beauty sacrifices, depending on the century they live in, their culture, race and their own priorities.
I thought that nothing could surprise me anymore when it come to women and beauty, when I read that in Japan, a company called Nihon Sofuken (no need to click the link to the web site if you don’t speak Japanese) is selling a drink with an unusual main ingredient: placenta.
Yes, you did hear me right -- it’s the same "ingredient" that is essential for the survival of the developing fetus, only in this case it's pig placenta. Placenta has been used in numerous cultures in various forms and some even eat it. Some say it has regenerative properties.
Placenta was also found in numerous cosmetics products because, according to placenta advocates, it conditions skin and hair. But not everything is that peachy, even though the new drink is peach flavored.
The extracts in cosmetics give the body a slug of hormones that may be enough to spur breast growth in toddlers according to a few recent case studies.
And that's just a little bit. . . imagine ingesting 1000mg of the stuff!
Photo: Annie, a Gloucestershire Old Spot pig, by Nicola Whitaker.
April 9, 2008
Envirohealth in Blogs: Factory farming the ocean, plus garlic up your nose
A little light reading for your mid-week enjoyment.
Factory farms in the ocean? Smorgasbord tells you what you need to know about offshore aquaculture.
Another way to reduce consumption: share stuff. What a novel idea!
Is gasoline made from bugs the answer? (I'm going to have to go with, probably not. Cool story though.)
Relocating the desert tortoise is the Army's latest challenge.
Siel takes a look at Al Gore's new slideshow, in which he hopes to inspire us to face the challenge of global warming with joy and gratitude. Watch the video!
How could I NOT link to a post with the title "Stick garlic up your nose"? (Allergy sufferers, take note!)
Photo: Gio JL
April 8, 2008
Mixed Greens 007: Congress investigates industry, plus PFOA and EPA's bad plan
It seems Congress has caught on to industry's dirty tricks -- find out what they're doing about it in this episode of Mixed Greens. Plus, EPA cozies up to the chemical industry, and PFOA persists in the Mid-Ohio Valley.
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!
Want to know more? Follow these links:
- Committee on Energy and Commerce investigates chemical industry
- EPA proposal would strip cancer protections, benefit industry
- Mid-Ohio Valley residents record high levels of PFOA in blood
- More about PFOA
April 7, 2008
New toxic toy law not exactly cause for celebration
Ed. note: This post is by EWG's social media intern Akua, who gets to spend most of her time playing around on MySpace and reading blogs -- lucky woman.
Last week, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire (partially) signed into law what is being praised by some as the “toughest toy law in the US." I know I should be euphoric but all I feel is overwhelming sadness. It’s the year 2008 and the citizens of the world’s greatest power have finally achieved a ban on three chemicals that we have known to be toxic for years. In one U.S state. I don’t know about you but the gravity of the situation doesn’t make me want to jump for joy. It makes me want to cry.
The Children’s Safe Products Act is set to go into effect in January 2009 and will ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of toys and cosmetics that contain lead, cadmium, or phthalates and are intended for children under 12. A helpful provision in the bill states that new high priority chemicals can be added to the list if, through bio-monitoring studies, they are found to be present in umbilical cord blood or human tissue. EWG seems to be a step ahead of them on this, since we found 287 toxic chemicals in umbilical cord blood several years ago. Perhaps we should save them some time by forwarding them the list?
What is it going to take for our nation to come together and pass a comprehensive law to protect those who cannot speak for themselves? Gov. Gregoire should be given credit for (partially) signing the bill. But she still dropped the ball when she vetoed portions that would allow the public to make more informed decisions about their purchases. As it stands, she has proposed changes to the bill that appear to limit public accessibility to information about the toxic chemical ingredients in toys. Specifically, she took issue with parts of the bill that called for the construction of a website that would provide consumers with up-to-date information about which products contained toxic ingredients.
This was a moment when she could have sent a decisive message to other legislatures in the nation that the legitimate concerns of the people should always come before those of business. She could have encouraged other states to begin a crackdown on industries that profit while our precious children are being poisoned with the toys we purchase for them.
Now, I'm not saying she's selling out. But just as the toy industry would want your child to do with that shiny “learning tool” (the one with the computer chip made with toxic lead solder), let's connect the dots:
Gregoire has opposed the removal of the electronic component of educational toys that are manufactured with toxic chemicals because of their positive benefits. Are w