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]
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
May 29, 2008
Protecting Alaska?
This is one last post by EWG social media intern Akua, who wrapped up her internship here this month. We wish her the best of luck!
The Bureau of Land Management, an agency responsible for the management of federal public lands in the United States, has proposed a 10-year ban on oil drilling in the 430,000 acres north and east of the Teshekpuk Lake in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The region is home to many bird species as well as over half a million caribou during their migration period. While hailed as a win by many environmentalists, this celebration is somewhat obscuring a larger issue: The territory under protection holds about 800 million barrels of oil; the entire region holds an astounding 2.8 billion barrels of oil.
Essentially this means that while the most sensitive area in the region is being protected under a short-term ban, the proposal essentially opens up many more parts of Alaska for oil drilling. I was originally shocked by the Bush Administration’s sudden decision to embrace a conservation effort, but giving up this coveted piece of land appears to be more of a public relations move than one of genuine concern for the region. If you read the Bureau of Land Management’s official statement on the issue, we don’t seem to be getting that great of a deal. The land being temporarily given up for conservation seems to be just crumbs from a banquet in comparison to the amount of oil that will be made available to companies to lease through the deal.
Also, the ban on mining in the 430,000 acres is only for 10 years -- after which it becomes possible for companies to lease the area for drilling. If the bureau were truly motivated by a desire to conserve the area and protect the Teshekpuk Lake it would turn this ban into law.
Photo: Tern Lake, Alaska by Anita Gould.
A new location for Big Tobacco: universities
Once upon a time, universities were places of great academics and integrity. After all, they often serve the historic role of moral and intellectual guidance for students.
That has changed quite a bit over the last few decades. This recent New York Times article provides an excellent example of this very concerning situation -- Virginia Commonwealth University, a public higher education institution in Richmond, VA, has a contract with Philip Morris USA (yep, that would be the largest tobacco company in the nation) guiding their research and studies.
According to the article:
“The contract bars professors from publishing the results of their studies, or even talking about them, without Philip Morris’s permission. If “a third party,” including news organizations, asks about the agreement, university officials have to decline to comment and tell the company. Nearly all patent and other intellectual property rights go to the company, not the university or its professors.”
We all know this is not the first time the tobacco industry has gotten involved in research. They have been doing it for decades, delaying the common sense decision to call tobacco dangerous for human health. Since the warning was issued, the tobacco industry has moved its activities towards funding “scientific research” that would continue to challenge the notion that tobacco is bad for you.
One of the programs started by Philip Morris is Philip Morris' External Research Program. According to the Source Watch:
“Philip Morris' External Research Program (PMERP) was started in 2000, two years after the cigarette maker was required by the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement to disband two previous industry-wide external research programs, the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR) and the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR). These two entities were largely considered to be public relations research front groups for the tobacco industry which allowed tobacco companies to claim they were researching the causes of diseases linked to smoking, while they were in fact actually funding research to help confuse the public about the scientific consensus about the health hazards of cigarette smoke.”
It’s a known fact that tobacco is the single greatest cause of preventable disease, disability and death worldwide. Each year, cigarette smoking kills over 440,000 Americans and in 2000 alone, over 4 million people worldwide died from tobacco use. Even though almost everybody knows that tobacco is bad, the number of tobacco users is not decreasing.
It is concerning that universities are involved in this way with the tobacco industry. Many of them have missions that emphasize integrity and ethics and most of their public health and medical schools advocate for the protection of health. When the research that we all read about comes from the university, people pay attention to it and take it seriously.
I am trying to be open-minded about this and understand the poor financial situation that many of the universities face after huge cuts in government funding. I have gone to public schools all my life and I know all about class cancellation and wait lists. But, this is a serious public health issue and should be permanently prohibited.
May 27, 2008
Facebook contest: Love EWG, get cool stuff
EWG broke the 1,000 fan mark on Facebook this month! To celebrate, we're holding a contest -- all you have to do is post some lovin' on our Facebook wall between today (May 27) and noon on Tuesday, June 3rd, and you'll be entered to win a 100% organic cotton Foodnews tote and a stainless steel water bottle.
Click here to become a fan of EWG. Remember, to enter the contest you must leave a note on our Facebook wall before noon on June 3rd!
Photo by pshab.
Confidential information
In last week's edition of Mixed Greens we talked about a recent study of the effects of PFOA, a persistent perfluorochemical with toxic effects on the liver, thyroid and immune system. That study, funded by part of DuPont's multi-million dollar settlement over poisoned river water in the mid-Ohio valley, is the largest of its kind ever performed.
Researchers on the study have only just begun to crunch the mountains of data that have been collected. But those mountains may pose a problem, according to an area judge who has sealed the data from the public. The records contain details about blood-PFOA levels as well as health and demographic information about 70 thousand mid-Ohio valley residents. Citing confidentiality concerns, the judge sealed the data – including the version which omits identifying data.
Qualified researchers will be able to petition for access to the data, and results from the WVU study will be released over as they become available.
So, what do you guys think? Does sealing the data put up unnecessary road blocks for those looking to study the health effects of PFOA? Or is the judge doing right by the study participants?
May 26, 2008
A silent killer
In 2002, when EWG was first to report that state scientists estimated airborne dust and soot causes more deaths of Californians each year than AIDS, homicide and traffic accidents combined, the press, politicians and even some other environmental groups were skeptical. Surely that's too high, they said; you can't count every person whose life may be shortened a few months or years by breathing dirty air.
Six years later, reams of new evidence show that the estimate was indeed off. The actual number is three times higher. That means that airborne dust and soot – the kind of particulate pollution scientists call PM 2.5 – is responsible for the deaths of more than 24,000 Californians a year.
"Particle pollution is a silent killer," state Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said after reading the ARB staff's latest report.
There's a clear link between levels of the tiny particles – 2.5 microns or less, much thinner than a human hair – and cardiovascular deaths, Marla Cone reported in the LA Times.
The studies, including one by USC tracking 23,000 people in greater Los Angeles, and another by the American Cancer Society monitoring 300,000 people across the United States, have found rates of heart attacks, strokes and other serious disease increase exponentially after exposure to even slightly higher amounts of metal or dust. It is difficult to attribute individual deaths to particulate pollution, [said Bart Croes, chief researcher for the California Air Resources Board], but he said long-term studies that account for smoking, obesity and other risks have increasingly zeroed in on fine particulate pollution as a killer."There's no death certificate that says specifically someone died of air pollution, but cities with higher rates of air pollution have much greater rates of death from cardiovascular diseases," he said.
Californians exposed to high levels of fine particulates had their lives cut short on average by 10 years, the board staff found. Researchers also found that when particulates are cut even temporarily, death rates fall. "When Dublin imposed a coal ban, when Hong Kong imposed reductions in sulfur dioxide, when there was a steel mill strike in Utah . . . they saw immediate reductions in deaths," Croes said.
But there is good news, reported Jane Kay in the San Francisco Chronicle:
The drop in fine particulates statewide in the last decade, particularly in cities, has been 30 percent. One region that saw even greater improvement, the San Joaquin Valley, decreased 45 percent over the same time period due to new regulations, according to state air officials.
California already has the world's strictest standards for particulate pollution, although they're only non-binding goals. The same day the state's report was issued, the Air Resources Board met in Fresno and adopted a plan to push the San Joaquin Valley to meet those goals. But air quality activists are worried that the state's plan relies too much on voluntary reductions of diesel emissions by the trucking industry, and in light of the sharply higher death estimate they urged the state to go even further.
"Send this plan back to be strengthened or do it yourself," said Melissa Kelly-Ortega, program coordinator for the Merced-Mariposa Asthma Coalition. "You [ARB] will be saving lives."
That's no longer in dispute. The only question is how many lives the state is determined to save.
You can read the state's study here.
May 23, 2008
Rock star in action
Breast cancer survivor Sheryl Crow testified this week before a U.S. House committee supporting the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act. The bill would provide $40 million annually for five years for federal research into environmental factors linked to breast cancer. In addition, she supported a companion bill that would require health insurance to pay for at least 48 hours in the hospital after breast cancer treatment allowing full recovery and putting an end to so-called "drive through mastectomies.”
Killing more then 41,000 women annually in the U.S., breast cancer is the most common form of cancer after skin cancer.
Sheryl has been a breast cancer research advocate for a while now, and is clearly aware of the connection between cancer and environmental hazards we are all exposed to. Here are few lines from her testimony:
“Why is this bill so important to me? Because I want to know what causes this disease – for me, for the 2.3 million others who share this diagnosis with me, and especially for all those who are at risk, or putting themselves at risk without even knowing it. Like the vast majority of women diagnosed with breast cancer, I have no known risk factor, including no family history. I have no idea why I got breast cancer, or what I can say to others who want to prevent it. Here’s what I do know: we need to put more resources into figuring out what the environment has to do with breast cancer. We need to do that through government funding, because there is little financial incentive for anyone else to do this research.
Sheryl Crow is a true rock star!
May 22, 2008
Not so "natural" after all
According to a recent survey, 78 percent of American women think natural personal care is currently regulated or don’t know if it is, while nearly all (97 percent) think it should be.
What makes a cosmetics item “natural” or “organic”? Two of every three American women think a personal care product labeled “natural” should contain at least 95 percent natural ingredients. Likewise, one intuitively expects that a product labeled “organic” would contain only certified organic ingredients and not synthetic chemicals manufactured in gas-spewing petrochemical plants.
Contrary to what most buyers of pricey “natural” cosmetics believe, the current reality is a lot more mixed. Under the current federal law FDA has no authority for pre-market review of cosmetic product formulation and labeling. In fact, cosmetics safety is virtually unregulated by the government: FDA cannot require companies to test cosmetic products for safety before marketing and cannot require product recalls. The only way for FDA to remove misbranded products from the market is by going to court against the manufacturer, a cumbersome task for which the agency has no resources – and little interest.
As a result of labeling loopholes and lack of standards, companies are free to use almost any ingredient they choose in personal care products. FDA hands-off position has opened up an opportunity for industry groups and certification bodies to offer their own seals or approval, voluntary standards and marketing claims that can best be described as “organic mislabeling.”
Only a government certification can set reliable standards for organic or natural cosmetics. Meanwhile, while the FDA is looking on, many personal care product companies tout their sustainability credentials, although many of them seem not entirely sure just what is green, organic, or sustainable. Some companies have taken to certifying their products as green through third parties such as Ecocert (France), the Germany-based industry organization BDiH, the Soil Association (UK), Oasis (US cosmetics companies), and Certech (Canada). Add to this list the Washington, DC-based Natural Products Association, NSF International (formerly National Sanitation Foundation) and many others who are jumping into the fray. The prize is indeed worth the effort: sales of natural cosmetics products are growing at an annual rate of 15%, three times faster than the overall cosmetics market.
It's all very bewildering for consumers, as well as for the cosmetics manufacturers themselves. As a colorful example of this state of uncertainty, in April Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps company together with the Organic Consumers Association filed suit against many of its personal care competitors and two organic standards certification organizations over the validity of their organic labels. At the same time, one of the two industry groups named in this lawsuit, French organic cosmetics certifier Ecocert, filed a pre-emptive lawsuit of its own against Dr. Bronner's soap company. Apparently, in the absence of government regulation, litigation is the only way for companies and certifiers to fight it out.
Where does this leave consumers? Pretty much in the same spot, whereby cosmetics products labeled organic or natural can and do include synthetic ingredients, especially manufacturing impurities and preservatives linked to many suspected human health risks. On their own, claims announcing “organic” or “natural” on the front label are fairly meaningless.
The best thing that shoppers can do to protect themselves and their families is reading the small print in the labels on the back of the package. When a back label lists synthetic preservatives such as parabens, undisclosed fragrance ingredients that likely contain phthalates, or one of the numerous petroleum-based ingredients that can be contaminated with cancer-causing chemical 1,4-dioxane -- a consumer has to take the “organic” or “natural” label on the front with a grain of salt.
And, of course, the only long-term solution to the current cosmetics debacle is the establishment of safety and labeling standards for cosmetics under the FDA enforcement authority. Product claims and marketing terms must be backed up by tests and must meet explicit definitions set by the FDA. When I buy an organically grown apple, I expect it to be exactly that – grown without synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and not treated with any post-harvest preservatives. Should not consumers expect the same from “organic” cosmetics?
Photo by lo83.
May 21, 2008
Congress takes aim at chemicals in kids
Nice to see some in Congress are moving forward with efforts to force chemical companies to test for safety before their products wind up in babies. Just a couple of years back EWG tested the umbilical cord blood of ten unborn babies and found an average of 287 industrial chemicals. Why?
Under current law known as the Toxic Substances Control Act, unchanged since 1976, most new chemicals are approved with little or no safety testing, and more than 62,000 existing chemicals have remained on the market for three decades despite evidence that some pose serious health risks. The Kid Safe Chemicals Act introduced yesterday would place the burden of proof on the chemical industry to show that chemicals are safe for children before they are added to consumer products.
A farmer's 'come to Jesus' moment
NPR ran a great story the other day called “One Family, Two Views on How to Run Iowa Farm.” Lavon and Craig Griffieon, a farming couple from Ankeny, Iowa shared their concerns about the economic pressures they feel being part of modern day agriculture and the environmental impacts of their farm management choices.
Here are some highlights of the story:
"I kind of had a 'come to Jesus' meeting with myself one day out in the field," LaVon Griffieon says. "I was telling these kids that we were doing things right, and herbicides and pesticides helped us feed more hungry people. I was down in the pasture with them, and a little boy leaned down, and he was going to take a drink out of the stream. And I said, 'Don't take a drink out of that.' He looked at me like, 'Why can't I drink the water?' And I thought if we were doing a really good job, he could drink the water, 'cause I'm sure his grandparents drank the water."As Lavon Griffieon alludes, using chemicals on the farm has not always been the Griffieon way.
When I was a little kid, we farmed without chemicals and without fertilizer, and our yields for corn was 50, 60, 70 bushels, something like that," Craig Griffieon says. "Then in the '50s and '60s is when fertilizer and chemicals come about. So now our yields run about 160 to 180 [bushels]. Then it comes down to a dollar-and-cent deal to make a profit."
LaVon Griffieon isn't happy that her family is using the chemicals, and she intends to change it.
"I say there's a better way," she says. "We need to look past our own yields and our own bottom line and look at the big picture. Being a good Dutch-German guy, you've got to prove it to Craig, and you've got to make the bottom line work out for him and pencil it out for him. And we're going to get him there one of these days."
LaVon’s and Craig’s concerns really spoke to me as an environmentalist working to lessen the unintended environmental impact of agriculture on the environment. Their concerns bolstered my belief that farmers and environmentalists are really more alike than they are different.
Most environmentalists make the economic case that many environmental practices are not only good for water and air quality and wildlife habitat, but are also good for the long-term fertility and productivity of the soil and livestock. In addition, environmentalists understand that the majority of farmers are small to medium-sized operations that are often more worried about being able to pay all the bills let alone invest in environmental projects. That’s why the Farm Bill provides several billion taxpayer dollars a year as well as technical assistance to farmers in the form of voluntary programs to help them do right by their farm, their family, and the environment.
But some environmental problems have no economic costs to the individual upstream, only costs to the environment and to folks downstream. This is not a situation unique to farming. This widespread problem, called “environmental externalities,” happens to farms and to drycleaners and to steel mills when there are costs to the environment, which are not affecting the business.
When the solutions to these environmental problems are not in the economic interest of the farms, dry cleaners, or steel mills causing the problem, the public expects the government to establish basic, minimum environmental standards that all such businesses adopt.
Regulation is not a dirty word. It’s a basic agreement between producers and the public. In agriculture, a few regulations at the federal level include pesticide rules which all farmers must follow to protect themselves, their workers, and the environment. There is also a “conservation compliance” rule, which requires some farmers who receive farm subsidies to reduce soil erosion or to protect wetlands. For the most part, agriculture is exempted from the nation's most important environmental laws, including the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
At the state level, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, have moved from voluntary nutrient management programs to solve the “dead zone” problem in the Chesapeake Bay to mandatory laws requiring farmers follow a nutrient management plan. These plans help farmers achieve a reasonable yield goal while reducing environmental loss of fertilizers and animal manure to the environment.
Basic environmental standards are not meant as an insult to farmers, many of whom consider themselves stewards of the land. They are merely the statement of societal expectation that farmers do what they can to improve their farm operations and the environment even if sometimes, it’s not in their immediate economic self-interest. We expect that of dry cleaners and steel mills. Is there any reason we shouldn’t expect that from farms? If farmers were willing to regard environmental standards and regulations in this light, that would be one “come to Jesus meeting” this environmentalist would love to be a part of.
Photo by Andrew Stawarz.
May 20, 2008
Mixed Greens 010: PFOA problems
A new study highlights the health risks of a persistent, bioaccumulative chemical that industry plans to keep making for another 7 years. Plus, the low-down on this low down farm bill.
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!
PFOA Problems:
- Study: Teflon chemical may pose harm to immune system, liver, thyroid
- PFOA in the Chemical Index
- Cheatsheet: PFCs
Farm Bill Boondoggle:
- The latest from Mulch
- Mother Jones: The Big Farm Scam (An interview with Ken Cook)
Welcome to sunscreen season
I'm sure some of you have already been grilling your grass-fed hamburgers and bulghurburgers BBQ-style, but where I'm from, Memorial Day officially kicks off cook-out season. And where there's a cookout, there's sunscreen -- or at least, there ought to be.
But how's a person to choose from the vast array of products on the market?
Here's a start: last summer's Sunscreen Report from EWG. You can use this list to find the best of the most common brands, or take a look at the very best list.
Here are some things to keep in mind when you're shopping for and using sunscreen:
- Choose a physical sunscreen (zinc or titanium oxide) rather than a chemical one. Chemical sunscreens are less effective and carry unnecessary health risks.
- Use plenty of sunscreen, and reapply often. Remember to use sunscreen on all exposed skin every day.
- Seek shade, cover up with a light long-sleeved shirt and a hat, and avoid the sun during midday when it's rays are strongest.
- Take special care with kids, who're more susceptible to skin damage. Cover up, play in the shade, and keep infants out of direct sun altogether.
Photo by elmada.
May 18, 2008
Dude, where's my water?
The East Bay Municipal Utility District last week ordered me and 1.3 million other customers to cut our water use by 20 percent immediately. Many other Northern California water companies and cities, while not rationing water yet, are urging residents to save water. And Los Angeles is embarking on an ambitious multyear water conservation campaign.
Where's the water? The immediate answer is that a severely dry winter left only half the usual amount of snowmelt in EBMUD's water sources. The long-term concern is that global warming is turning the already arid West drier and hotter.
And then there's the 2.5 billion gallons that go year in and year out to farmers in the Central Valley, who pay less than 2 cents on the dollar compared to what LA residents pay for drinking water. That amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of half a billion dollars a year to 6,500 farms in the Central Valley Project – many of which are large corporate agribusinesses that also receive cotton, rice or corn subsidies.
The state Constitution says that water belongs to the people of California. At a time when I'd be risking a fine to water my lawn or wash my car, I'd at least like to get a fairer price from the CVP. But the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation recently renewed the 25-to-50-year contracts of most of the irrigation districts that deliver the water to the farms, and is in negotiations with the 600-pound gorilla of California water, the Westlands Water District, to give it even more water. If you want to tell them how bad an idea that is, you can contact the Bureau here.
May 16, 2008
Healthy Choices, Healthy Lives
The Center for Environmental Oncology just released the spring edition of their newsletter, Healthy Choices, Healthy Lives -- and since it covers a range of topics likely to be of interest to Enviroblog readers, I thought I'd post it here [pdf].
Here's a taste of the topics covered. Dr. Donovan's piece on flame retardants is a really interesting read!
What do Chinese rivers, plastic water bottles and chemical flame retardants all have in common?The latest edition of our acclaimed newsletter, “Healthy Choices, Healthy Lives,” reports…
- Donald Burke, MD, Dean of the Graduate School of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh on China’s growing pollution problem;
- Leslie Davis, President of Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC on new greening initiatives at the hospital;
- Dr. Jonathan Weinkle’s insight on tap water vs. bottled water; and
- Dr. Maryann Donovan’s update on the flame retardant problem.
The Center for Environmental Oncology at University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute is headed up by Dr. Devra Davis, author of The Secret History of the War on Cancer, which details why prevention is the cure.
Photo: monkeyc.net.
When government won't step in
This is the final post by EWG social media intern Howie. Thanks for all your hard work, Howie, and good luck in the future!
Accountability in the world of industrial pollution is a wonderful thing, especially when businesses that have the power to harm people’s health are kept in check. However, when businesses try to limit the government’s ability to keep them in check, those businesses become less accountable to Americans who do not deserve to have their health compromised due to those businesses’ negligence. If concerns for the health and safety of Americans are not enough to motivate businesses to clean up their act, there are persuasive tools that can be used to turn those businesses in the right direction.
Shareholders in an industrial business, when provided with information about the pollution created by the business and the effects of that pollution on people near the business’ facilities, might feel compelled to ask the business they invested in to reduce the amount of environmental harm it causes. If those shareholders come to realize that the business’ current levels of pollution result in great financial risks, they can threaten to withdraw their money and resources if the business does not change its ways. Businesses are wise to listen to their shareholders if they want to keep their economic base of support strong.
Empowering shareholders in industrial businesses to properly evaluate related financial risks is one of the main goals of the 2008 update of the Toxic 100 Index, which was produced by the University of Massachusetts’ Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). The Toxic 100 Index identifies the top 100 air polluters in the United States and describes how much and what types of pollution are released from every facility controlled by one of the 100 polluters in the study.
General Electric is an example of a business that has resisted governmental health and safety standards and that also has the potential to be turned in the right direction through pressure from its shareholders.
In 1998, GE spearheaded efforts to limit the company’s responsibilities imposed by the “Superfund” law (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act). This law required it and certain other businesses to clean up pollution under certain circumstances, and GE attempted to reduce the degree to which it would have to clean up its pollution.
Now, GE is America’s seventh highest air polluter according to the Toxic 100 Index. Shareholders in GE and other industrial businesses can use the knowledge provided in the Toxic 100 Index and other documents to improve their own financial future by demanding their businesses adopt better waste management policies. This has the potential to result in a safer, healthier environment for us all.
You can click here to access a database of the businesses included in the Toxic 100 Index. After you select a company and navigate to PERI’s page on that company, you can click one of the names of that company’s facilities to see data about that facility.
Photo by Proggie.
May 15, 2008
Making makeup safe for kids
So lets say, hypothetically, that your four year old has begun begging for a play makeup set. Some parents would react with a firm but gentle "no stinkin' way, sweetcheeks." I can understand that sentiment -- children grow up fast enough without the aid of adult trappings.
On the other hand, play makeup is a way for children to experiment with their identity. I had play makeup as a kid, and I turned out (arguably) alright. In fact, if I remember correctly, I lost interest in it after approximately 23 seconds. Except for the awesome peeling nail polish, which fascinated me. Goodness knows what was in that stuff.
In the end, whether or not to let a child use makeup for playtime is a personal decision for parents to make. But if you do decide to let 'em make themselves up, there are steps you can take to make it safer.
- No powders. Makeup in powder form is easily inhaled into little lungs, and can damage them. Opt instead for cream-based blushers and eye shadow.
- Phthalate and toluene-free nail polish. Dibutyl phthalate and toluene are common nail polish ingredients linked to cancer, hormone disruption, and allergies. [Skin Deep: Nail polishes without toluene or dibutyl phtalate.]
- Fragrance free. Fragrances are common allergens, and they usually contain phthalates. They also lurk in the strangest of places, so be sure to check the label. [Skin Deep: Fragrance-free makeup.]
- Easy on the lipstick. Because lipstick can contain some hidden nasties (like lead), and because little ones tend to eat almost as much as they put on their lips, it's best to avoid it altogether. Opt instead for a tasty, shiny, beeswax-based lip balm, or use the instructions in this article to make your own.
- Use common sense. It goes without saying that little ones shouldn't be allowed to play with eyeliner or mascara, and that those little tubs of cosmetic glitter, in the hands of a five year old, could spell disaster for the carpet. Be careful.
Armed with that list (and also possibly this one, which lists ingredients to watch out for), parents ought to be able to put together a play-makeup kit that would please even the pickiest kid -- without breaking the budget. But if that task seems too daunting, it seems at least one company is rising to the challenge of creating a safer play-makeup kit.
Anyone know of any other play-makeup kits for the eco-minded? How would you handle a child's request for makeup?
Photo by fazen.
May 14, 2008
Cheatsheet: volatile organic compounds
What are they?
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are gasses that enter the air through the routine use of a wide variety of household products, from paints and pesticides to arts and crafts supplies. They include many different chemicals which aren't worth listing individually -- for the average home, it's best to deal with VOCs as a single potentially hazardous entity. Indoor levels of some VOCs average 2 to 5 times higher than outdoor levels, and they can shoot up to 1,000 times outdoor levels at times (for example, while a room is being painted).
Here's a partial list of the thousands of products which may release VOCs:
- paints, lacquers, varnishes and paint strippers
- pesticides
- household cleaning supplies
- building and upholstery materials
- copiers and printers
- certain cosmetic products, including nail polish remover
- permanent markers
- certain craft glues and adhesives
- certain dry-cleaning chemicals
- fuel and automobile emissions
What are the potential health effects?
According to the EPA, immediate health effects include headaches, eye, nose and throat irritation, loss of coordination, asthma exacerbation and nausea -- all of which may sound familiar to you from the last time you painted a bedroom, dyed your hair, or waxed the car. Possible longer-term effects include liver, kidney, and central nervous system damage, and cancer.How can I minimize my exposure?
- Follow your nose. If something gives off a strong smell, it's likely releasing VOCs. Avoid using these products altogether, or, if you must...
- Ventilate, ventilate, ventilate. Throw open the windows, and the door if you can. Point a fan out the window to get those VOCs cycling out of the room, or turn on the exhaust fan if you've got one.
- Follow the instructions. If the packaging of a product tells you not to use it without proper ventilation, don't.
- Don't keep 'em around. Buy products known to release VOCs in small quantities, keep them tightly closed, and use them as quickly as possible.
- When possible, use low-VOC products. No-VOC paint contains less than 5 grams of VOCs per liter; low-VOC paint contains more, but still less than regular paint. Vinegar and baking soda are, as usual, a good alternative cleaner. Use water-based adhesives when possible. Ask your dry-cleaner about the solvents they use.
Where can I learn more?
- Treehugger's Green Basics: VOCs
- EPA: Volatile Organic Compounds
- Minnesota Department of Health: VOCs in your home
- Enviroblog: Breathing easier with Enviro-Paint
Original photo by Bree Bailey.
May 13, 2008
Going for the Gold
EWG social media intern Akua was lucky enough to score a ticket to the Goldman Environmental Prize ceremony -- these are her thoughts.
This year’s Goldman Environmental Prizes were awarded to 7 outstanding individuals from across the globe. A secret group of over 150 environmental experts selected the 7 courageous people from the 6 continental regions of the world and presented each with a $150,000 prize. The annual ceremony ensures that the work of everyday citizens to enact positive change does not go unnoticed.
Marina Rikhvanova is working to protect Lake Baikal, the world’s largest source of freshwater. Affectionately called the Galapagos of Russia, it holds roughly 20% of the world’s unfrozen freshwater and is home to numerous diverse species not found elsewhere in the world. She has rallied the people to stand up to the government and fight against plans to create a petroleum pipeline and an uranium enrichment plant near the watershed.
Ignace Schops raised over $90 million to build Belgium’s first and only national park. While entrance to the park is free, the 6,000 hectare land is projected to bring over $48 million a year in revenue for the region.
Despite death threats and the murder of a family member, Luis Yanza and Pablo Fajardo continue to organize the 30,000 members of their northern Ecuadorian Amazon region to file a class action lawsuit against Texaco to clean up the chemical waste (created by oil mining) that the company dumped in the region. The people of the region would be entitled to receive from $8.3 to $16 billion at the end of the trial.
Feliciano Dos Santos uses his creativity and passion for music to spread the message of sanitation and proper waste management in a way that is positively impacting many lives in Mozambique.
Jesús León Santos began a reforestation program in his nation of Mexico to combat soil damaged by climate change. This activity has converted infertile land into arable land suitable for agriculture.
Rosa Hilda Ramos from Puerto Rico led the people of her nation to hold the local industries accountable for the high incidence of respiratory disease amongst the population and enact legislation to halt the air pollution.
The remarkable work done by this year’s winners is a great example of how much power each of us has to make a difference in the world around us.
May 12, 2008
Fire retardants in falcons
Peregrine falcons in California's major coastal cities carry the the highest levels of flame retardants and other industrial chemicals ever found in living creatures, according to a new study by California state scientists.
As Marla Cone reports in the Los Angeles Times, California's peregrine falcons were "once driven to the edge of extinction by DDT," which thinned their eggshells so severely their offspring could not survive. In the 1970s, the total number of peregrines in North America dropped as low as 300, including just two in California. Today, 36 years after DDT was banned, the falcon has been removed from the Endangered Species List, and there are believed to be 3,000 nesting pairs, including 300 in California. Now, according to the study, they're under a new chemical assault from fire retardants, known as PBDEs, which are potent neurotoxins used in dozens of everyday products.
Kim Hooper, a scientist with the state Department of Toxic Substances Control's environmental chemistry laboratory who led the study, said the PBDE levels in the peregrines have doubled every 10 years, and might still be increasing. . . . "We think urban wildlife are sentinels for exposure to indoor pollutants in big cities," Hooper said.
And not just any old PBDEs, but the kind known as Deca. That's significant, because two years ago California banned two other kinds of flame retardants, spurring several other states to follow suit and pressuring the manufacturer to pull those two PBDEs of the market. But the chemical industry has fought fiercely to keep the use of Deca, despite evidence of its toxicity.
EWG has published several groundbreaking studies about fire retardants: in San Francisco Bay sportfish, in household dust and in mother's milk.
May 9, 2008
How industry shanghaied science
A review of Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health by David Michaels.
Recent EWG research highlighted how conflicts of interest among members of EPA review panels have weakened governmental safety standards on toxic chemicals in the environment and in everyday consumer products. Outrage over long-standing reliance on “science for hire” by the chemical industry has prompted Congress to investigate EPA’s procedures for reviewing toxic chemicals, including PBDE flame retardants and bisphenol A.
These examples are just a small window into how great the tampering and influence of the chemical industry has been over EPA regulation of toxic chemicals. A new book by David Michaels, an epidemiologist and the director of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, documents a seemingly endless list of examples of mercenary scientists misleading the general public and the regulatory community about the true dangers of chemical exposures, starting from lead, asbestos, and tobacco, and continuing to chromium, berillium, perchlorate, benzene, plastics chemicals, and various other environmental and occupational health hazards.
The book is a must-read for anyone who cares about the best application of science in the interests of promoting public health. For a great review, readers can go to the article by Newsweek's Sharon Begley, “Whitewashing Toxic Chemicals.”
One stunning quote from the book describes the tricks of the trade that industry lobby and product defense firms use to derail the regulatory process:
They profit by helping corporations minimize public health and environmental protection and fight claims of injury and illness. In field after field, year after year, this same handful of individuals and companies comes up again and again… They have on their payrolls (or can bring in on a moment’s notice) toxicologists, epidemiologists, biostatisticians, risk assessors, and any other professionally trained, media-savvy experts deemed necessary. They and the larger, wealthier industries for which they work go through the motions we expect of the scientific enterprise, salting the literature with their questionable reports and studies. Nevertheless, it is all a charade. The work has one overriding motivation: advocacy for the sponsor’s position in civil court, the court of public opinion, and the regulatory arena [where these studies benefit their sponsors] not because they are good work that the regulatory agencies have to take seriously but because they clog the machinery and slow down the process. Public health interests are beside the point. Follow the science wherever it leads? Not quite. This is science for hire, period, and it is extremely lucrative.
Only by discovering the facts behind the scene and by bringing to light the true motivation of profit-driven public relations campaigns can we promote and defend the health of the environment and the safety of consumer products. For a veteran in the subject who may have participated in some of the struggles described in Defending Science, or for a new member of the environmental and occupational health community, this book is a great introduction to the state of the field – and the battles ahead that still need to be fought.
May 8, 2008
Oil companies settle MTBE lawsuit
In the 1990's, when the Clean Air Act mandated that gasoline burn more cleanly, the oil industry's answer was methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). It quickly became clear that the chemical contaminated groundwater -- even just a little bit makes water undrinkable. Of course, the fact that you can taste it may be a blessing in disguise if it keeps you from drinking it. MTBE has been shown to cause cancer in lab studies.
Anyway, flash forward to the present day: many of the world's major oil companies have settled a lawsuit brought by 153 public water utilities. In settling, companies like BP, Citgo and Sunoco agreed to pay $423 million in damages. They also agreed to cough up 70 percent of future cleanup costs those water utilities incur because of MTBE contamination.
MTBE was phased out entirely (and voluntarily) in 2005, but not before 23 states had the chance to ban the failed chemical. It has been replaced as a fuel additive by ethanol. Six major companies, including Exxon-Mobil, refused the settlement.
Deals like this always make me uncomfortable. After all, if the oil companies were willing to shell out $423 million without being told to by a judge, how much more did they expect to lose if they went to court?
In March of 2007, EWG created a state-by-state breakdown of MTBE contamination reports.
Photo by Olivier Jules.
May 7, 2008
EnviroLinks: Firm but polite
In an excellent example of how to make a point respectfully, Beth has penned a letter to a retreat center she spent last weekend at. It reads "Hey, love you guys -- no, seriously, totally love you -- so let's work together to ditch the nasty chemicals, and then you'll be even more awesome!" (I may have paraphrased a bit there.) If you've ever wanted to give your favorite coffee shop some eco-advice, let this letter be your template.
Allie's running a series on greening your wedding plans, which I am filing neatly away in the back of my head for future use (not any time soon, Mom, don't worry).
Congrats are in order for Katy, who reports that legislation limiting lead, phthalates, and mercury have passed the Vermont legislature! Katy, your hard work has been rewarded -- and the entire state of Vermont will benefit.
When was the last time you thought about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? Mark takes an in-depth look at the problem with plastic trash, and what we could do to solve it.