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]
You know you're an inaction plan. . .
Aussie study finds phthalates in jar lids
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
June 30, 2008
Spray? We never wanted to spray!
In April, I told you about how citizen protests had forced the state to rethink its plans to spray an artificial pheremone over urban Northern California to eradicate a pest called the light brown apple moth. Now, upon further deliberation, the state has decided it won't spray after all, but will do what anti-spray forces had called for all along: Release sterile light brown apple moths, let nature take its course and the pests will die out.
It's a great victory for public health, common sense and people power. What's annoying is the state's refusal to admit that the will of the people was what forced its hand. After the decision not to spray was announced, the state's secretary of agriculture, A.G. Kawamura, wrote an op-ed (which the Chronicle dutifully printed) in which he tried to claim that was his department's idea all along:
In early 2007, we sought the advice of an international panel of scientists who are apple moth experts, and they advised us to begin emergency eradication efforts using the pheromone treatments - but they also advised a substantial investment in adapting the sterile insect technique for use against this pest.This technique eradicates an infestation by releasing large quantities of sterilized, infertile insects so that the wild population cannot reproduce. It has been successful for more than 30 years in California and around the globe against a variety of insects; indeed, it was the alternative that ended California's use of aerial Malathion treatments against the Mediterranean fruit fly.
Raising a captive insect colony and adapting the technique to the new pest are technically and biologically complex tasks, so we were advised that this work could take several years to bear fruit. Fortunately, our scientists have surprised us with a breakthrough - we now plan to begin releasing the sterile moths in early 2009.
Wait a minute, Mr. Secretary. Did you say that this safe, non-toxic method was previously used successfully against the notorious Medfly? And it worked? So why didn't you try that first this time?
No matter, says Cameron Scott of The Thin Green Line. It's a victory for the precautionary principle -- the no-brainer idea that if you don't know something is safe, don't expose people to it.
. . . [T}he change represents the victory of a "presumed dangerous until proven safe" approach to chemicals over the United States' standard "presumed safe until proven dangerous" approach. As Mark Schapiro's book, Exposed, reveals, European countries have long adopted the approach California citizens backed by demanding more proof that the pesticide caused neither immediate nor long-term damage to humans. Europe, for reasons likely including this legal bias, has better health outcomes than the United States.
Cameron Scott (and Mark Schapiro) are right to contrast U.S. policy, which allows industrial chemicals on the market without proof of safety, with the more precautionary approach of Europe. But there's a movement building in the U.S. for an even father-reaching revolution in chemical regulation. It's called the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act, and you can learn more about it here.
June 27, 2008
Little yellow flags? Not in Connecticut
You know that old folk song about little boxes on the hillside? If it were written now, songwriter Melvina Reynolds would likely have added a verse about little yellow flags on the lawns.
Those little pesticide flags are ubiquitous -- in fact, there are some right outside my apartment building, which has only a narrow strip of grass for a "lawn." But this year, Connecticut has taken a step away from the flags and the pesticides they signify. The state will not be applying pesticides, herbicides or fungicides to the grounds of elementary or middle schools.
Connecticut's lawn care industry is not pleased. The implication is that this move by the state may signal a turning of the tide against lawn-care chemicals, although one lawn care professional told Mother Jones expressly that he's not worried. He says that rather than banning pesticides outright, schools should use Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which employs pesticides as a very last resort. I could get behind that, as long as certain chemicals -- like, you know, the one that's made of 50% Agent Orange -- were prohibited.
June 26, 2008
Mattel lobbies to regulate itself
If I had a daughter, she would not be playing with Barbies. Besides the fact that I would want her to have different ideas of womanhood than Barbie present, I would be a afraid for her health!
Barbie, American Girl, Batman, Diva Starz, Jack-in-the-box, the Lion King, Dora the Explorer, Sesame Street, Mulan and Simpsons, among other toys, are made by Mattel, the world's largest toy company. Mattel’s revenue is above $5 billion and their toys are sold all around the world.
Besides being sold all around the world, they are being recalled: so far, around 14 million toys have been moved off the store shelves because they contained lead paint.
An exclusive Chicago Tribune investigation reveals that because of Mattel’s lobbying efforts, some companies will be allowed to do their own in house testing for safety. According to the article:
Toymaker Mattel Inc. argued to lawmakers that it should be allowed to use its own labs to conduct these certification tests, which were supposed to be a hallmark of Congress' efforts to overhaul the nation's product-safety system. The House and Senate added provisions permitting companies with sophisticated labs to avoid the independent testing requirement by winning federal approval for their in-house testing facilities.Consumer advocates and some lawmakers worry that this creates a conflict of interest and could compromise safety.
"Companies that are going to do testing, obviously they have a vested interest in the outcome of the test," said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who tried unsuccessfully to amend the Senate bill to mandate that only independent labs be used. "From the standpoint of a consumer, there's much more credibility to independent testing."
The toy industry is not the only one with that lacks health protective regulations. What we need is a better system of protections mandated by the federal government. Until that happens, Mattel and similar companies will continue to receive international “awards” such as the International Bad Product Award. And you, the parent, just need to add “watch out for toxic chemicals” to your parenting to do list. A good resource to start is www.parents.com.
Photo: Hacker Barbie by Nic221.
June 25, 2008
You know you're an inaction plan. . .
In honor of EPA's June 2008 "Action Plan," three members of the Mississippi River Water Quality Collaborative* explain why the EPA report amounts to an “Inaction Plan” and will have little effect on reducing the oxygen-starved Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
You know you're an inaction plan if:
1. You ignore the science. According to the US Geological Society, pollution from agricultural fields in just nine states – specifically fertilizer and manure run-off from corn and soybean crops - is the leading cause of the Dead Zone in the Mississippi River Basin and the Gulf of Mexico.EPA barely mentions this earth-shaking scientific finding in its report. Instead, EPA could have made this finding the central focus of a real Action Plan by committing to clean-up these highest priority locations first.
2. You recognize the current approach has failed but you fail to change your approach.
“EPA Task Force members do acknowledge that the current voluntary, cost-share approach to solving farm pollution is failing, yet the Task Force fails to change it’s approach. The Task Force should have adopted minimum environmental performance standards for agriculture in the nine critical Basin states and should have committed to targeting farm conservation funds to the highest priority locations and the practices that achieve the most cost-effective nutrient reductions.”
-Susan Heathcote, Water Program Director for the Iowa Environmental Council.
3. You fail to set meaningful goals.
“Most of the 11 “action steps” in this report do not have due dates and none of them have either nitrogen and phosphorus loading reduction goals or ‘Dead Zone’ size reduction goals. If there are no real goals or due dates, how will progress towards successful actions be measured?”
-Matt Rota, Water Resources Program Director for the Gulf Restoration Network
The EPA Task Force ignores it’s own Science Advisory Board’s recommendation that they adopt a 40-percent nutrient reduction goal for the Basin. This policy is a critical first step to ensuring the Task Force can achieve the goal of reducing the size of the Dead Zone to 5,000 square kilometers. Instead, the Task Force suggests that the states finalize separate and uncoordinated nutrient reduction strategies by the time the next Task Force convenes – in 2013.
4. You fail to act like a leader.
“We can mitigate this environmental disaster, but the EPA’s ‘inaction plan’ ensures that we continue to muddle along for yet another five years, which is completely unacceptable.”
-Matt Rota, Water Resources Program Director for the Gulf Restoration Network
Without a real plan that set goals and mandates action to achieve comprehensive pollution reduction across the Basin, irreversible damage to the ecosystem will be the legacy of the EPA in the Gulf. Only with a targeted action plan can the public ensure that their taxpayer subsidies for ethanol production are not causing environmental disasters and their subsidies for farm conservation practices are achieving the greatest nutrient reductions for the buck.
*The Mississippi River Water Quality Collaborative is comprised of environmental organizations from states bordering the Mississippi River as well as regional and national groups that work on Mississippi River issues. The purpose of the Collaborative is to harness the resources and expertise of diverse organizations to reduce all types of pollution entering the river. EWG Senior Analyst Michelle Perez works with the collaborative and is the author of this post.
June 24, 2008
Aussie study finds phthalates in jar lids
Sometimes it's hard to write about this stuff. Here I am, day and and day out, telling you that food packaged in glass containers is a better alternative to canned food -- and it is. But the results from recent tests by an Australian non-profit suggest that even jars pose potential risks.
It's not the jars themselves, actually, but the metal lids. They're lined with a resinous material that consumer watchdog organization Choice says leaches phthalates into 'runny' foods, especially those with high fat content. They only tested 25 foods, but half of those contained levels of three different phthalates above the EU's permitted levels.
Choice has chosen not to release the specific list of products they tested, but they have suggested guidelines. Avoid food in jars that might slosh against the lid if the food contains more than 4% fat (or 4 grams of fat per 100 grams of food). You can get details about the testing on their website. No word on whether they tested for BPA or not.
What's frustrating is how easy it is to spin this into a consumer issue. Just avoid A, B and C and you'll be fine! But we're hearing that so often these days that soon we'll be avoiding the whole alphabet. Which is why, no matter which way we spin it, this is ultimately an issue for government and industry: we need chemical safety standards. The sooner the better.
Photo by How Can I Recycle This?, an awesome UK-based recycling blog.
PS, some of you are probably wondering about mason jars. Clearly the lids were lined with something, but the Aussie group doesn't seem to have tested them. Remember that if you're canning things at home, you have more control over how much sloshing goes on.
June 23, 2008
China's great greenwashing
Here, we call them cancer clusters. Their existence is practically denied much of the time, and when it is acknowledged the polluting industries in the neighborhood often deny any culpability.
They can get away with that, because in most cases the industry has been in town for a good long time, so it's harder to trace the direct causality. That's not the case in Hou Wang Ge Zhung: Since a chemical factory was built in the area just five years ago, 25 of the villagers have been diagnosed with cancer. Nineteen of them have died.
Hou Wang Ge Zhung is one of China's cancer villages. It's not far from Beijing, but politically the city is doing everything it can to distance itself from these small, cancer-riddled towns. The villagers have been told that their legal complaint will have to wait until after the Beijing Olympics, because government officials don't want anything to mar the city's new "green" appearance.
So basically, even though the government went to great lengths to put environmental laws and regulations in place, they won't be enforced at all for the next 8 weeks . . . because that might look bad. That's pretty much the grandest greenwashing scheme I've ever heard of.
Photo by Dip.
June 20, 2008
Our poorly managed plastic system
The U.S. government should require labeling and warning systems for products containing bisphenol A (BPA) and the phthalate DEHP, according to researchers at the nonprofit Environment and Human Health inc. (EHHI).
EHHI points out that production of BPA and DEHP (used in the production of PVC plastic) has increased since the '90s, and so has our scientific understanding of endocrine disruption. Meanwhile, our systems for recycling polycarbonate and PVC plastic haven't gotten any better. We've got enough data to demonstrate the negative health effects, so why isn't the government doing anything about it?
Amongst EHHI's recommendations are a ban on BPA and DEHP in products intended for children 3 and under (note: this recommendation wouldn't address canned food. EWG supports an outright ban on BPA). They also recommend creating a meaningful code and labeling system for all plastics. The recycling code wasn't meant to tell consumers what ingredients are in their plastic, but that's exactly the kind of system we need. In addition, EHHI argues, the government should warn pregnant women or women who may become pregnant to avoid exposure to BPA and DEHP. Of course, since we're all supposed to think of ourselves as pre-pregnant, that would require women to avoid DEHP and BPA for their entire productive lives. Cut out half of the users of these plastics, and you may as well cut out the plastics altogether.
Photo by ~David.
June 19, 2008
Relaxing the relaxed standards?
The relationship between government and the cosmetics industry has been a cozy one for many years. The multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry has always been a self-regulating one, and in fact, FDA cannot require companies to test their cosmetic products for safety. In addition, the cosmetics industry can use almost any raw material as a cosmetic ingredient.
But not only is the government not regulating the industry, they are having closed door meetings with them, where they can discuss regulations! You know, the meetings where government treats the industry like a partner, not the body that should be regulated. One of them is happening in few days, and the public is not allowed in.
According to the FDA’s web site, the purpose of the meeting is
“To pave the way for the removal of regulatory obstacles to international trade while maintaining the highest level of global consumer protection.”
Really? What regulatory obstacles? The law is so lax that there is nothing left to remove from it!
For example, our past analysis of ingredients in more than 23,000 products, discovered that nearly 1 of every 30 products sold in the U.S. fails to meet 1 or more industry or governmental cosmetics safety standards. We also found nearly 400 products sold in the U.S. containing chemicals that are prohibited for use in cosmetics in other countries, and over 400 products contain ingredients the U.S. cosmetic industry’s own safety panel has determined to be unsafe when used as directed. Now, what is there to remove from those “regulatory obstacles?”
The FDA is holding a public meeting before that meeting with the industry, and of course, EWG is delivering remarks. Check our web site for more details this afternoon.
June 18, 2008
Bad weather is bad news for food and fuel
Two months ago, EWG Founder Ken Cook quipped that the Bush administration's food policy amounted to "hope for good weather."
By then, EWG analysts were already hard at work on a report examining the possible affects of a particularly wet or dry growing season (or an early freeze) on the nation's supply of corn. USDA had already acknowledged that farmers would plant 8 percent fewer acres of corn this season, and with 30 percent of corn expected to go into our gas tanks this year, the balance of food and fuel grew even more precarious.
In a conversation with EWG, former USDA Chief Economist Keith Collins said point blank, "There is no cushion if we have a weather-reduced crop.” Increased demand combined with bad weather and the rising cost of fuel and fertilizer has already driven up the cost of corn -- 2007's average price was $3 per bushel, and on June 10th, following USDA's weekly progress report, the price soared to a record $6.73 per bushel.
When we began work on this report, it was an analysis of what could happen. Things are, unfortunately, a little different now; USDA is predicting a yield decrease of more than 10 percent, and on May 29th one climatologist said "it will take nearly perfect weather this point forward to recover.” The disastrous flooding in the corn belt hardly qualifies as perfect weather.
So here we've got a federal policy that orders food to be converted to fuel without any kind of cushion for bad weather, and we've got -- well, bad weather. Time for a new ethanol policy? Y'think? I'll let EWG analyst Michelle Perez sum it up for you:
U.S policy to promote the production of food crop-based biofuels is both short-sighted and dangerous. High corn prices will limit the contribution corn-based ethanol can make to our energy supplies, unless taxpayers are asked for more and more subsidies and credits to support the industry. The more corn diverted into fuel production in hopes of solving our energy problems, the greater the risk imposed on hungry people. The whole world, from average Americans to the poorest billion people on the planet, cannot rely on America’s food-to-fuel gamble. We need to step back from our current policies and chart a new course to a more sustainable biofuels policy.
June 17, 2008
Mixed Greens 012: Kid-Safe
How do we know when chemicals are safe enough? When they're safe for kids. This edition of Mixed Greens takes a look at the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act. Plus, the latest from EWG's research team.
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 edition:
- Kid-Safe Chemicals Act
- EWG's Kid-Safe factsheet [PDF]
- How Green is DuPont's Replacement for Teflon?
- Colorado's Chemical Injection
All the news that's fit to print
Okay, there were just too many interesting stories today. I couldn't pick one. Here are a handful, round-up style.
In the Midwest, raw sewage, animal manure, fuel and agricultural chemicals are flowing downstream from downed sewage plants, chemical tanks, and busted manure pits at feedlots. The contaminated floodwaters present a serious environmental disaster.
With the production of their new FCX Clarity, Honda is the first company to produce a hydrogen fuel-cell car -- ridiculously expensive right now, of course, and the extent of the benefits remain to be seen, but still an exciting step!
State health officials in Minnesota have advised neighbors of a feedlot operation to evacuate. Apparently the smell (that is, the chemical fumes) had gotten so bad that they're now a health concern. That's the idyllic countryside for you.
The Wall Street Journal reports on a series of advertisements from oil giants, making them look like innovators in green technology. At least, with the amount of money they're charging for fuel, people are starting to think about conserving. [$ub. only, sorry.]
And finally, lobstermen in Rhode Island are asking local towns to stop using a mosquito-killing chemical that is dumped in huge quantities down storm drains. They believe it's also killing off the lobster. Not a huge surprise, since lobsters look like giant bugs, but seriously? Someone thought it was a good idea to dump a toxic chemical down the storm drains on purpose?
All that news and more: Environmental Health News.
June 16, 2008
Rent a farm – in another country
Some countries are finding an alternative solution for the lack of farms to fulfill their agricultural needs: they are renting the land from other countries!
The new idea has many benefits. It helps the country in need of food and it also helps the “host” country that often lacks resources for their own land production, as well as the infrastructure.
Persian Gulf countries are the main users of this rent-a-farm system. Many of them are very oil rich and can afford this arrangement. According to the recent U.S. News and World Report article:
"Many of the richest countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, are handicapped by a dry, unforgiving climate and a shortage of farmland; thus they must import more than 60 percent of their annual food supply. Existing water stores are expected to be exhausted in 30 years, and yet, food demand is growing. Population growth in the region is more than double the world average, the prices of some staples are up more than 30 percent this year, and civil unrest is mounting.”
Gulf states are not alone in these pursuits, and have been joined by some Asian countries, as well as individual farmers from the United States and Australia.
Since farmland is disappearing globally due to things like urbanization, population growth and development, this trend will continue. One can only hope that the agreements will continue to be beneficial for both parties involved, and that all countries will have an equal chance to participate, while they maintain their sovereignty.
June 13, 2008
Confirmed: New shower curtain smell is gross
It may not be news to regular Enviroblog readers, but it's official: new shower curtain smell is caused by toxic chemicals.
A study commissioned by the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice looked at the chemical composition of PVC shower curtains bought at a variety of retailers (from Sears to Bed Bath & Beyond). They found, unsurprisingly, that shower curtains contain high levels of phthalates. They also found high level of organotins, and the single shower curtain tested for off-gassing released 108 different volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Which kinds of VOCs? Not that there's any such thing as a good VOC, but these are some particularly nasty ones. In fact, seven of them are considered hazardous air pollutants by the EPA. All kinds of fun possible health effects too, from asthma attacks to liver toxicity.
But there is good news. Many retailers are offering a greater selection of PVC-free shower curtains, made of other types of plastic or fabrics. Sears (which owns Kmart) and Target both told reporter Tami Abdollah that their companies were phasing out PVC shower curtains altogether.
What's troubling is that it takes health and environmental advocates to get clearly hazardous products off the shelves. Our toxic chemical regulatory system leaves consumers to fend for themselves, without even giving them the information they need to make decisions. Have I mentioned the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act? Yes? Just making sure.
Photo by Michael L.
June 12, 2008
House bill would ban BPA in food, beverage packaging
It seems like everyone and their mother knows about the risks associated with bisphenol A in baby bottles and hard plastic water bottles. Okay, so maybe they don't know the specifics. Recently, while trying to explain what I do to a new acquaintance, I got a blank look until I said "that chemical in water bottles" -- then the lightbulb went off. "Oh, the Nalgene thing! Yeah, I tossed mine and got a metal one."
Anyway, all the media attention to plastic reusable drink containers has been a little perplexing for those of us at Enviroblog HQ. It's not that the risk of BPA in baby bottles is negligible, but it's minor compared to the potential exposure from canned infant formula. Like all other food cans, formula cans are lined with a BPA-based epoxy resin that leaches into formula, under normal use, at considerably higher levels than BPA from baby bottles. And what's really important is the combined dosage, day in and day out as infants develop.
But a new bill, brought to the House yesterday by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), would ban BPA from food and drink containers, including canned infant formula. The ban would affect all canned foods, including prepared foods like soup and pasta which EWG tests found to contain some of the highest levels of BPA. FDA estimates that 17 percent of the US diet is comprised of canned food.
A bill addressing BPA in the Senate would ban the chemical from children's products -- another important step, considering potential exposures from toys, pacifiers and teething instruments that young children put in their mouths. The Senate bill, however, doesn't address food and drink containers. Since many babies are fed canned vegetables starting from 6 months to a year of age, it hardly makes sense to address one and not the other.
Of course, given that there are literally no safety standards for BPA, any legislation at all regulating its use is a significant step forward.
Related: Cheatsheet: Bisphenol A
Photo by Youkeo.
June 11, 2008
Chemical injections in Colorado
What does the phrase 'chemical injections' make you think of?
Vaccines? Maybe Botox?
Oil and gas mining probably doesn't spring to mind when you hear talk of chemical injections -- but maybe it should. In Colorado alone, at least 430 million gallons of fluids have been injected into just 9,000 of the state's 35,000 oil and gas wells, and the toxic chemicals being injected are essentially unregulated.
See, all that Texas Colorado tea isn't easy to get out of the ground. Once the wells are drilled, the industry uses a host of different chemicals to eat through rock and increase production. The process, called hydraulic fracturing, isn't regulated by any state or federal law -- and that means companies can use more or less whatever chemicals they want, and they don't even have to report it.
That's convenient for them, since hydraulic fracturing often involves toxic chemicals linked to neurological and immune disorders and cancer, among other things. EWG and The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) analyzed industry data and found that at least 65 of the chemicals used are regulated by 6 different US laws. When other industries use or emit those chemicals, they've got to report it to the EPA, comply with pollution permits, and follow specific cleanup standards.
Not so for the oil and gas industry. Even though the chemicals they inject may leach into water and soil, they don't have to report to the EPA at all; not about the 65 chemicals that us law regulates, or the more than 150 other chemicals they use. According to EWG analyst Dusty Horwitt,
Despite a record number of wells approved in Colorado -- more than 6,300 in 2007 versus just 2,900 in 2004 -- state and federal officials and the public have almost no idea how any of these industry chemicals are used, whether or not their use threatens water supplies, pollutes the local air, or presents a risk to public safety.
Colorado's lawmakers are in the process of rewriting the state's drilling standards, so those who call the centennial state home may want to make a phone call to their representative and urge them to support mandatory comprehensive reporting and public disclosure of all the chemicals the oil and gas industry uses.
June 10, 2008
Teflon's replacement: Still toxic?
Can the removal of two little carbon atoms turn a toxic chemical into one that's safe for use every day, in virtually every home and fast food joint in the country?
That's what industry would like you to believe. They've agreed to phase out PFOA -- sometimes called C8 for its 8 carbon atoms -- by 2015. Apparently they're taking the tortoise approach, but it's still an important step, since PFOA is persistent in the environment and associated with a host of ill health effects.
But their proposed replacement chemical, PFHxA, can also be called C6 for its 6 carbon atoms. An industry representative, speaking to the Health Committee of the California State Senate, called PFHxA "green chemistry" and described "effective C6 based compounds whose breakdown products are much, much less toxic and don’t have the same persistence issues that PFOA and some of the C8s have." In virtually the same breath, he denied that PFOA has any health effects. These industry guys sure don't make it easy to trust them.
Is C6 really any safer? In a new report, EWG analysts Olga V. Naidenko and Renee Sharp say that there's no evidence it is. C6 and C8 are both perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), which are notoriously persistent in the environment. C6 may be as much as 5 times more toxic to marine life. On top of that, EWG's cord blood tests show that C6 makes it past the placenta to contaminate babies before they're even born.
But what's most troubling about industry's rush to replace PFOA/C8 with the remarkably similar PFHxA/C6 is the absolute dearth of information about the potential health effects of C6. The chemical industry is trying to replace one toxic chemical with another that may be just as toxic -- and calling it green chemistry. Write Naidenko and Sharp, "PFOA is so remarkably persistent in the environment and broadly toxic to living organisms that using it as a bar against which to judge "green chemistry" is like calling anything under 200 miles per hour a safe speed limit."
What you should know:
- There are ways to avoid PFOA, PFHxA and other PFCs.
- A bill being considered in California would ban C8 and C6 in food packaging.
- According to an EWG analysis, industry's voluntary phaseout of C8 isn't working.
- Despite loads of evidence to the contrary, DuPont's reps continue to claim that C8 has no effect on human health.
Photo by Aim and Shoot.
June 9, 2008
A little bird told me...
tweet tweet tweet
That sound you hear is Enviroblog joining in the chorus over at Twitter. You can use Twitter or your tool of choice to follow us -- or you can keep tabs via the widget in the far left sidebar. Don't you just love technology?
Greening your small business
Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle has a great in-depth report on small businesses going green. Even a mom-and-pop operation with only a few employees can do big things by recycling, using or selling only sustainable goods, cutting energy and water use, and in many other ways, writes my friend and former colleague Ilana DeBare. Here's Ilana's 10 tips:
1. Consider your biggest impacts. Does your business devour paper? Guzzle gas? Use toxic products? Focus on areas where you will have the most effect.2. Change the lights. Replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents, or older T-12 fluorescents with energy-efficient T-5 or T-8 fixtures.
3. Recycle. In addition to providing bins to recycle business materials, allow employees to bring in batteries and compact fluorescents from home for recycling.
4. Minimize driving. Provide incentives for employees to carpool, bike, take transit or telecommute. Letting people work from home even one day a week can help.
5. Buy paper with recycled content - at least 30 percent and ideally 100 percent post-consumer content. Bay Area office supply stores like www.waldecks.com or www.thegreenoffice.com specialize in green products, but even big chains like Office Depot now carry high-quality recycled paper. For more information on environmentally friendly paper choices, see www.conservatree.org.
6. Look for the federal government's Energy Star label when buying office equipment. For computers and monitors, there's also a new program called EPEAT that gives bronze, silver and gold rankings to equipment that meets a variety of environmental criteria. See www.epeat.net for a list of approved models.
7. Turn off lights and computers at night. Make sure the power management settings are activated on your computers, allowing them to enter "sleep" mode when not in use.
8. Switch to less-toxic cleaning products. The federal government has information on green commercial cleaning products at www.ofee.gov/gp/greenjanitorial.html.
9. Cut waste. Buy supplies in bulk rather than small packages; minimize printing and mailing; eliminate nonrecyclable packaging.
10. Patronize other environmentally conscious businesses. You can find a list of Bay Area certified green businesses at www.greenbiz.ca.gov.
June 6, 2008
Food irradiation: Grosser than you think.
I really didn't know much about food irradiation when I slid into a booth yesterday, ordered an iced tea, and prepared to hear Food and Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter discuss her new book: Zapped: Irradiation and the Death of Food. I knew it involved putting food through something like a giant x-ray machine to kill bacteria, and I knew I didn't want to eat it. That's about it.
Boy, was I in for it.
The quest for food irradiation began after WWII, when it was seen as a way to ensure a food supply for soldiers. Over the years it has received varying levels of support from the government, until the Reagan administration realized it had a little toxic nuclear waste problem. By promoting food irradiation, they could turn that problem into an asset -- the nuclear waste could be used in the irradiation process. Sounds tasty, right?
It gets even yuckier. Irradiated food may last longer than other food, but it also loses vitamins faster. That irradiated mango might still look fresh, but you're only getting a fraction of the nutritional value. Plus, when it comes to meat, irradiation can be used to justify abhorrent factory conditions.Cows coming in from the CAFO covered in dung? No problem! We'll just zap the meat! Of course, when they do zap the meat, it looks brownish-green and smells and tastes like burnt hair. Irradiation also adds processing time, travel, and cost, and in animal tests it's been linked with cancer, stillbirths, genetic mutations and premature death.
So what you get with irradiation is weird-looking, off-tasting food, with fewer nutrients and a larger environmental impact, that costs significantly more than fresh food. Oh, and it might kill you. What a deal!
Although several products are approved for irradiation in the United States, commercial irradiation has never really taken hold (and very few irradiated products are on supermarket shelves today). Consumers are skeptical, and required labeling (with that symbol up at the top there) means that we've consistently avoided irradiated options. Unfortunately, the E. coli outbreaks from California spinach have renewed government and industry interest in irradiation -- apparently it's easier than asking producers to clean up their acts -- and the FDA is also considering allowing irradiation for processed foods, which make up the bulk of many American's diets.
Unfortunately, they're also considering weakening the labeling requirements for irradiated food. Some processed foods would only be labeled 'pasteurized,' and other irradiated foods wouldn't have to be labeled at all. Clearly FDA thinks we're too dull to make our own decisions about irradiated food, so they've got to slip it in under the radar. Thanks, FDA.
For more info on food irradiation and what you can do to keep it clearly labeled, visit www.zappedfood.org.
June 5, 2008
Pet shampoo ingredient linked to autism
The cause of autism spectrum disorder is one big mystery. Lots of people have ideas as to what might cause it, but nothing is certain. That makes treating the disorder more difficult, and preventing it impossible. Many scientists agree that ASD is likely caused by a complex combination of genetics and environmental exposures.
New research demonstrates that one possible environmental factor is insecticides. In one study, mothers of children with ASD were twice as likely to have used pet shampoos containing pyrethrins, a class of insecticides commonly included in mainstream pet grooming products to kill fleas and ticks. Another study suggests that exposure during pregnancy to orgranophosphate insecticides, which have a plethora of common household and agricultural uses, may double the risk of ASD and other developmental disorders.
Why insecticides? Well, for starters, they're chemicals designed to affect the nervous system. In bugs, they result in death, but it's possible that they may be having more subtle effects on developing human nervous systems. In animal studies, pyrethrins were associated with damage to the neurons and the transmission of neural signals. Yes, this is the same stuff we put on our precious furbabies. It's possible that in-utero exposure to insecticides and other environmental toxics may activate the genes associated with autism.
So does this mean you should run and get rid of all your conventional pet shampoo right this very second? It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to switch to a natural pet care product or baby shampoo (one that scores well in Skin Deep). But this issue is larger than you and I and pet shampoo. We shouldn't find out decades down the road that chemicals we use in our everyday lives may be harmful to us, our pets, or certainly our unborn children. Something must be done on a grander scale -- and that something is the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act
Photo by Daniel Montesinos..
June 4, 2008
Print greener with Green Print
Taking action to protect the planet is often looked at as a trade-off. If it's better for the environment, it probably requires extra time, effort, or money, right?
Not this time. Green Print is a software program that saves on paper when you print a document or web page -- and that saves money and trees.
We all love the idea of a paperless office, but let's face it: some things will be printed. How many times have you printed an email, only to have the last page be nothing but the sender's signature? Or printed a recipe and ended up with an extra page with the site's banner ad and logo? Even if you re-use the blank side (which many don't, unfortunately), you've still wasted a half a sheet of paper! I'll 'fess up --I always feel guilty when that happens.
Green Print scans the web page to be printed and identifies those wasted pages so that they never make it to the printer. It also allows you to choose which pages you want to print, and the software's print-to-PDF system preserves the formatting of the web page to be printed. Plus, the software tracks the number of trees, and the amount of money that you've saved.
Green Print World is the perfect solution for individual users and (wait for it . . . ) IT'S FREE! There's also a business-solution version of the software. Right now Green Print is PC-only, but a Mac version is expected to drop later this summer -- and when it does, you can bet that EWG will be using it!
June 3, 2008
Mixed Greens 011: Unpretty
When the US Centers for Disease Control found unusually high levels of phthalates in women eight years ago, no one had any idea how ugly the beauty industry really was. In this edition of Mixed Greens, we speak with Stacy Malkan, whose book Not Just a Pretty Face recounts the formative years of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics -- and the unpretty truths they uncovered.
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 edition:
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
Not Just a Pretty Face
Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database
Lead: Bad for brains, bad for society
A new, first-of-its-kind study demonstrates a direct correlation between elevated blood-lead levels and arrests for violent crime. The study looked at blood-lead levels for 250 people from before birth through their seventh year. That data was collected between 1979 and 1991, and recently researchers looked at the criminal arrest records for the same subjects.
The results were clear as day. Higher blood lead levels at any point in childhood were an accurate predictor of arrests for violent crime later in life.
Wait a second. Haven't we seen that before?
The conclusion's basically the same, but the methodology sets this study apart. Previous studies have been criticized for for their indirect measures -- like the one that pointed to a correlation between the ban on leaded gasoline and a worldwide drop in crime rates, or studies that have found elevated blood-lead levels in people who've been arrested. Those studies have presented strong data, but some naysayers have argued that they don't hold water.
Those naysayers will have a harder time denying the connection between lead exposure and violent criminal activity now. The new study produced specific numbers:
The researchers found, for example, that every 5-microgram-per-deciliter increase in blood lead levels at age 6 was accompanied by a 50% increase in the incidence of violent crime later in life.
On top of that, another set of researchers looked at the brain-weight of a sample of subjects from the original study. They found an inverse correlation between blood-lead levels and brain weight -- that is, people with more lead in their systems during childhood also had the smallest brains. The areas of the brain that were most impacted? Those regulating "decision making, impulse control, attention, error detection, task completion and reward-based decision making." Seriously. Could the evidence be any more compelling?