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. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
GAO Flunks Some States on Tap Water Quality Monitoring
GAO Knocks EPA Tap Water Monitoring
Reusing Your Gray Water: State Laws Vary for Homeowners
GAO to EPA: Improve Implementation of Safe Drinking Water Act
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Toxins in our Kids' Foods: Where is the FDA?
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Fluoride in Your Water: How much is too much?
Borax: Not the Green Alternative It's Cracked Up to Be
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« A little bird told me... | Main | Chemical injections in Colorado »
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.