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
Toxic cosmetics in teenage girls
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.
Monthly Archive
Gambling with lethal cargo
Sandra Schubert is the Environmental Working Group's Director of Government Affairs
There were 1,203 train accidents in the first six months of 2008, and 13 of them resulted in the release of hazardous materials.
Yet when the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation met last week to hear testimony about the safety and security of spent nuclear fuel, witnesses from the U.S. Energy and Transportation departments expressed no fear that transportation mishaps might result in the release of radioactivity into neighborhoods.
There’s no dispute about the fact that if the federal government proceeds with its plan to bury nuclear power plant wastes at the proposed Yucca Mountain dump in Nevada, thousands of tons of extremely hazardous nuclear wastes will be shipped through American communities.
But DOE and DOT witnesses never mentioned that this dangerous cargo will pass within miles of thousands of neighborhoods, schools and hospitals as it winds its way along our aged railroad tracks and choked highways. Nor did they mention the number of deaths that would occur from even a moderate accident. They also ignored the dozens of nuclear waste accidents that have already occurred. Fortunately, as far as we know, those incidents occurred without disaster. But next time, with an estimated 27 times more waste being hauled around the countryside, we may not be so lucky.
And, of course, they never mentioned people's right to know the implications of transporting this waste in sight of their homes and the places where their children study and play.
It was the Environmental Working Group that raised that issue. We gave the committee maps of the DOE’s planned nuclear waste transportation routes through communities. Plus our estimates of the risks of accidents. Plus our calculations of the volumes of waste being produced today by nuclear power plants and projections of future production. Plus detailed data on nuclear waste shipping accidents.
All this data has led us to conclude that the Yucca Mountain depository and the government's plan to ship radioactive waste around the country should not go forward.
During the hearing, I introduced a statement in which EWG President Ken Cook described some of the risks to people living in Texas, a major transit route for radioactive waste being transported to Yucca Mountain.
An EWG analysis of little-known DOE documents shows that planned routes for shipping radioactive waste across Texas lie within a mile of 599 schools, 76 hospitals and the homes of 2,336,290 people. If a train loaded with casks of radioactive cesium crashed while transiting Houston, according to Cook, even if the casks remained largely intact, enough radioactivity would escape from small cracks to expose tens of thousands of people to dangerous levels of radiation.
“In less than 10 minutes, contamination plumes ranging from 300 to 750 chest x-rays would extend up to 1 mile from the wreck,” Cook said. “Closer in, people would be exposed to the equivalent of thousands of chest x-rays in the first hour after the accident. Based on government data and models, we estimate that in Houston 525 people would ultimately suffer and die from latent cancers associated with this exposure. In addition, the economic costs would be enormous, with the cleanup costs alone estimated to range from $10 to $150 billion.”
As Ken Cook explained, it’s possible people who live in Texas and other states astride the train and truck transit routes for nuclear waste would support the Yucca Mountain plan despite these risks. On the other hand, maybe they’d decide that the odds of an accident producing unmanageable contamination are too great to be worth the gamble.
Either way, we at EWG want to make sure that people all across the country know the score -- not just the risks to Nevadans, where the waste would end up, but to every community and neighborhood through which the government wants to send thousands of tons of radioactive garbage.
Photo by ahockley
How green is Arnold? [UPDATED]
[UPDATE} Monday aternoon, Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill discussed below.
This year only one chemical ban bill made it through the California Legislature to Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk: Senate Bill 1313 by Sen. Ellen Corbett of San Leandro. The bill, sponsored by EWG, would make California the first state in the nation to ban the toxic chemicals PFOS and PFOA -- nonstick compounds also used in the manufacture of Teflon – from food packaging such as french fry bags and popcorn boxes.
We'll know the bill's fate today or tomorrow, the deadline for Schwarzenegger to sign or veto legislation for 2008. As of 6 p.m. Sunday, he had signed 163 bills and vetoed 225, with 341 remaining on his desk.
Public health advocates and professional Arnold-watchers are looking to the PFOA/PFOS ban as a test of the governor's green credentials. Over the past two years, Schwarzenegger has been hailed as an environmental hero for committing the state to an ambitious goal of reducing greenhouse gas reductions. But his green record doesn't yet include much in the way of action against specific toxic chemicals.
Instead, he's pushing the Green Chemistry Initiative encompassed by a package of bills including Assembly Bill 1879, by Assembly Member Mike Feuer of Los Angeles. The bill, which in its current form was actually written by the governor's office, sets out a process by which state agencies will review chemicals with health risks and phase out the worst ones in favor of safer alternatives. Sounds great, but the plan creates an almost insurmountable series of hurdles for chemicals under consideration, and gives the chemical industry a lead role in suggesting and developing alternatives. No wonder the industry supports it.
Many of EWG's strongest California allies support the bill, but we fear it will ask too much of already-overtaxed public health agencies. It's clear that the bill will become law, so we'll have to see if it's one step forward or two backward.
In the meantime, we're doing everything we can to tell the governor that SB 1313 doesn't undermine the Green Chemistry approach, but bolster it by declaring that when the evidence is strong that a chemical endangers public health, as is the case with PFOA/PFOS, the state won't wait for the bureaucratic process. Last week, we sent him the signatures of nearly 1,300 Californians urging him to sign the bill. And you can still do so here.
Heinz conference mobilizes women to fight environmental health threats
Jane Houlihan, the Environmental Working Group's vice president for research, and development associate Jocelyn Lyle joined more than 2,000 women at this week's Heinz Women's Health and the Environment Conference in Pittsburgh, sponsored by philanthropist Teresa Heinz, the Heinz Endowments and Magee-Women's Hospital.
Jocelyn's report:
There wasn't a stray Blackberry click when journalist Nancy Nichols took the podium. Nichols, of Waukegan, Ill., grew up on the shores of Lake Michigan, swimming in its waters, eating fresh-caught fish. Only, as she and her older sister Sue learned to their sorrow, the big lake was a deadly stew of industrial chemicals. Waukegan was surrounded by no less than three Superfund sites notorious for high levels of known and suspected carcinogens, including asbestos from a Johns Mansville insulation plant and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) from discharges of hydraulic fluids by Outboard Marine Corp.
In 1992, at the age of 41, Sue Nichols was diagnosed with a rare ovarian cancer. On her deathbed, she made Nancy swear she would investigate what was killing her. The result was Lake Effect: Two Sisters and a Town's Toxic Legacy, published last month by Island Press. The book, which Nancy Nichols summarized in her keynote address to the Heinz conference, is an eloquent indictment of decades of corporate carelessness, official inaction and American society's reflexive focus on searching for a cure instead of a cause.
Nancy Nichols employed her skills, keenly honed while writing for The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times Book Review, The Nation, and The Harvard Business Review, to interview hundreds of scientists, medical personnel and local residents and to dig through dusty records to document the devastating impact of years of industrial waste dumping. In 2003, she was diagnosed with a rare pancreatic cancer. She underwent chemotherapy and kept on digging. Today she's a vibrant speaker with a riveting story -- and a call to action that is impossible to forget.
Teresa Heinz launched the Women's Health and the Environment series of conferences in 1996 to "arm women with information about the relationship between the environment and their health." Nancy Nichols more than fulfilled that mission. As, I believe, did my colleague Jane Houlihan, who told the conference about EWG "body burden" tests that have identified 455 industrial chemicals in the blood and urine of Americans - including newborn babies.
I'm convinced that most of us left Pittsburgh inspired, energized and determined to keep asking questions, pushing for answers and bringing about change. If we keep it up, our legacy can be air that's safe to breathe, food and water that are safe to drink and lakes where kids can splash fearlessly on steamy summer days.
Consumers to FDA: Be there or be square
While the federal Food and Drug Administration dithers about whether to ban bisphenol A (BPA), a plastics chemical and synthetic estrogen, from U.S. food packaging, increasing numbers of Americans are voting with their pocketbooks.
The winners: entrepreneurs who paid attention to the early scientific reports documenting possible health risks of trace amounts of BPA leached into food and beverages from epoxy can linings and polycarbonate plastic bottles.
Eden Foods, Inc., a Clinton, MI., natural food company that adopted BPA-free cans in 1999, around the time the Japanese food processing industry voluntarily eliminated the chemical from its wares, reports a 40 percent jump in sales of its canned beans since 2006.
Kleen Kanteen, a Chico, CA., company founded in 2003 to produce reusable stainless steel water bottles, did $2.5 million in sales in 2007. This year’s sales have spiked by a whopping 600 percent, and the company projects sales of $15 million or more by the end of the year. Since April, when Canada announced a ban on BPA in baby bottles, says Kleen Kanteen officer Jeff Cresswell, “It’s been pretty crazy.” Orders for Kleen Kanteen bottles, he says, “quadrupled in a matter of days.” The company has recently introduced new product lines, including a 12-ounce bottle that accepts a baby bottle top, sippy-cup lid and regular lid so it can stick with its owner from diapers to skinny jeans.
BornFree of Boca Raton, FL., launched in 2006 to make BPA-free baby bottles, sippy cups, pacifiers and other baby products, is enjoying "tremendous growth," according to a company official who declined to cite sales numbers.
The Environmental Working Group and other health and consumer organizations are pressing the FDA to order BPA removed from can linings, baby and water bottles and other food packaging. The agency is ignoring those calls -- and consumers are ignoring the FDA. Major North American retailers like Walmart, Toys “R” Us, REI, Costco, Sears and Home Depot have been pulling BPA-based baby bottles, water bottles and other products from their shelves. Earlier this year, popular sports bottle makers Nalgene and Camelbak introduced bottles made of Eastman Tritan copolyester, which contains no BPA.
Major baby bottle brands like Gerber, Evenflo and Playtex are also moving to non-BPA bottles, though more slowly. Top makers of canned baby formula, revealed by EWG to use BPA-laden can linings, have told Congress they are exploring alternatives. PBM, a maker of store brand formula, recently wrote the House Energy and Commerce committee, “[T]he possibility that bisphenol A may pose adverse health risks to the infants and children who are fed our formula was more than sufficient for us to begin the process of eliminating bisphenol A from our infant formula packaging." (In the meantime, to help parents through the transition, EWG has posted an online “guide to baby-safe bottles & formula.”)
Small, agile companies with the ability to ramp up production of non-BPA products appear to be enjoying the steepest growth curves. Earlier this month, the Investor Environmental Health Network, which calls itself a “collaborative partnership” of environmental health-savvy investment managers responsible for portfolios totaling $41 million, issued a “Bisphenol A Market Analysis Report” that concluded that demand for BPA-free food contact products has “exploded” because “consumers are not waiting around for the regulatory process to kick in.”
“Companies monitoring emerging science and taking strategic steps in advance of slow government regulatory processes appear to clearly have the competitive edge as ‘first movers’ in the marketplace,” the IEHN report says. “Whether they are innovative entrepreneurs or old-line companies, they are grabbing market share, enhancing their branding, and otherwise prospering from public awareness of toxic chemicals in common consumer products.”
The consumer revolt against BPA is an object lesson in how the power of information is changing the world -- one bottle at a time.
Photo by garageolimpo.
Relax, it's baby safety month
Thanks to Nature's Child for reminding me that September is Baby Safety Month at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). I feel a little safer now, don't you?
So it's no secret that I'm less than impressed by their recent performance. But what's so ironic about this honorary month is the total absence of any guidance from the CPSC for keeping babies safe from the toxic chemicals commonly used on and in baby products.
They remind us to take the standard precautions that our parents and grandparents took (stay away from cords and sharp objects!), plus some newfangled additions like back sleeping and narrow crib slat widths. All good advice, yes. But not one word about environmental health in the midst of a consumer firestorm over toxics? A time when some chemicals are so commonly reviled that Wal-Mart is discontinuing baby bottles that contain BPA and Congress up and banned phthalates? When laypeople talk about endocrine-disruptors, and understand them. OK, so it's not that surprising. Just disappointing and, uh, not completely baby safe.
Well if the CPSC isn't going to give us the skinny on what else we can do to keep our babies safe, we will. For starters, check out our For Parents web page, taking special note of our Baby-Safe Bottles and Formula Guide, mercury safety guide, and our newest 10 Tips for a Healthy Home. And last but not least, check baby's personal care products in our Skin Deep database or peruse our 1-page cheat sheet with ingredients to avoid and safer product tips.
And don't forget! As Acting Chairman of the CPSC Nancy Nord reminds us, “Parents should be especially vigilant when preparing for a new baby. Babies represent our most precious and vulnerable population.” We couldn't agree more. To see how much, read about the Kid Safe Chemicals Act. Now that would make for some safer babies.
Toxic cosmetics in teenage girls
The cosmetics industry is not sparing anybody from the toxics chemicals in personal care products and our new report just proves the point even further.
We tested the blood of 20 American teenage girls and found an average of 13 hormone-altering cosmetics chemicals in their bodies! Yes, that would be 13 chemicals in the bodies that are still developing and experiencing rapid changes.
The 16 chemicals we detected come from 4 chemical families - phthalates, triclosan, parabens, and musks. The same chemicals are linked in other studies to cancer and hormone disruption.
W recruited diverse participants from around the country. On average, they use 17 personal care products every day, with 174 unique cosmetic ingredients. The study is the first focused look at teen exposures to chemicals of concern in cosmetics. To read more, check out our web site or search skin deep for safer alternatives to your cosmetics.
Ask EWG: Rewind
As with all blogs, there's a wealth of information hidden from view, just waiting to be rediscovered. And Enviroblog is no different. Our series, Ask EWG, gets to the heart of readers' real, day-to-day questions - questions many of us share.
Since I've learned so much in looking back through these thorough, still-relevant posts, I wanted to share them all in one place with you. Everything is just so much easier when it's all in one place, right? So read up, and if you've got other burning questions, send 'em in. We usually have answers.
- Should I Use Iodized Salt? Is there a reason why my table salt is iodized? I'm not even really sure what that means, but it sounds a little scary, and unnecessary. Should I switch to kosher salt or sea salt?
- What can I do about fluoride in my water? I recently read a report in which EWG recommended using carbon filtration to filter tap water for drinking. The report pointed out that carbon filtering is less expensive than reverse osmosis filtration, but it didn't mention that carbon filtration does not remove artificially added fluoride from the water. I know that EWG is concerned with the health effects of fluoride, especially for children and pregnant women. Was this an oversight?
- Why is there Teflon in clothes? Is it safe? I recently purchased school uniform shirts for my child and was horrified to find Dupont Teflon fabric protector stickers on the packaging. When I wrote to the company the agent said that there was no danger, as they did not use Scotchgard. Am I correct that Teflon is not better than Scotchgard?
- Arsenic on my new house's old deck? My husband and I are thinking of buying this great old house with a big back deck, but I remember reading something about how wood used on decks can be dangerous. We've got a two year old. Should I be worried?
- What is new carpet treated with? What can I do? I've heard nasty rumors regarding the treatment of carpet before it's sold and put into a house. I've heard that it's treated with some really bad chemicals, then rolled up and stored until sold. I'd really like to know what the carpet is treated with and what's the best thing to do.
- Is mineral based make-up safer? Is mineral-based make-up safer for you than make-up bought at drug stores or department stores? Most of the mineral-based make-up contains titanium dioxide and/or silica, and some contain iron of some type. Is this okay for your skin? I am wondering how such make-up is absorbed into the body, too!
- Is hydroponic produce organic? I bought hydroponic tomatoes at the store yesterday thinking they were organic, but when I looked again I realized that they weren't labeled "certified organic". Is hydroponic produce organic? How does it rate compared to conventional produce?
- What is fragrance? Is it true that the cosmetics industry can put any chemical into a product's "fragrance" without showing it on the ingredients list? What do they put in there?
- Which infant formula is best? I am unable to breastfeed for medical reasons. How can I choose the best possible formula for my child?
- Do flame retardant chemicals on furniture accumulate in breast milk? Is it true that flame-retardant chemicals in upholstered furniture accumulate in women's breast milk? If so, what kind of hazard does this pose to an infant that consumes the breast milk?
Rocket fuel, yet again
Enviroblog readers are very familiar with the health risks posed by perchlorate, a thyroid hormone disruptor and rocket fuel chemical that contaminates water supplies of millions of Americans in 28 states. EWG analysis brought public attention to the fact that three quarters of the most commonly consumed foods and beverages are contaminated with perchlorate, making food the primary source of exposure to people. And many Americans are getting a double perchlorate hit – both from food and water. Especially at risk from perchlorate are women with lowered iodide levels (a third of the US population) and newborn children whose developing brain vitally depends on adequate levels of thyroid hormone.
Ignoring an extensive body of science on perchlorate health effects and two recent reports by the Government Accountability Office, EPA has again and again refused to take any action to address perchlorate contamination of drinking water as well as groundwater, surface water, and soil across the country, leaving the health of Americans at risk. Why? As testified by the EWG Executive Director Richard Wiles before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, “Perchlorate provides a textbook example of a corrupted health protection system, where polluters, the Pentagon, the White House and the EPA have conspired to block health protections in order to pad budgets, curry political favor, and protect corporate profits.”
Today, new research from scientists at the University of Texas Arlington points to the most vulnerable population exposed to perchlorate – nursing infants. Scientists examined perchlorate levels in thirteen mother-child pairs and compared a mother’s dietary intake of iodine, her exposure to perchlorate, and the resultant concentration of iodide and perchlorate in her breast milk. They found that a while only one fifth’s of mother’s dietary iodide enters into her breast milk, a full half of her dose of perchlorate is transferred to milk, which is of course ingested by the infant. The study also confirms strong concerns about sufficient iodine intake both by the nursing infant and by the breast-feeding mother.
This study highlights the urgent need to protect the health of our children at the most vulnerable beginning stage of life. However, rather than being consumed by worries, mothers can take several effective steps to protect their children.
First, breast milk is still the best food for the infants’ long-term health.
Second, intake of iodized salt is a good way to increase our intake of this essential nutrient. For other tips on what parents can do to create safer homes for their children, check out EWG’s Healthy Home Tips .
Finally, our society needs aggressive public health protections from thyroid toxins in the environment, starting with perchlorate. After 50 years of deception and delay we need to pass strong legislation to safeguard our water from perchlorate contamination. For millions of Americans who have dual sources of exposure to perchlorate both in food and drinking water, setting national safety standards for perchlorate in drinking water is imperative. EWG has been at the forefront of advocating for state and federal establishment of stringent, science-based health standards for perchlorate in water in order fully to protect infants and children, who are exceptionally vulnerable to the chemical.
By EWG Senior Scientist Olga Naidenko, Ph.D.
Don’t ask, don’t tell at the EPA
The chemical industry, public health-oriented scientists and environmentalists may be on the same page a couple of times a century.
In a good century.
Those who attended yesterday's House subcommittee hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency were treated to one of those startling moments: a representative for the American Chemistry Council concurred with adversaries that the EPA's process for evaluating the risks of toxic chemicals is too secretive.
Reflecting both camps' frustrations with the EPA, Democrats and Republicans on the House oversight and investigations panel joined forces to pummel EPA officials about a recent overhaul that gave the White House's Office of Management and Budget the power to intervene secretly in agency decisions about particular chemicals. Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., called the EPA's new process "indefensible."
Officials of Congress's General Accountability Office told the panel that the White House-imposed review process "limits the credibility of the assessments because it lacks transparency." For instance, GAO reported, the White House ordered the EPA to terminate five reviews of suspected air pollutants without explaining why. The GAO says the EPA, which has assessed just four chemicals since 2006, is likely to grind through its 70-chemical backlog even more glacially because of the White House's ability to intervene at several points.
Ironically, the EPA's secrecy benefited the chemical industry in an episode scrutinized by the House panel. Deborah Rice, a toxicologist for the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, took the stand to describe how she had been fired as chair of an EPA panel assessing the risk of a neurotoxic fire retardant known as deca (decabromobiphenyl ether).
Documents obtained in March 2008 by the Environmental Working Group disclosed that EPA removed Rice after ACC vice-president Sharon Kneiss complained to George M. Gray, EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, that Rice had testified before the Maine legislature on the hazards of deca. Acting on Rice's advice and that of other health specialists, Maine banned the chemical. The state of Washington has also barred the use of deca, and 8 more states are considering bans. The chemical is banned in much of Europe.
Rice told the panel that her professional expertise and actions as a state employee should have not been used as grounds for firing her. "I believe that having an informed scientific opinion constitutes neither bias nor conflict of interest," Rice testified. "Indeed, if this is the definition of bias, then only individuals who are uninformed on a particular chemical would be considered suitable to serve as peer reviewers."
The EPA, siding with the chemical industry removed Rice, one of the country's preeminent experts on the toxic fire retardant, from the risk assessment panel. Yet, as EWG discovered, scores of individuals with direct financial ties to the chemical industry remain on a number of different EPA advisory panels.
The hearing produced yet more support for health, environment and consumer advocates who contend that the Bush administration has stacked scientific panels, manipulated or changed data, appointed inexperienced people to positions of authority and, in Rice's case, punished respected scientists whose offense is threatening corporate bottom lines.
Photo by Christian Science Monitor
Who's minding the store? Not the FDA.
Understandably, this week's news media and the blogosphere are brimming with financial news. And BPA stories. Other than generally being very bad news, these two topics might seem worlds apart. But just under the surface lies a very common thread: consumers who are wondering - more and more - who's minding the store?
It's pretty clear the federal government's not. Between the Consumer Product Safety Commission's abysmal performance last year on lead and the FDA's current refusal to acknowledge a quickly growing body of science linking BPA exposure to adverse human health effects, I think it is safe to say that they are (at best) out to lunch. Which we've discussed once or twice before here on Enviroblog. We also wrote the FDA a letter about its recent assessment of BPA (relax, everyone, it's safe!), making our interest in additional safety controls quite clear:
FDA's conclusion that current standards are adequate to protect public health from BPA's hormone-disrupting effects is at odds with available science on BPA's potential to harm infants and with conclusions drawn by other public health agencies and BPA experts.With its current flawed assessment, FDA is far from the health-protective positions adopted by other health agencies and independent BPA experts who have taken a serious look at the many studies that demonstrate BPA's potential to harm health at current levels of exposure in the population. We call on FDA to act on the science and to set BPA standards that protect the health of infants and others who are most vulnerable to its effects.
But rather than wait a really. long. time. until the FDA can agree with the science and do something, we can make safer personal choices, vote with our purses when we shop, and ask manufacturers for what we want. Because unlike the FDA, they have to care what we think.
But frankly, it's a little exhausting to add all those steps to my list. I'd really rather walk in to a store, any store, every store, and just buy safer products. But apparently that is asking too much. Sure makes the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act look good. Unlike our current ineffective chemicals regulatory law, this Act would require that new chemicals be safety tested before they're sold (revolutionary!), among other positive changes. Check out our Kid-Safe fact sheet. With Kid-Safe, we could actually walk into a store, any store, every store, and buy safe products - without the three hours of research! Well worth the hard work it's going to take to pass it.
Protecting our society from toxic chemicals: Why is common sense so uncommon?
Anyone who has ever sewn a curtain or a Christmas stocking knows this simple rule: “Don’t cut too close to the margin.” Otherwise, a small mistake, a tiny miscalculation, and the entire task is in danger.
Somehow, this common sense approach is often missed in the governmental deliberations that shortchange public health while safeguarding the cash flow for the chemical industry. The obstinate position that FDA has maintained on bisphenol A is a telling illustration. Rather than setting aside an ample margin of safety, ensuring that our children are adequately protected from endocrine disrupting substances, the FDA has persisted with its insensate logic whereby nearly every chemical is considered safe. Already, the parents have spoken – they don’t want BPA in their kids’ products. The National Toxicology Panel confirmed its concern about likely life-long health effects of BPA. The vast and constantly growing body of independent, reliable scientific research points to the health risks of BPA – yet the chemical industry and the FDA play the “all safe” tune over and over again.
Amazingly, we have seen all of this before – in the tobacco industry denial that both direct smoking and inhalation of second-hand smoke causes cancer, in the refusal of the environmental polluters to clean up chemical waste dump sites, in the product defense industry that blocks health-protective regulation of toxic chemicals such as flame retardants in furniture or endocrine-disrupting chemicals in children’s toys. Those stories need to be remembered and revisited. There is a big difference between true scientific debate and an artificially created uncertainty that cuts so close to the margin so as to put us all at risk. We need to err on the side of safety rather than dash headlong down a very deep precipice.
In May, Enviroblog readers saw a review of David Michaels’ recent book, Doubt Is Their Product, that describes how industry use of “scientific credentials for hire” and rampant conflicts of interests again and again derailed government’s attempts to establish health protective standards. Now, we can see the author himself (above) presenting an insightful and inspiring analysis of the real truth behind the façade created by the chemical industry, in a YouTube video of the Authors @ Google event.
In his talk, Michaels points to the common sense, yet desperately needed, steps to stop the chemical industry’s efforts to frustrate public health and the government regulators. There must be full disclosure of any and all industry sponsor involvement in scientific studies – no more secret, behind the scene studies that are than conveniently used by the FDA to refuse any evidence of harm. The independence of federal and state scientists and scientific advisory committees must be ensured. Known and likely hazards of chemical toxicities must be publicly disclosed rather than swept under the rug and hidden from the general public and the exposed people themselves, as happened in the case of the C8 or Teflon chemical (PFOA).
Do we need progress? Absolutely. But we also need foresight and wisdom to tread lightly, lest the melting ice – tiny, nearly invisible, nearly non-existent margin of safety – breaks underneath us. None of us wants a sudden collapse – when in doubt, leave the room for the unexpected, and use the best available science to inform ourselves and to take the decisions that will protect our health and the health of our families for a long time to come.
Olga V. Naidenko, PhD
Clean the sink and change the world
We believe that the small act of scouring the sink can be part of the giant act of changing the world.
That's Shaklee Corp. CEO Roger Barnett's manifesto for how consumer products, from cleaners to electronics, don't have to be made with toxic chemicals that harm health and the environment. He's one of dozens of corporate executives and scientists interviewed by the Los Angeles Times' Marla Cone for the one of the most in-depth looks I've seen at the growing "Green Chemistry" movement. (Part 2 runs in the Times today, the same day Marla starts her new job as editor-in-chief of Environmental Health News.)
The story starts by describing how toxic chemicals have become ubiquitous, polluting not just our air, water, food and consumer products, but all of our bodies:
Tests of umbilical cords [by Environmental Working Group] show that a newborn's body contains nearly 300 compounds -- among them mercury from fish, flame retardants from household dust, pesticides from backyards, hydrocarbons from fossil fuels.Virtually everything we buy, breathe, drink and eat contains traces of toxic substances. The names are confusing; the list, mind-boggling: Bisphenol A in plastic baby bottles and food cans. Phthalates in vinyl toys. Polybrominated flame retardants in furniture cushions. Formaldehyde in kitchen cabinets. Radon in granite countertops. Lead in lipstick. 1,4-Dioxane in shampoo. Volatile organic compounds in hair spray.
Every day, about half a dozen chemicals are added to the estimated 83,000 already in commerce. In the United States alone, about 42 billion pounds of chemicals are produced or imported daily. Although California has no major chemical manufacturing plants, it is a large user: About 644 million pounds are sold daily in the state, according to a University of California report on green chemistry published in January.
Many chemicals are probably benign, but basic health and safety data are lacking for about 80%. Some, such as chlorine gas, are so highly poisonous that a minuscule amount can kill. Others can raise the risk of cancer and other diseases. Animal tests show that some suppress the immune system, obstruct brain development, deplete testosterone, mutate cells, turn genes on and off or alter reproductive organs.
Since the 1960s, when the pesticide DDT nearly wiped out the bald eagle, public policy has dealt with the risks on a chemical-by-chemical basis: Ban a few, restrict others and clean up the mess left behind.
Meanwhile, nearly half of the nation's waterways are classified as impaired by pollutants, the air of most cities is shrouded with soot and smog, and the multibillion-dollar bill to clean up the Superfund list of hazardous waste sites keeps growing. Chemicals have moved pole-to-pole via oceans and winds, turning animals and humans around the globe into unwitting lab rats.
There's also a nifty interactive tour of the chemicals in every room of your home.
But the greening of the chemical industry is only one part of the answer to these problems. While some companies want to do the right thing, others want to hold on to their toxic profits as long as possible. This year, California legislators passed a package of green chemistry bills, which Gov. Schwarzenegger has said he will sign, that EWG fears will give chemical makers too much opportunity to delay bans or phaseouts of dangerous chemicals, and too much influence in choosing the "safer" replacements. We think a better approach is embodied in the federal Kid-Safe Chemicals Act, which will put the burden of proof on chemical manufacturers, to demonstrate that their products are safe for children before they are allowed on the market. You can sign our support letter here.
Your body. My body. The Body Toxic.
Like many parents of young children, I don't read books cover-to-cover much anymore. So it was with great pleasure that I read even the appendices in Nena Baker's new book, The Body Toxic: How the Hazardous Chemistry of Everyday Things Threatens Our health's and Well-being.
Baker spent four years researching this book and you can tell. It's chock full of chemical history and the politics that surround it, including tidbits like Teflon's beginnings as a coating for the valves and gaskets in the atom bomb. Her emphasis is endocrine disruptors and she digs deep into five problem areas: the common pesticide atrazine, cosmetics, flame retardants, plastics and perfluorinated chemicals. In each case she not only confronts the major issues head-on, she tells a readable story and even throws in some manageable chemistry. No easy task.
She also wraps her arms around the reason we are all afraid to buy most anything:
The vast majority of [the 10,000 widely used chemicals] have not been tested for potential toxic effects because the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 does not require it. And the news gets shockingly worse: the EPA cannot take any regulatory action regarding a suspected harmful substance until it has evidence that it poses an "unreasonable" risk of injury to human health or the environment.The barriers to action are so high that, according to a 2005 report by the Government Accounting Office, the EPA has given up trying to regulate chemicals and instead relies on the chemical industry to act voluntarily when concerns arise.
Now that makes me sleep soundly at night - you? But as Baker so reasonably says (and perhaps the reason reviewers are calling her 'balanced'), 'it's not that chemicals are bad per se, and it would be preposterous for even the most ardent environmentalist to suggest such a notion. It's that costly societal problems often arise because we know so little about so many chemicals.' Exactly.
Good thing she covers how we're going to change this, 'cause that's what I'm after. It's high time to move beyond what one researcher calls the chemical du jour approach, where we're fighting s-l-o-w-l-y to ban one bad actor after another: lead, phthalates, BPA, and the list (and time, effort, money) goes on. And that is just where the Kid Safe Chemicals Act comes in. Let's test chemicals before they hit the market, not after they start causing trouble.
If you're more personal than political, Baker's got a terrific section that briefly describes the uses and adverse health effects of the five major chemicals she covers, including common exposure pathways and steps for avoiding them (Appendix 1). Happily for us laypeople, Baker has a knack for translating carbon chains and the like into understandable lingo. But her closing sentence needs no translating: We are the body toxic, and we can no longer afford our ignorance.
Greening electronics
All across the industrial sector, manufacturers are realizing that consumers are becoming increasingly environmentally conscious and are trying to keep up with green initiatives, to maintain their competitiveness in the market. I am sure some of them are doing for the sake of doing the right thing, and they deserve kudos for that.
Things are no different in the technology world. The technology industry definitely has its share in producing carbon dioxide emission, and recently, started doing its part in cleaning things up.
According to a recent Toronto Globe and Mail article,
"Even though the massive collection of computer servers that drive the Internet is not as visible as airplanes, the tech industry produces about 725 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents a year, representing about 2 per cent of the world's total emissions, according to consulting firm McKinsey & Co.As consumers and businesses generate more photos, videos and files to be stored online, data centres sprawl to house all the information, helping increase those carbon emissions by 6 per cent annually, and putting the industry on track to generate 3 per cent of world output by 2020, McKinsey calculates.
If most consumers have not yet grasped the implications, some of the world's biggest tech companies have, and they are moving smartly to head off a backlash before it happens. Some are even trying to score a marketing advantage with greenness."
So, Dell is trying to become the "greenest on the Earth" by planting trees, offering free recycling and powering their headquarters with green energy. Apple also recycles, as do other computer manufacturers.
How good are they really? Well, some are better then the others. Check out the Greenpeace ranking to get the latest results.
Coastal women at twice the risk from mercury exposure
Chicago Tribune environmental reporter Michael Hawthorne recently reported on a new study by EPA that found 1 in 5 women of child-bearing age living in coastal states are contaminated with excessive levels of the toxic chemical mercury – twice the rate for women in inland states.
The study found that the blood of females between 16 and 49 was contaminated with levels of mercury that could pose risks for a child in the womb. Mercury crosses the placenta and concentrates in a baby’s brain, where it can lead to irreversible damage.
The government has long ignored mercury risks in populations that eat more fish. These data confirm what many have long suspected, that coastal populations are at greater risk from mercury in seafood. The FDA’s current health advice covers only 4 fish, leaving pregnant women in the dark about the mercury hazards in most of the seafood they consume.
This study highlights the real world consequences of FDA’s bad advice on mercury in fish and raises serious health concerns for women in coastal states. Women need solid advice from FDA on what’s safe to eat, including what types of seafood provide nutrients without the excess mercury.
This study further confirms the urgent need for policies that protect the public from exposures to any of the more than 200 industrial chemicals, including mercury, that pose risks to the human brain and nervous system.
With 1 in 6 children in the U.S. born with some form of developmental disability – what research have termed a “silent pandemic” caused by industrial chemicals – we can’t afford for FDA to continue pandering to the seafood industry at the expense of children’s health.
A few years back, EWG researchers decided to step in and help women get more accurate information regarding the amount of tuna they could safely consume in a week by creating an online calculator.
Jane Houlihan
Photo by mrjoro
Who is Elizabeth Perrott?
Last week EWG published a groundbreaking study showing that levels of chemical fire retardants in the blood of 20 U.S. toddlers and preschoolers were typically three times higher than in their mothers' blood. It's an important finding, because it shows that not only are young children's developing bodies more susceptible to the effects of toxic chemicals, but that they are exposed to higher levels of household toxins just by being kids – crawling on the carpet, jumping on the couch cushions, putting things in their mouths.
After the study was covered by NBC's Today show, and local TV stations and newspapers across the country, a curious press release was issued by a group called Citizens for Fire Safety :
California Mother Speaks Out Against Environmental Working Group StudyMother Rejects Anti-Fire Retardant Groups and Embraces Fire Safety
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Sept 04, 2008 /PRNewswire --Elizabeth Perrott, mother and member of the medical community, spoke out against the Environmental Working Group's new study that discourages the use of fire retardants, because of the undetermined negative effects it may have on children. "As a mother, my children and their safety are my number one priority, which is why I am very concerned about the recent outcry toward fire retardants," said Perrott.
The press release itself was unremarkable. After most EWG reports exposing toxic chemicals in consumer products, the chemical industry puts out a release dismissing our findings as junk science or worse. This one suggests that we'd sacrifice kids' lives for a ban on harmless amounts of a lifesaving chemical. Truth is, we think the smart alternative is to follow the lead of the many manufacturers who are finding that redesigning their products can do more to prevent fires than dousing products in toxic chemicals. (For that matter, most deaths from furniture fires happen because the victim fell asleep while smoking, but the tobacco companies continue to resist making self-extinguishing cigarettes. The tobacco and chemical industries share a certain worldview.)
It didn't take much digging to find that Citizens for Fire Safety, which purports to be "a coalition of fire professionals, educators, burn centers, doctors, fire departments and industry leaders," is a front group for the flame retardants lobby, the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum. Citizens for Fire Safety has a Sacramento phone number but a Washington, D.C. address. Through the Washington-based lobbying & PR firm Burson-Marsteller, they spent more than $417,000 in Sacramento in the first 6 months of this year working to weaken, and eventually kill, a bill that would have effectively banned most chemical flame retardants in California.
But who is Elizabeth Perrott?
California Mother . . .
OK. Where in California? Sacramento? How old is she? How many kids does she have?
Member of the medical community . . .
A doctor? A nurse? EMT? Pharmacist? Dental hygienist?
Spoke out against the Environmental Working Group's new study . . .
Just how (other than the press release) did she speak out? Did she call up Citizens for Fire Safety out of the blue? Send them an email? Know someone who works there? Write a letter to the editor? Maybe she works for the American Chemistry Council, which employs one of the same lobbying firms as Citizens for Fire Safety.
In 18 years in the environmental movement, I've never seen a corporate press release so deliberately vague, so transparently phony. Citizens for Fire Safety have every right to tell their side of the story, but if they're going to put their spin in the mouth of a "California mother," they owe us a little more detail if they expect us to believe it. Hint to PR department: You're supposed to make it sound like it's not made up.
Maybe I'm being unfair. But I ran a Google search for Elizabeth Perrott. I got nothing but the press release and genealogical records of people who died 100 years ago. There's someone by that name on Facebook, but she apparently lives in England. She's not on MySpace, LinkedIn or any other network anyone here could think of. She's not listed as a licensed physician or osteopath in California. That proves nothing, but someone doesn't usually appear in a press release on a hotly debated issue of public policy without leaving some prior trace.
So here's an invitation: Elizabeth Perrott, if you're out there, let us know; we'd welcome the chance to talk with you about your concerns. Citizens for Fire Safety – whose email address returned a "not found" message, and whose 800 number reached a recording saying "no one is available to take your call" – if you can help hook us up, that'd be great.
BPA: What FDA doesn't know could hurt you
One of the unwritten rules of public relations is, if they’re running you out of town, get out front and say you’re leading the parade.
That’s one way to read the American Chemistry Council’s assertion that it “welcomes” the Sept. 3 National Toxicology Program’s assessment of bisphenol A (BPA), an artificial sex hormone used to manufacture a vast array of plastics. The Washington-based industry group said dismissively that the NTP “identified no serious human health concerns” from exposure to the chemical – which U.S. chemical manufacturers turn out at the rate of 2.3 billion pounds of BPA annually.
No question about it, the NTP, a Chapel Hill, N.C.-based interagency body that evaluates chemicals for risks to humans, has not found smoking-gun proof that BPA causes particular cancers or other illnesses in particular individuals. But after reviewing several hundred animal studies, the NTP spotted enough smoke to express, in a cautious but chilling statement, “some concern” that even low levels of BPA may affect “development of the prostate gland and brain and [cause] behavioral effects in fetuses, infants and children.” As top NTP scientist John Bucher put it, “We see developmental changes occurring in some animal studies at BPA exposure levels similar to those experienced by humans.”
That conclusion – that people, including children whose bodies and brains are still developing, are being exposed to a chemical in amounts that have caused irreversible changes in unborn and young lab animals -- directly contradicts the Federal Food and Drug Administration’s position, reiterated in mid-August, that “FDA-regulated products containing BPA currently on the market are safe and that exposure levels to BPA from food contact materials, including for infants and children, are below those that may cause health effects. “
The FDA statement was lawyerly, and it may have served those who want the BPA debate ended, now. But it didn’t have much traction among scientists who are at home in the world of unresolved questions and who don’t believe that what you don’t know won’t hurt you.
Nearly every day, as more research reports on BPA are published, the cloud over the chemical darkens. On Sept. 3, researchers at Yale School of Medicine made public one of the most disturbing findings yet. Yale scientists had given African green monkeys trace amounts of BPA, equivalent to the maximum dosage the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says is safe for human consumption.
“Our goal was to more closely mimic the slow and continuous conditions under which humans would normally be exposed to BPA,” said study author Csaba Leranth, M.D., professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences and in Neurobiology at Yale. “As a result, this study is more indicative than past research of how BPA may actually affect humans.”
After just 28 days of trace BPA dosage, the Yale team documented what researcher Tibor Hajszan called “a devastating effect on synapses in the monkey brain.” Humans, the researchers said, would experience this subtle brain damage as memory loss, learning problems and depression.
On Sept. 16, an FDA science advisory panel is set to hear arguments over whether the agency should restrict the use of BPA in can linings, baby, water and drink bottles and other food packaging.
With stakes now reaching to the central nervous system, the reproductive system and behavior, it's a safe bet that many scientists will advise FDA that the benefits of BPA-laden food packaging are not worth the risk.
Photo by babydinosaur
Fire retardants: Disproportionate risk to small children
We tested 20 mothers and their toddlers for toxic fire retardants and found that the small children typically had three times as much of these hormone-disrupting chemicals in their blood as their mothers - and much higher levels than newborns. Participant Katrina Alcorn responded this way when she learned of her child's blood levels:
Since we did the study, I've become much more aware about what we buy and we're much more on top of the hand washing before meals. It was bad enough to know our levels were high, but it was a shock when we had our furniture tested and found out that the worst culprit was the glider chair that I'd bought to nurse my daughter in when she was a baby. I can't believe it was legal to sell furniture that is essentially poisoning you without you knowing it.
Why are kids levels higher? Not surprisingly, these elevated levels are caused by childhood exposures to household items containing PBDEs, a class of fire retardant added to household furniture and electronic items. Yes, the living room couch, that comfy reading chair, and your laptop where the kids watch videos or type their letters. And it all happens through that childhood habit we all know so well: hands and stuff in the mouth. Kids ingest roughly 10 times more PBDEs than adults from hand-to-mouth contact.
Also not surprisingly, levels are higher in the U.S. because other countries don't require fire retardants and our stringent fire safety standards protect us from potential fires but not from guaranteed chemical toxicity.
Is PBDE exposure a problem? Definitely. PBDEs have been proven to be especially toxic to the developing brain and reproductive system, and the most sensitive periods for adverse effects appear to be late pregnancy and early childhood. Exactly the time their levels are so high. Read more about the risks here.
Is the U.S. doing anything about it? Not so much. There are three types of PBDEs and they are regulated differently. Penta and Octa can no longer be produced in the U.S., but it's legal to import them on products, so exposure is possible on imported furniture. There are no federal restrictions on Deca. Other countries and some U.S. states have banned some or all three types: the E.U., Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands have banned all three, and here in the U.S., 11 states have banned the penta and octa types and two states have banned deca and 10 others have proposed a ban. Time for Congress to step up to the plate, don't you think?
Reducing your exposure. Until PBDEs are no longer allowed in US products, there are several actions you can take to reduce your family's exposure, mainly avoiding electronics and foam furniture with PBDEs - ask when buying, it'll protect you and share consumer concern. Read the report's full recommendations here. You can also take these simple steps:
- Inspect foam items and replace any with ripped covers or mishapen/breaking down foam.
- Use a vacuum with a HEPA filter.
- Don't reupholster foam furniture.
- Carefully remove old carpet because the padding may contain PBDEs.
- Have small children wash their hands frequently so they put clean hands in their mouths!
Read it for yourself. In our full report you'll find more details on our analysis, differences between children and adults that make children uniquely vulnerable to toxic chemicals, government and industry actions to phase out PBDEs, and more.
Where can I get that? Online, of course!
Deciding what children’s products to buy these days is job enough, but it’s really only step 1 of a 2 part process. Because once you’ve logged a few hours online and debated your decision with friends and family, you’ve got to buy the thing. Which entails finding a store that carries it and has it in stock and doesn’t require an entire afternoon of store hopping (so much for trip chaining to reduce emissions!). I’ve spun my wheels (literally and figuratively) a number of times and come home empty handed and frustrated – and that’s in a city with more than a few eco baby stores.
So I’ve done what any time-constrained parent would do who avoids shopping with the little ones at all costs: shop online. No gas, no unhappy kids, no out-of-stock signs, and most importantly, no toxic products after a frustrating attempt to do the right thing (yes, I’ve thrown my hands up in frustration and bought just what I wanted to avoid – more than once). I’ve long wanted to walk into a store and trust every. single. item. there. Doesn’t that sound just great? And if I didn’t know better, I’d say it sounds pretty reasonable. But since - sadly - that’s far from our reality here in the U.S., these online stores are a solid alternative. Plus, there are some online blog-based stores where parent owners vet their products just like I would.
Here are a very few that I’ve tried: Safe Mama, The Soft Landing, Non-Toxic Kids, and Happy Green Baby. But in the interest of compiling a more comprehensive list than what my free time allows, will you share yours? Where on the internet do you turn to purchase non-toxic children’s products?
Lead: Celebrate its ban, but don't cross it off your list
Like many parents, I spent a lot of last year feeling outraged by the (literally) 45 million toy recalls, especially the lead paint. It seemed like every day I read about another contaminated children’s product. Lead is a known neurotoxin to young children that was banned 30 years ago for residential use in the U.S., yet here it was, topping my ‘avoid it’ list 30 years later. Huh?
So by November ’07 I was so mad that I gathered up a bunch of recalled toys from friends and delivered them to my U.S. Congressman and Senators – in baby gift bags, with a note. We suggested that they do something – effective and fast - to improve the safety of children’s products. And - somewhat amazingly – this August, they did. They signed a new product safety bill that not only banned lead but phthalates, too. Impressive.
Of course, I wasn’t the only one raising my angry parental voice over this one. Among others, the Consumers Union’s Not In My Cart campaign motivated many activists and summarizes the new law well. They also credit us activists with making it happen. As they reported:
The president has just signed into law one of the most significant product and toy safety reform bills in almost two decades, and you helped make it happen. Activists sent more than 400,000 emails, made countless phone calls and visited members of Congress urging them to pass the bill.And Congress listened, overwhelming passing the bill with only four ‘no’ votes out of 535 members. Yet big industry was up against a bigger force--the American consumer. You didn’t have the deep pockets or the access, but you had a voice, and you worked for months to let your lawmakers know you wanted them to do the right thing.
So possibly I’m just feeling self congratulatory. But I find this voice-of-the-voter feedback heartening. It helps me believe that when we feel really, very, super strongly about protecting our children, we can prevail. Until we hear that prenatal, women’s and children’s multivitamins contain lead, that is. A ban one week, another scary announcement the next. Call me crazy, but I’m still not feeling very confident, you know?
You can read all about the FDA’s recent vitamin survey here (including brand-by-brand results) and get a quick parent perspective here. The difference with this case is that the vitamins most likely contain lead because it often exists naturally near calcium sources, though the actual source of lead in the 324 vitamins tested is unclear. Doesn’t reduce the adverse health effects, doesn’t increase my trust in labels, but at least the data is in so we can toss the leaded vitamins out. The lead levels may not exceed FDA thresholds, but they exceed California’s and my own zero tolerance approach. Learn about the adverse health effects of lead here and ways to minimize exposure here.
Oh! I almost forgot. Do you wear lipstick?
Shady industry campaign kills CA ban on BPA in baby bottles
SACRAMENTO – Bowing to a deceptive, no-holds-barred campaign by the chemical industry, the California State Assembly has failed to approve a bill that would have made the state the first in the nation to remove the toxic endocrine disruptor BPA from baby bottles and children’s drinking cups.
By a vote of 31 for and 36 against on Friday, the last day of the two-year legislative session, Assembly members rejected Senate Bill 1713 by Sen. Carole Migden of San Francisco, which was sponsored by Environmental Working Group (EWG). 41 votes were needed for passage; 13 members of the Assembly were either absent or deliberately did not vote, effectively siding with the chemical industry.
“California parents should be outraged at any politician in Sacramento who chose chemical industry profits over the health of Californians,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “We’re going to do everything we can to let their constituents know who stood up to protect infants and toddlers and who did the business of the chemical lobby.”
The American Chemistry Council and other chemical lobby groups waged a campaign against SB 1713 that included deceptive direct mail, print and online ads, and phone calls claiming that the measure would affect all canned foods, whose containers are lined with a resin made from BPA. The industry also deployed an army of lobbyists, who bombarded legislators with claims that restrictions on BPA would increase the cost of food for low-income families and even deplete the shelves of community food banks.
In April the National Institutes of Health determined that BPA may pose risks to human development, raising concerns for early puberty, prostate problems, breast cancer, and behavioral impacts from early-life exposures. Pregnant women, infants and young children are most vulnerable to the harmful effects of BPA.
The Canadian government, earlier this year, announced plans to ban BPA from a number of consumer products, and the world’s biggest retailer, Wal-Mart, as well as Toys-R-Us are among a growing list of companies taking action to remove products that contain BPA.
“Any chemical that may cause cancer, brain development problems and hormone disruption in animals doesn't belong in a baby’s bottle,” said EWG Senior Analyst Renee Sharp. “The ability of the chemical lobby to flex its poilitical muscles to defeat a common-sense health measure is another reason we need to make sure chemicals are safe for kids before they’re allowed on the market.”
Legislation introduced earlier this year in the U.S. House and Senate – the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act – would force the chemical industry to first prove their products are safe before allowed to be used in consumer products.
