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
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel does bang-up job on BPA
Warning: this pesticide may be toxic to children and fish
Green Moms Carnival Says: Prevent It, Already!
Australians rally for the planet
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
EWG Shopper's Guide to Safe Cosmetics: It's Easy
If you're a regular Enviroblog reader, likely as not you've searched our Skin Deep database once or twice (or if you're like me, every time you head to the store). Maybe to find safer products for your baby, maybe to research your own skin care products. Whatever the case, you're probably looking for the quickest way to choose safer products for you & your family.
Because there are so incredibly many products available to us, I have found it easier to avoid the worst ingredients, the ones we know have adverse environmental health effects. Like reproductive deformities and cancer. And since naturally I can't recall the specific ingredients at the exact moment I'm in the grocery aisle, pushing that gigantic 2-seater shopping truck that my kids always head for, I carry a wallet guide.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Another wallet guide. But trust me on this one, I actually pull it out and in the end it saves me time and prevents me from making bad heat-of-the-moment purchases. It lists the top ingredients and products to avoid whenever possible:
Cosmetic ingredients to avoid:
- DMDM hydantoin & Imidazolidinyl urea
- Methylchloroisothiazolinone & Methylisothiazolinone
- Fragrance and dyes
- Parabens or -paraben
- Triethanolamine
- Iodopropynyl butylcarbamate
- Triclosan & triclocarban
Cosmetic products to avoid:
- Anti-aging creams with lactic, glycolic, AHA and BHA acids
- Hair dyes with ammonia, peroxide, p-phenylenediamine, diaminobenzene, and all dark permanent hair dyes
- Liquid hand soaps with Triclosan, aka Antibacterial hand soaps
- Nail polish & removers with fermaldehyde
- Skin lighteners with hydraquinone
It might sound like a lot (some serious tongue twisters in there), but it's really not that hard. All you have to do is: download guide, fold and place in wallet, remember it's there (!), and check it when you're buying personal care products. If any of the to-be-avoided ingredients are listed, put it back on the shelf and roll safely on.
And if you want the quick and easy on sunscreen and children's products, this wallet guide is definitely for you. If you want to know more about children's products (as I always seem to), you can peruse our 1-page Guide to Safer Children's Products or check our very thorough list of safer kids products in Skin Deep - including diaper cream, play make-up, and shampoo, among others.
So go forth and shop safer. Could be the perfect New Year's resolution.
Mercury in light bulbs
I am a careful shopper. Very careful. Unlike most Americans, I read labels -- even the fine print on my shampoo that says what type of preservative they are using. Heck, it's what I do for a living here at EWG. But this summer I learned about something that I missed. The fancy dimmable compact fluorescent lights that I special ordered for $20/each contain mercury.
And I have a pregnant wife and three year old in the house.
is in my house
on every ceiling.
Of course I did what all of you do -- I googled "mercury in CFLs." I found out that the amazing energy savings I get from CFLs is all because of mercury. Without mercury the bulbs don't work. And the mercury stays in the bulb unless it's broken. So I calmed down when I found out that it's "just a small dot of mercury, about the size of a pen tip."
Until I dug further. (Again, it's what I get paid to do.)
I learned that lots of consumers knew about the mercury a long time before I did. And they had been putting pressure on the manufacturers to lower the mercury content for quite some time now. And some companies were making bulbs with less mercury to appease these nosy consumers.
But they still make some high mercury bulbs and unleash them on unknowing consumers.
The industry got together and decided to cap the mercury content at 5 milligrams per bulb. Sound good, right? Well, a year later the Energy Star program decided to act on mercury by setting the limit at -- wait for it -- 5 milligrams per bulb. That's right, our government simply rubber stamped the industry's green washing program. You see, the industry set the limit at 5 milligrams because that's what they were already using. And in Europe they can't sell anything over 4mg - at all.
Lucky for us, Wal-Mart stepped up to the plate and demanded that their CFL suppliers use less mercury. (I know, I was just as shocked that Wal-Mart cares more than the government.) Anyhow, Wal-Mart forced their suppliers to drop the level to 3.2 milligrams per bulb.
But shouldn't our government be more protective than Wal-Mart?
But I kept digging.
Remember how I said some manufacturers wanted to appease the concerned consumer? Well some bulb manufacturers figured out how to make a good bulb with about 1 milligram of mercury.
1/5 of the mercury.
And if you're lucky enough to read the fine print and ask questions, you can find these bulbs too.
And they work well too. I have been using some of the Earthmate bulbs that have low mercury. (Watch out because Earthmate also makes some with high mercury levels.) I got lucky on the mercury. Heck, I didn't even know there was mercury in the bulbs when I bought them. I just thought they had cool packaging. But they are some of the best CFLs I have in my house. The come on quickly and provide great light.
You can read about the conclusion of this digging in our new report "A Few Good Bulbs."
Phthalates, phthalates everywhere
Soft plastic toys are often loaded with phthalates.
National Research Council tells EPA: cumulative risk assessment of phthalates and other toxic chemicals is urgently needed
A real victory for both human and environmental health has been achieved right at the end of the year, as the National Research Council (NRC) directed EPA to examine the combined risks of exposure to phthalates, a family of toxic chemicals that have been linked to allergies and asthma, infertility, reduced testosterone concentrations, and, most worrisome, abnormal development of reproductive system in baby boys.
Phthalates are used in a wide variety of consumer products such as fragrances, cosmetics and shampoos, medical devices, soft toys that children and pets play with and often chew, building and home decorating materials, and even children's clothing. Because of health concerns associated with phthalates, several of them have been restricted in the European Union and the US; yet, a parent looking for a phthalate-free baby powder or a soft toy may not know what to buy, since manufacturers frequently don't disclose all ingredients in consumer products. Meanwhile, many different phthalates contaminate the bodies of most Americans, including children developing in the womb, since phthalate exposures are nearly ubiquitous.
EWG has been bringing attention of the public, the scientific community, media, and legislators to the dangers that phthalates pose to infants, especially baby boys. EWG testified twice in front of the NRC urging the Council scientists to guide EPA on the need for a cumulative risk assessment for this family of endocrine disrupting chemicals that, unfortunately, found their way into most homes. We applaud the NRC for its strong stance on phthalates that is both scientifically based and focused on protecting public health. NRC recommendation for a cumulative risk assessment for phthalates is the first step in the right direction towards avoiding exposure to these toxic chemicals.
With this important new advance in regulatory toxicology, EPA also needs to take to heart NRC's diagnosis with what is wrong in EPA's current approach of assessing the toxicity of one chemical at a time. As the NRC reported,
Currently when conducting cumulative risk assessments, EPA often considers only chemicals that are structurally related... That practice ignores how exposures to different chemicals may result in the same health effects. The conceptual approach taken for phthalates -- to consider chemicals that cause similar health effects -- should also be applied when completing any cumulative risk assessment. For instance, EPA could evaluate the risk of combined exposures to lead, methylmercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls because all contribute to cognitive deficits consistent with IQ reduction in children.
Research by EWG and many scientists all around the world clearly demonstrated that children are exposed to numerous toxic chemicals simultaneously. That's why EWG is backing the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act, federal legislation that promises comprehensive reforms, including a requirement that manufacturers prove their chemicals are safe before they go on the market.
What can concerned parents do right now? First, we call on everybody to learn how the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act will fundamentally overhaul the outdated, ineffective system now in place that allows toxic chemicals on the market with no safety testing. Then join us to pass this important new legislation. We need your help.
Also check out the EWG For Parents site with lots of helpful tips to protect your family from industrial chemicals. And for all people on your gift list who may have children, you can find suggestions for safe, healthful, and very useful holiday gifts at EWG's Parent's Buying Guide. Happy Holidays, everybody!
Photo by gynti_46.
Santa, please bring me toxin-free fragrance
My world has changed much since I arrived at EWG in 2006. Unlike most of the other staff members, I don't have a background in science. I studied journalism and public relations. To be honest, most of my school years were spent skipping science classes.
And then I started working here. Since then, I've used EWG's research and greener living tips not only for work, but for my personal life also. I do my best to avoid toxins and make better shopping decisions.
But there is one thing that I struggle with the most -- it's perfume. Having grown up in a country (Serbia) where as soon as you are born, people spray you with perfume, it's fair to say that I'm a fragrance junkie. You can just imagine my reaction when I hear that my favorite Channel, Dior and Givenchy are loaded with toxic chemicals!
So, my wish for Santa is simple. I want to be able to continue spraying on my fragrances, minus the toxic chemicals.
Under the current law, manufacturers of personal care products, don't have to disclose what chemicals make up their fragrances, on grounds that the mix is a trade secret. That label hides dozens and sometimes even a hundred chemicals.
What I hope Santa will bring to me and all other fragrance lovers out there is a new law that would better regulate the personal care products and keep the toxic chemicals out of them. Then, we would still be able to smell good without being endangered by potent chemicals. It's not too much to ask.
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel does bang-up job on BPA
Our hats are off to the top-notch reporters at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel who have invested time, energy and considerable expertise to daylight important pieces of the puzzle that is bisphenol-A. We weren't surprised to hear that they won the John B. Oakes Environmental Journalism Prize from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism for the important Chemical Fallout series.
We heartily agree with the judges for honoring Susanne Rust, Meg Kissinger, and Cary Spivak. As the judges said, these dedicated investigative reporters "worked tirelessly to analyze the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its efforts to protect the public from dangerous chemicals found in common household items such as baby bottles and toy rubber ducks. The Journal proved that despite millions of taxpayer dollars spent by the government, the EPA failed to test products for hazards to the body's reproductive, developmental and behavioral systems, particularly impacting fetuses and women of child-bearing age."
As we have learned in our own work here at EWG, reviewing hundreds, sometimes thousands, of public documents to better understand an issue, a process, a failed regulation is an essential step connecting the public and our lawmakers with the information we all need to create effective public policy.
If you haven't been keeping tabs on this series, we encourage you to have a read. It's well worth your time. All of the articles are posted here. The paper's editorial board made a very strong statement on BPA just today, a bit of which we are repeating here - because it's right on target:
If it wasn't clear before Monday's disappointing letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, it should be clear now:The FDA is punting. The agency sees no reason to ban, or even restrict, the use of the chemical bisphenol A. In the letter to its advisory board, the FDA said it would review more studies and do more research on BPA. Until then, the chemical should be considered safe for anyone to use, even babies. Is this the FDA or the CYA?
The FDA has dithered for years, embracing studies that found the ubiquitous chemical to be harmless - nearly all of which were paid for by the chemical industry - while ignoring a much larger body of independent research that linked BPA to an array of health problems, including diabetes and cancer.
BPA has been studied to death. There is no need for further research to reach the conclusion that it shouldn't be in kids' products.
And to take it a step further, the newspaper created the Facebook group "No BPA in Kids Products," a clearinghouse for information and action on this issue. Join it to stay involved. We did.
[photo courtesy of flickr commons]
Warning: this pesticide may be toxic to children and fish
Triclosan rubber-stamped by EPA : environmental safety down the drain
This fall, EPA approved re-registration of antibacterial soap ingredient triclosan for yet another five years of use in consumer products, potentially leaving human and environmental health at great risk.
Throughout 2008, EWG and many other health advocacy groups brought public and media attention to triclosan, a potent pesticide that has found its way into most Americans' homes. EWG research identified triclosan in more than 140 types of consumer products, ranging from HVAC systems and cutting boards to toothbrushes, hand soaps and anti-perspirants. However, due to lack of ingredient disclosure by the manufacturers, most consumers are not aware how frequently they may be exposed to triclosan.
Triclosan production is estimated to be between 1 and 10 million pounds per year in the U.S. alone, and a study by the Centers for Disease Control found that 75% of Americans have detectable concentrations of triclosan in their body, indicating daily contact with this chemical. In a recent EWG study of cosmetics use by teenage girls, 100% of study participants, young girls aged 14 to 19, had triclosan in their bodies. Triclosan has also been detected in breast milk, indicating that a mother exposed to triclosan in personal care products can pass this chemical on to her newborn child. These findings are very worrisome because triclosan can potentially disrupt thyroid function and affect reproductive hormones.
Equally disconcerting is the fact that EPA's assessment of triclosan has completely failed to fullfill the Agency's mission to protect the environment. Due to wastewater effluent pollution, triclosan contaminates 57.6% of streams sampled by the US Geological Survey nationwide; it has been already detected in drinking water sources in 10 different states. Triclosan-containing household cleaners and personal care products are the main source of environmental triclosan contamination, posing dangers to algae, invertebrates and fish who live downstream. EPA review completely disregarded these major sources of environmental triclosan exposure, created an illusion of safety that is simply not there.
Why couldn't EPA do a better job in reviewing environmental impact of triclosan? Regulatory separation between EPA- and FDA-regulated uses of triclosan is the key problem that, if left unaddressed, would continue undermining EPA's efforts to protect the health of humans and the environment from this potent antimicrobial pesticide. No scientific rationale exists that would justify this separation. The current jurisdictional distinction between the two Agencies has made EPA, the primary regulator of triclosan manufacturing, unable to do anything about the widespread triclosan contamination of water and possibly soils and wildlife.
This week, EWG wrote to EPA, indicating numerous shortcomings in EPA's risk assessment for triclosan and urging the Agency to do a comprehensive review of the effects of triclosan exposure on human and environmental health, taking into account the latest scientific research. To see EWG letter to EPA, click here.
One certainly hopes that this glaring problem would be addressed under the new administration and the new leadership at EPA. Meanwhile, what can consumers do? First and foremost - skip antibacterial hand soaps and detergents. They are absolutely unnecessary, they do not provide any additional health protection, and they pose grave risks to aquatic life. Sounds like a good New Year resolution - starting 2009 in an environmentally-friendly fashion!
Photo by Zen52
Green Moms Carnival Says: Prevent It, Already!
Every month a few of this country's impressive green mom bloggers identify a single topic to write about, each on their own blogs but (thankfully) posted all in one place as the Green Moms Carnival. It's a great way to keep tabs on what this community of thoughtful, informed mothers are thinking on the important environmental issues that affect our families. In past months, they have written about topics such as greening our schools, combating holiday commercialism, and global warming, to name a few.
This month's topic is of special interest here at EWG since they tackled the novel concept of prevention in U.S. environmental policy, the logical but oft-overlooked notion of first doing no harm. These well-spoken environmentalists each write a letter to President-Elect Obama, encouraging him to take the leap and adopt a prevention-based environmental policy agenda. Diane of Big Green Purse fame even started an online forum called The Prevention Agenda, where citizens can share ideas about preventing toxic exposures, pollution, and global warming.
All of the letters are interesting, perhaps especially so for policy and law makers who should be gauging the mood and needs of their constituents. As a mom of two young kids who sees the Kid Safe Chemicals Act as our best chance to inject an ounce of prevention into our currently abysmal chemical policies, I was drawn to the letters that focused on the need for chemical policy reform, as Enviroblog readers might also be.
Anna Hackman at GreenTalk, for example, has this to say:
Mr. President-Elect, we need to stop the exposure of toxic chemicals by updating the 1976 Toxic Substance Chemical Act (TSCA). A law that grandfathered 62,000 chemicals presumed to be safe... It is a re-run not worth watching.Please explain to me why manufacturing companies are not required to provide health and safety studies prior to chemicals coming onto the market? 20,000 new chemicals have come onto the market since TSCA was enacted. Enacting the Kid-Safe Chemical Act would "put the burden of proof on the chemical companies to prove that a chemical is safe before it is allowed on the market."
And Sommer Poquette of Green & Clean Mom also argued for Kid Safe. In her letter to President-Elect Obama she asks:
You have children. I have children. We have that common bond and wanting to keep them safe and healthy is certainly your priority and mine. When your wife was pregnant did you ever test her umbilical cord for toxins after either of your daughters were born?We didn't for my two children but if we had, we might have been surprised to find that there could have been over 300 industrial chemicals that were pre-polluting our babies in their safe wombs. Really who would think that a child is not safe inside their mother's womb?
Check it out. It's the Green Moms Carnival. You won't regret it.
Australians rally for the planet
It's all over the news- Australians are not happy with their government's plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by just 5%. Many have spent the last few days protesting that the decision is too little, too late . Some are even saying they will move to Europe, where the major nations are committed to cutting emissions by 20% by 2020.
The New York Times reports that Australia's actual emissions cut depends on whether other nations commit to their own reductions. For example, if major emitters like China and India promise significant cuts , Australians might reduce their greenhouse gases emission by up to 15%. The decision infuriated environmentalists who called it a global embarrassment for Australia.
Recent analysis by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change argued that developed countries should reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 25 to 40 percent by 2010. Australia is a developed country.
But so is the U.S. Here, we produce more emissions, both in, absolute terms and per capita, than any other country in the world, but our leaders of this country have refused to sign the Kyoto agreement to limit emissions causing global warming . So, while I am reading the news from Australia and cheering for the protesters, I can't help but hope for an aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reduction program here in the U.S.
FDA Fish Folly
The following is a guest post from EWG Senior Analyst Sonya Lunder.
Ah, December. Season of holiday lights, office parties and weekly announcements of Bush Administration actions to weaken health protections for children.
First, it was melamine in baby formula, now mercury in fish. I for one will definitely welcome 2009 with open arms.
Last week, EWG leaked documents showing that FDA was preparing to declare all fish consumption to be perfectly safe.
FDA claims that the good fats and other nutrients in fish can counteract much or all of mercury's harms. Its model suggests that nearly everyone will benefit from eating at least 2 servings of fish each week.
This outrageous conclusion flies in the face of decades of mercury research and poses a clear danger to children's health. EPA scientists and other have raised serious questions about the details of FDA's proposal and posed the obvious question -- why didn't FDA examine the risks and benefits of specific types of fish?
Since 2004, pregnant women have been advised to limit fish consumption and to avoid species with the highest mercury levels. This guidance is clearly warranted because 1 in 6 of us (moms, or "women of childbearing age," as we are known) already have too much mercury in our bodies. Fish is the primary source of mercury exposure. Getting good fats from low-mercury fish, fish oil or mercury-free foods, such as walnuts, fortified eggs or even margarine, are clearly the safest choices.
Scientists studying mercury toxicity in fish, both in the United States and abroad, acknowledge the benefits of fish eating but steer women toward low-mercury foods. Wild salmon is loaded with good fats, low in mercury and tops the list.
Time to say goodbye to Steve
There are two things that the end of a year and the end of an administration have in common: most of the people are happy to see them gone, and they reflect on the missed opportunities and regrets.
This year is unusual only in its extremes. President Bush is leaving the White House as possibly the most unpopular president in the history. And when it comes to the environment, well, let's just say that he's one of our brownest leaders.
Environmental Protection Administration leader Stephen L. Johnson did not soften the Bush White House's blows. According to the excellent investigation by John Shiffman and John Sullivan of the Philadelphia Inquirer, during his years at EPA, protection of the environment and public health was put on the hold.
This came as a surprise to environmental groups, EWG included, who praised Johnson when he was tapped to lead the agency. We believed he was a good scientist who would base his decisions and leadership on science, not politics. He reached out to us, saying that he looked forward to working together. That was the last we heard of him.
His tenure was highly politicized: Shiffman and Sullivan give example after example of how the White House and industry heavily influenced agency decisions. Johnson approved human testing of pesticides and hid dangers of global warming.
If you are interested in more background on Steve, check out the fantastic investigation done by Shiffman and Sullivan. For me, I know that he won't make my "people I will miss" list.
What's in Washington's water?
I paddle my touring kayak in the Potomac but never a whitewater kayak - never have wanted to practice self-rescues and rolls in that water. Okay, I know, there are world champion kayakers here in DC, and they do it all the time, but they also run the class 5+ rapids at Great Falls. Go figure.
My aversion to doing face plants in the majestic river arises from my son's fifth-grade science fair project on water pollution in Washington D.C. We were both shocked to learn that towards the end of the 19th century, some genius designed the sewer system of the nation's capital to handle rain by overflowing straight into the Potomac. Saber the golden retriever provided valuable confirmation every time she chased a duck and straggled back to shore smelling like a cesspool.
Last week, the U.S. Geological Service published considerably more sophisticated - and chilling - scientific studies of man-made chemicals polluting the Potomac and eight other major rivers. U.S.G.S. researchers found 85 chemicals in samples taken from the Potomac between 2003 and 2005. Among them: water treatment by-products chloroform and bromodichloromethane, a suspected human carcinogen, gasoline hydrocarbons and related chemicals, a dozen herbicides, three pesticides, a fungicide, four manufacturing additives, five cosmetics chemicals, an industrial solvent, cholesterol and two other plant or animal-derived biochemicals. One of the herbicides detected was atrazine, a notorious weed killer suspected of causing the Potomac's "intersex" bass - males that have produced eggs.
A USGS report focusing on tap water derived from the Potomac found that two thirds of 26 compounds detected in at least a fifth of the samples from the great river also showed up in tap water produced for Washington and northern Virginia. The report cautioned that "concentrations for all detected compounds in source and finished water generally were less than 0.1 microgram per liter and always less than human-health benchmarks...On the basis of this screening-level assessment, adverse effects to human health are expected to be negligible (subject to limitations of available human-health benchmarks)."
That last bit about the limits of our knowledge is not comforting, nor is it meant to be. The Pentagon calls it the unk-unk problem - meaning, unknown-unknown, as in, we don't know what we don't know.
But what we do know is that as scientists are able to study increasingly smaller exposures and more subtle causes and effects, we are finding out that tiny traces of some chemicals have a pronounced -- and, so far, never beneficial -- impact on humans and wildlife. The more we learn about birth defects, chronic disease and mysterious neurological and behavioral conditions, the less sanguine we can be about dismissing any exposure as negligible.
That's why Environmental Working Group executive director Richard Wiles told the Washington Post, "Really, no one knows what the effect of drinking this chemical cocktail in your tap water over your lifetime is." Wiles recommends filtering tap water to remove more contaminants.
I'm in. Carbon filters don't cost that much, and I calculate that a reverse osmosis filtration system for my house will pay for itself in a year or so - considering how much water my son consumes in a weekend bicycle racing. During the week, he's a college student studying environmental science. What he learned back in the fifth grade about the yuk we dump in our water convinces him there has to be a better way - and that if he doesn't put his mind to finding it, who will? As the murky, fouled river attests, his parents' generation fell down on the job -- and now some of us are scrambling to make up for lost time.
And keep our heads above that water.
New Canadian legislation reveals toxic chemicals in neighborhoods
Once again, our neighbor Canada is leading the way in the fight to reduce exposure to toxic chemicals. Toronto has become the first city in Canada to require businesses to disclose the toxic chemicals they use. This program sets a much lower threshold for reporting than national programs in Canada or the U.S. and is likely to generate useful data about industrial chemical pollution in the Toronto community.
According to the Globe and Mail, Toronto's new "right to know" bylaw would force businesses to post information about their toxic chemical use on the Internet.
Now, that is a novel idea: residents would know exactly what toxic chemicals are being used in their neighborhoods! Why don't we do something like that here in the U.S.?
Oh, we do. It's called the Toxic Release Inventory, a branch of the Environmental Protection Agency.
But EPA requires reporting from polluters who emit than 10,000 or 25,000 pounds of most chemicals. Toronto's innovative program covers small facilities that emit as little as 220 pounds (100 kilograms) of toxic pollution.
Laws that require full disclosure of pollutants usually have good results.
Besides shedding daylight on industrial chemicals routinely used in various communities, these laws can motivate smaller companies, not previously monitored, to find safer alternatives. That's important because small facilities are often in residential neighborhoods, near homes, schools and playgrounds.
Toronto's law will be phased in over 4 years, starting in 2010. Way to go Toronto!
Where have all the bees gone
European bees are dying. Just in last two years, Italy has lost almost half its bees. There are many reasons for this trend -- climate change, pesticide use in agriculture, changing diets and genetically modified crops are just some of them.
In an effort to counter this grave situation, the European parliament is moving to create "recovery zones" for bees across Europe. The zones will be protected areas where pesticides are banned and there will be plenty of plants with nectar and pollen.
You know, like fields used to be.
I am a big fan of modern technology and innovation. My late grandfather, a professor in the faculty of agriculture at the University of Belgrade, where I grew up, was a major inventor of farm machinery. His inventions helped Serbian agriculture develop and flourish and benefited countless people.
But I can't help but wonder, where does progress stop and environmental destruction begin?! Also, if bees are suffering so much, what short and long-term effects do advances in large-scale agriculture have on humans?
The Christian Science Monitor recently reported that three-fourths of food produced in Europe depends on bees and that European farmers have already lost $1.25 billion because of the bee crisis. Italy, the Monitor said, is particularly hard hit, with $100 million in agriculture sector losses to date.
This is not a problem confined to Europe. Bees are disappearing worldwide. The world's agriculture practices have been unsustainable for the bees and to the land. Since 80 percent of our food relies on pollination at some point, according to the book Fruitless Fall, it is past time to for our farming practices to become sustainable, organic and local.
Greening Santa's Workshop: Eco gifts in the blogosphere
Now that it's December, I feel safe discussing gifts. Just because my neighbors turn on their life-size candy canes before Thanksgiving doesn't mean I have to think about holiday gifts before the leftovers are gone. But now it is December, and Healthy Toys.org's 2008 Consumer Guide to Toxic Chemicals in Toys is officially out - and tricked out with handy tools like personalized wish lists to email family and friends (making it easier to tell grandma to go easy on the PVC this year).
So the time has come in this house to make some key gift decisions. Good thing the blogosphere - where I spend a good many of my waking hours - is chock full of guidance, tips, tools and tricks. Of course, if our laws were stronger (yep, TSCA again), we wouldn't need all the guidance, tips, tools, and tricks, but we're working on that.
In the meantime, it's good to see that Santa has been busy greening his workshop so my kids can have fun tree-side without me having to worry about their reproductive futures. Here are some of the resources that helped me find safer products with minimal hassle:
For starters, Safe Mama has some excellent guidance on how to select lead-free toys. While there were fewer recalls this year and progress with the more stringent control over lead in children's products effective in February, 2009 (yes, just after the holiday shopping season), we're still left to shop our way out of this one. The HealthyToys.org folks also have a great tool where you can check specific toys for their lead levels - and post it on your blog, no less.
And of course Z Recommends has some great ideas in its Mostly Green, Pretty Cheap Holiday Guide. It's sorted by age, to boot, and you can just click "buy here" from the site and presto, shopping done.
The Gift Guide over at Non-Toxic Kids focuses on online green retailers rather than specific toys, giving you a wealth of options - all located in the U.S. And SafBaby's got a terrific list of toys categorized by age, which, coupled with its green stocking stuffer guide, will have you covered. As they say, 'there's always a safer alternative.' Indeed.
And if you need to shop for the grown-ups in your life, TreeHugger's guide is extensive - they refused to give in to a dismal economy. They describe it this way: Our holiday gift guide this year is a blueprint for the best affordable, low-impact, and wonderful prezzies for everyone on your list. From energy-saving gadgets for the green geek to toys for the little ones, we have more than 100 green gift ideas in 12 categories that will help you consume wisely and still bring lots of holiday cheer.
Plenty magazine has some great suggestions perfectly timed for a recession in a green-obsessed country. And best thing about it? It includes our very own pollution solutions holiday gift bag. The ideal gift, if I do say so myself. Safe products, a tax deduction, and the joy of knowing you're supporting EWG's hard work to improve our nation's abysmal environmental health record. In future years, we hope to shop for holiday gifts without assessing their weighty impact on our children's environmental health. Because really, where's the holiday spirit in that?
And lastly, you can buy it all through EWG's Amazon portal, thereby funding our work while you shop, at no extra cost to you!
