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 TODAY
We need you to help 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.
Get EWG widgets & blog badges.
ENVIROBLOG TO YOU
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Let's talk mercury with the experts: In S.F.
The real problem with fake grass
The call for citizen involvement: It's loud, clear & important
New studies show heightened toxics risks in newborns
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Infant formula: How to choose it & use it
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
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
Mercury in your medicine cabinet?
Special to Enviroblog by Sonya Lunder, EWG Senior Analyst
Mercury was on my mind a lot last December, but imagine my surprise to find out it was also in my medicine cabinet!
Pawing through my mom's cabinet over Christmas I saw a suspicious item on the top shelf. It was a dust-covered vial of Merthiolate, once a common skin antiseptic made of thimerosal.
Mercury was a common ingredient in skin antiseptics of the past, and prior to 1999 was widely used as a preservative in vaccines. Mercury is still found in some eye drops, ear drops and nose sprays.
Since then FDA has asked manufacturers to remove mercury from kid's shots, but it is still used in several shots--particularly the "multi-dose" Fluzone, Fluvirin, Afluria and FluLaval shots. You should ask for a "preservative-free" shot and see a complete list of other mercury-containing shots for adults here:
My parent's Merthiolate was half full and had a pricetag for $0.44, so clearly some of the old stuff sticks around for a while. If you find it make sure the lids are secure and call your local government or check Earth911.com to find safe disposal locations.
p.s. The Boric Acid sitting beside it is also suspect. Perhaps I'll post on that later.
New study and new dangers of the old toxic Teflon chemical
We suspected this for a while but the new study proves it all - PFOA, the chemical found in Teflon, has dangerous consequences for the reproductive health of women. The UCLA-based team of scientists who analyzed data from more than a decade-long Danish study of almost 100,000 children and their mothers found that women with higher levels of PFOA in blood experienced more difficulties in conceiving and had twice the risk of infertility compared to women with lower PFOA levels.
This groundbreaking study, published today in the Human Reproduction journal, is the first to show the dangers of PFOA to reproductive heath. Until this study, we were aware of the negative effects of PFOA on reproductive hormones and the broad range of human health consequences linked with exposure to this chemical. This is the first time we see the consequences on the reproductive system of women.
There are many reasons why we are concerned about PFOA. The chemical is used very widely and in many consumer products, such as stain resistant carpets and clothing, microwave popcorn bags, non-stick food packaging and Teflon coated products. CDC has found it in almost all Americans. PFOA is a likely human carcinogen and it is highly persistent in the environment. In people with higher exposures, PFOA is linked to birth defects, increased cancer rates, and changes to lipid levels, the immune system, and liver.
Sadly, even though these findings are alarming, I can't say I am surprised with the results of the study. They are to be expected, given the complete lack of health protections from toxic chemical exposures under the current federal law. In fact, unless we fix the broken system of public health protections, we should expect more findings like this to emerge in the future.
This is yet one more glaring reason Congress and the Obama administration need to embrace the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act when U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and his House counterparts re-introduce their landmark legislation to fundamentally overhaul the nation's lax chemical regulatory law, the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Study links tap water to high lead levels in Washington children
Special to Enviroblog by Alex Formuzis, EWG Director of Communications
Researchers have found a shockingly high lead levels in the blood of young Washington, D.C. children tested between 2001 and 2004, when the District of Columbia's drinking water was being contaminated with lead from aging pipes.
In a study published yesterday (Jan. 27) on the website of Environmental Science and Technology, scientists Marc Edwards and Simoni Triantafyllidou of Virginia Tech and Dana Best the Children's National Medical Center in Washington wrote that the number of babies and toddlers with elevated lead levels in their blood increased by more than four times, compared to the pre-2001 period.
The study, first reported yesterday by Carol D. Leonnig of the Washington Post, said that hundreds of children in the nation's capital experienced elevated blood-lead levels in the 2001-2004 period, and many of the youngest could suffer irreversible IQ loss or other developmental difficulties.
D.C.'s lead contamination crisis was triggered by a 2000 decision by D.C. Water and Sewer Authority officials to change disinfectants, from free chlorine to chloramine. Lead levels in D.C. water began rising in 2001 but were not publicized until the Post disclosed them in February 2004.
"The switch in disinfectant reduced the concentration of potential carcinogens (a byproduct of chlorine disinfection) to levels below those specified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," the researchers wrote. "However, the chloramines also altered the water chemistry and unexpectedly caused lead to leach from lead service line pipes and other plumbing materials such as leaded brass and solder. The resulting contamination affected water lead levels throughout the city."
At the time of the crisis, officials acknowledged that some neighborhoods showed particularly high water lead levels. But the new study is the first to draw a strong correlation between the hardest-hit neighborhoods and elevated lead blood levels in young children: in the neighborhoods with the highest risk of exposure, the study said, the incidence of elevated blood levels among children of 1.3 years or younger increased by 2.4 times, compared to pre-crisis levels.
Leonnig reported yesterday that the new study raise concerns about 42,000 D.C. children, now ages 4 to 9, who were in the womb or younger than 2 during the water crisis and who were exposed to significant amounts to lead
The lead contamination crisis
Lead, a powerful neurotoxin, was banned from household paint in 1978 and finally removed from gasoline in 1996. As a result of these two major public health decisions lead levels in the blood of children have declined by almost 90 percent.
Unfortunately, lead is only one of the contaminants Washington residents and other Americans need to worry about when they fill a sippycup for a toddler oor make a jug of lemonade on a hot summer day.
A 2005 EWG analysis of water utility tests from 42 states found that tap water was polluted with 260 chemical contaminants. Lead was found in tap water in 35 states.
A growing number of studies have also found trace levels of scores of pharmaceuticals and household product chemical residues that have no been effectively removed by municipalwater treatment plants.
Aging water infrastructure adds to the pollution burden in tap water. EWG and its allies in the environmental health field are calling on President Obama and Congressional leaders to direct adequate resources from the stimulus package to update the nation's water-system infrastructure.
GAO presses for EPA fix
How many times have you heard senior officials in Washington say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it? So they do nothing.
But what if it is broken? So busted up that it's actually dangerous?
The U.S. Government Accountability Office, which is the investigative arm of Congress, doesn't take folksy clichés for an answer.
To make sure policymakers don't neglect critical government functions that are falling into near-terminal disrepair, GAO maintains a list of "high risk" government operations that involve, among other things, public health and safety, national security, economic stability or vast sums of money. Over the years, GAO's fix-it list has included agencies that permitted the savings and loan crisis of the early 1990s, air traffic control modernization, defense and aerospace procurement, the Medicare and Medicaid programs, pension protections and homeland security.
Last week, GAO added three new urgent priorities to the list, which now totals 30:
- Modernizing the U.S. financial regulatory system.
- Improving the federal Food and Drug Administration's ability to assure the safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices;
- Transforming the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to prevent toxic chemicals from causing human illness and environmental damage.
It's sobering to see the toxic chemicals problem sharing equal billing with the global economic meltdown. GAO's bill of particulars, laid out in a 99-page report, is chilling:
- EPA has assessed the risk of just 9 assessments of chemicals that could have serious impacts on human health.
- EPA's backlog of 70 assessments has hardly budged in years. Some chemicals were under study as long as 9 years. Well more than half the agency's 540 assessment may be outdated.
Here's a disturbing set of facts: what year did the federal government's Report on Carcinogens first list dioxin as a suspected human carcinogen? 1981. What year did the report upgrade that classification to known human carcinogen? 2001.
What year does EPA expect to wind up its assessment of dioxin? 2015-2017, according to GAO.
GAO blamed interference from the Bush White House for some crucial delays. Others, it said, were caused by EPA managers - who, at the highest level, are White House political appointees.
The Obama administration is expected to be far more aggressive in regulating toxic chemicals. But GAO says that it will need better tools: the Toxic Substances Control Act won't be up to the job.
That was clear from the moment it was enacted -- in 1976, to be precise. That's why the Environmental Working Group and other health and consumer groups are working for passage of the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act, introduced in the previous Congressional session by Sen Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee. Current law places the burden of proof on EPA to prove an industrial chemical is not safe. Consequently, some 80,000 chemicals have never been tested for safety.
The Kid-Safe act, expected to be reintroduced in coming months, would put the burden on chemical companies to show their products are safe before they are placed on the market. And the companies, not the taxpayers, would pay for testing.
Until somebody does something major, GAO said, "the nation lacks assurance that human health and the environment are adequately protected."
In other words - fix it!
Let's talk mercury with the experts: In S.F.
With all the recent talk about safe levels of mercury in fish, why not learn more about it from the experts? Join EWG and Earthjustice for a fascinating evening with Dr. Jane Hightower, author of the recent book Diagnosis: Mercury, Money, Politics & Poison.
In this book, she retraces her investigation into the modern prevalence of mercury poisoning, revealing how political calculations, dubious studies, and industry lobbyists endanger our health.
While mercury is a naturally occurring element, she learns there's much that is unnatural about this poison's prevalence in our seafood. Mercury is pumped into the air by coal-fired power plants and settles in our rivers and oceans, and has been dumped into our waterways by industry. It accumulates in the fish we eat, and ultimately in our own bodies. Yet government agencies and lawmakers have been slow to regulate pollution or even alert consumers.
Dr. Hightower will be in conversation with Patti Goldman, Vice President for Litigation with Earthjustice.
And, since we've been talking about Facebook lately, be sure to become a fan of Diagnosis: Mercury if you like it. We did.
Details: Wednesday, 2.4.09 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. @ the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco.
R.S.V.P. to Earthjustice.
The real problem with fake grass
I suffer every spring in Washington DC because of the smell of the fake grass that surrounds my apartment building, my walk to work, my walk in the park, my walk pretty much anywhere. I am not super-smell-sensitive, but the smell of the "grass" gives me a headache and makes me sick.
So you can just imagine the "I told you there must be something wrong with it" moment when I read Boston Globe Megan Woolhouse's story, "In fake grass, some see real threat," published Jan. 19 on boston.com.
The story reported that tests commissioned by the Globe found that artificial turf installed in Boston's Saunders Stadium and on playing fields several Boston-area schools contained varying amounts of lead. The Globe determined that the turf was made of plastic and recycled tires and contained as much as 300 parts per million of lead.
Lead is a potent neurotoxin. U.S. law bans its use in house paint, dishes and cookware and children's products, but it is sometimes discovered in imported consumer products, including toys. Lead has also been found in a number of lipsticks.
Well, now we know it's present in playgrounds and playing field.
While the turf industry maintains that low levels of lead are safe, here at EWG we know that there is no such thing as safe exposure to lead. Lead should not be present in things that people touch daily.
The investigation by the Boston Globe raises an alarm and shows the need for further investigation. We know that lead is harmful, and we should do everything possible to not expose people to its dangers. And I know that it's not just the smell that's wrong with fake grass.
The call for citizen involvement: It's loud, clear & important
When John F. Kennedy gave his famous "Ask not what your country can do for you" inaugural speech in 1961, I wasn't alive. But I've long loved that line, as do so many others.
Not because he stressed our role as givers instead of takers. And not, honestly, because I am the wait-to-be-asked type. I'm most definitely not. But because I am one of those people who thinks that a country IS its people. That our country is shaped by us simply because we are it, and it is us.
So when I re-read that speech yesterday, lost in thought about another inauguration, 48 years later, to my surprise it was another, equally short line that struck me most. Kennedy said:
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course.
And while this does sound quite a bit like President Obama's approach to date, it is not that similarity that made me appreciate this line so much - though it surely is not lost on me. Rather it is my deep sense that we - you & me - really are responsible for and capable of shaping our course.
Electing a President is, of course, just the first step. The Obama team has happily made it quite clear that we're not done. That pulling the lever at the polling booth (if you still do that in your state!) was the first step, not the last.
So after the inauguration today, let's be sure we do everything we can to chart a course toward success, toward a nation that values environmental health, especially in our smallest, most fragile babies.
If this is really in our hands, and you can call me naive but I really believe it is, let's do it! Let's pass the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act. Just like that. How? So glad you asked! You can:
- Sign The Declaration against pre-polluted babies and for a stronger law.
- Get on our email list so we can be in touch when critical citizen support is needed. And it will be.
- Get in touch if you want to talk about how we can partner where you live. Email me at lisa@ewg.org.
- Sign onto our letter of support if you're affiliated with an organization. Lots already have, but the more the merrier.
- Host a house party to spread the word. We'll provide all the materials you need.
- Blog about it. Tweet about it. Tell your Facebook friends about it. It may seem small, but it's not. If we all do our small part, it's suddenly not so small.
Feeling inspired? Like the solution is in your hands? That's because it is. Join us to pass Kid-Safe, and together we will chart a course to success. Because if not now, then when? And if not you, then who?
New studies show heightened toxics risks in newborns
Special to Enviroblog by Sonya Lunder, EWG Senior Analyst
Newborn babies are more intensely exposed than previously documented to contamination by bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic estrogen and ubiquitous plastic component, according to two new studies published by Environmental Health Perspectives, the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The studies offer new and serious insights into the harm caused by BPA, an industrial chemical found to disrupt the endocrine system, to diminish brain and neurological activity and to cause permanent damage to the reproductive systems of young lab animals.
In a pioneering December 10, 2008, study entitled "Exposure to Bisphenol A and other Phenols in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Premature Infants," a team led by Antonia M. Calafat of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tested the urine of 41 premature infants being treated in two Boston-area hospital neonatal intensive care units for the presence of BPA and other plastic chemicals.
The scientists detected BPA in the urine of every infant, with a median level of 28.6 micrograms per liter, nearly 8 times the median level (3.7 micrograms per liter) found by CDC in children 6 to 11 in the general population. The most alarming finding: the infant with the most severe exposure to BPA had a total urinary concentration of 946 micrograms per liter, 256 times greater than levels in older children tested by the CDC.
The preemies' BPA readings are even more striking when compared to other CDC data showing that adults in the general U.S. population have a median BPA urine level of 2.7 micrograms per liter. By that standard, the infants' median BPA level was 10 times that of adults; the child with the highest reading had a body burden 350 times that of the median adult level.
The researchers also measured high levels of parabens, preservatives used in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, and phthalates, plasticizers, which, like BPA, are known to disrupt the endocrine system
The scientists did not pinpoint exactly how the preemies were exposed to BPA and other chemicals, but they reasoned that BPA may have leached into the children's bodies from plastic tubing, drip feeding bags, respiratory masks and catheters. Some BPA, they said, could have come from plastic baby bottles or formula.
The unprecedented study's results are particularly troubling because they suggest that tubing and other medical devices widely used in hospitals are introducing BPA directly into infants' bloodstreams - the most dangerous route of exposure. The study did not identify specific health problems suffered by the infants exposed to high levels of BPA. However, the scientists wrote:
"Our findings suggest that infants may be exposed during critical periods of their development to several potential reproductive and developmental toxicants at levels higher than those reported for the general population....Early life exposures are of great concern with regard to the potential for adverse health consequences throughout the lifespan. Because premature infants in intensive care units are both developmentally and physiologically immature, they are a potential high risk population following exposure to environmental chemicals."
A second ground-breaking study, "Predicting Plasma Concentrations of Bisphenol A in Young Children," published in EHP in November 2008 and authored by Canadian scientists Andrea N. Edginton of the University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy and Len Ritter of the Department of Environmental Biology at the University of Guelph, used a mathematical model to predict that a newborn exposed to the same amount of BPA as an adult, per pound of body weight would have 11 times more of chemical in its bloodstream. The reason: an infant's immature body is less able to detoxify and excrete the chemical, so some ingested BPA lingers longer in the baby's blood.
The researchers estimated that by the age of 3 months, as the baby's body developed and its ability to metabolize the chemical improved, the ratio of BPA in the bloodstream would be reduced to twice that in an adult. But they added that "exposure [to BPA] through food in this age group can be greater than in adults" because of exposures from formula, food and baby bottles. Liquid formula is commonly packaged in cans lined with BPA-based epoxy lacquer (though some varieties are also available in non-BPA plastic containers). Some baby bottles are made with BPA-based polycarbonate plastic, although increasingly consumers are opting for glass or non-BPA plastic.
The study concluded that much is not known about how children are exposed to BPA and how their bodies handle the chemical. The scientists concluded that much more sensitive measures are required to understand how BPA contamination affects children.
Under the Bush administration, FDA leaders have resisted pressures from scientists and health and consumer advocates to order BPA removed from food packaging, including baby formula containers, baby bottles and kid-friendly foods such as canned soup, ravioli and vegetable. Last fall, the FDA Science Board issued a blistering critique of that stance, but the agency insisted that more study was necessary and delayed regulatory action. The agency has initiated a separate review of BPA exposures from medical devices, but so far, no results are in.
These important studies are certain to intensify pressure on FDA officials to take urgent action to protect infants and children.
The value of clean water
Agricultural pollutants affect drinking water quality nationwide
Economic losses caused by nutrient pollution of U.S. freshwaters are felt by people all around the country, according to the policy analysis by the Kansas State University team of scientists led by Walter Dodds.
Repeated application of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, intensive tillage of soil, discharge of manure from animal farms, and lack of conservation vegetative buffers between plowed croplands and waterways result in a significant nutrient runoff from fields into rivers, streams and lakes that negatively impacts water quality nationwide as well as creates dead zones in coastal areas.
How severe is the problem of freshwater contamination with phosphorus and nitrogen? With the exception of certain forested areas, 90% of rivers and lakes across the U.S. contain levels of these nutrients much higher than what is normal for these freshwater ecosystems, scientists report. And just as excess food intake is harmful for human health, high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in freshwater affect environmental health, leading to excessive growth of algae, algal toxins in water, fish kills, and foul look, taste, and smell of water.
These are ecological consequences - and economic harms follow closely, with negative impact on drinking water quality; livestock and human health; swimming, angling and other forms of water recreation; commercial fisheries and aquaculture; stream biodiversity; as well as diminished values of waterfront property that fall progressively with decreasing water clarity.
The present analysis sets the stage for economic valuation of social costs associated with nutrient pollution of freshwaters. As the authors acknowledge, the true costs are likely to be much higher than they can currently estimate. For example, how can we put a monetary value on clean drinking water? The authors correctly point out that when the quality of tap water declines, people turn to bottled water. As reviewed in the EWG's Bottled Water Quality Investigation, in 2008 bottled water sales approached twelve billions of dollars.
In contrast to the large amount of money spent on bottled water, a relatively non-essential commodity, an amount two and a half times smaller is allocated annually for all conservation programs that work towards improving water and air quality, decreasing soil erosion and sedimentation, and preserving availability of water for drinking and irrigation - essential programs that mitigate agricultural pollution of freshwaters.
Are we spending our money in the right place? Investing in conservation programs and decreasing nutrient pollution of rivers and streams would go a long way towards protecting tap water quality. In the opinion of water quality and environmental economics experts, as reported by Rhitu Chatterjee in January issue of Environmental Science and Technology, "it is cheaper to prevent pollution than to clean it up." Otherwise, the costs of pollution now inflicted on the environment, "will still have to be paid by our children and our children's children." All Americans, present and future, deserve access to safe, healthy drinking water. Protecting freshwaters from nutrient pollution is the key step in ensuring that this public health goal would be met.
Photo by shyb
A signature can save the Grand Canyon
Special to Enviroblog by Dusty Horwitt, EWG Analyst
Within moments of taking office, Secretary of the Interior-designate Ken Salazar (D-CO), has an opportunity with the sweep of his pen to protect the nation's most treasured national park and drinking water for 25 million Americans.
The Bush administration has spent the better part of the last 8 years giving gifts to the mining industry, including allowing a surge of uranium claims to be staked along the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon and along the banks of the Colorado River that flows through the canyon. The number of claims within five miles of the National Park has shot from 10 in 2003 to over 1,100 in 2008.
The Colorado River provides drinking water for residents of Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego and other areas. The Southern Nevada Water Authority, which serves Las Vegas, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which serves Los Angeles, San Diego and other Southern California communities, have written to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, expressing concern about the impact such mining might have on Colorado River water quality. .
Even Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano wrote Kempthorne expressing her own concern and requested that the Secretary withdraw land around the Canyon from new mining claims. And the House Natural Resources Committee passed a legally binding resolution last summer calling on Kempthorne to withdraw the land. Yet Kempthorne and Bush ignored them all.
The Secretary of the Interior has the power to withdraw the land on a temporary, emergency basis under federal law (43 USCS 1714(e)).
Given the toxic legacy of uranium mining in the southwestern United States and a report just last month by Abram Lustgarten and David Hasemyer in the San Diego Union Tribune that scientists believe that uranium mining would inevitably contaminate the Colorado, Secretary-designate Salazar should bar new mining activity on about one million acres of federal land around the Grand Canyon. The action would be quick - applying pen to paper - but the results would be far reaching, helping to protect one of the 7 natural wonders of the world and the Colorado River from the environmental destruction of further mining operations.
Something fishy about the fish....oh, wait, it's mercury
It was all over the news few weeks ago. On December 12, Environmental Working Group published a report called Mercury Mischief at FDA, disclosing internal documents from the federal Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency that showed a secret FDA effort to promote unlimited fish consumption and drop government warnings that some popular fish - tuna, swordfish and mackerel - are high in mercury, a neurotoxin particularly hazardous to the developing fetus and infants.
As the documents showed, EPA officials were resisting on grounds that FDA had presented no scientifically valid justification for dispensing with the March 2004 federal health advisory on mercury in fish that cautioned women and young children not to eat more than 12 ounces of seafood a week and no more of 6 ounces of albacore tuna.
Since EWG published the documents, FDA officials have apparently backed away from their plan, for the moment anyway.
But there's more to do. By now, most people know that mercury is toxic for young. But many are not aware of the effects of mercury on adults. One of the first scientists to focus on this problem has been San Francisco physician Jane M. Hightower, who specializes in internal medicine. Puzzled that 123 of her patients were complaining of similar mysterious symptoms - fatigue, nausea, joint pain, insomnia, memory lapses and inability to focus, Hightower found that most were heavy fish-eaters and fully 89 percent exceeded the mercury safety level set by EPA. In fact, some exceeded the EPA protective level by a factor of 30.
Hightower reported her striking findings on fish and mercury in a groundbreaking study published in the April 2003 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives. Her work became a pivotal factor in helping EWG and other health advocates prevail over the seafood industry in the fight for the March 2004 seafood consumption warning. Hightower expanded on her medical detective work in a book, Diagnosis: Mercury -- Money, Politics & Poison, published in September 2008 by Island Press, Washington, D.C.
This week, in letters to Senate environment committee chair Barbara Boxer, D-CA., and House energy and commerce committee chair Henry Waxman, D-CA., whose panels oversee FDA, Hightower pressed for even stronger warnings to consumers. "The FDA and fishing industry have not adequately informed the consumer as to what fish are high, medium, or low in mercury at the point of sale," Hightower wrote. "This has exposed the consumer to a roulette game of mercury doses and leaves the high-end consumer at risk for excess mercury and adverse health effects."
Hightower asked the Congressional leaders to investigate the relationship between FDA and the fishing industry and determine why the agency had seemed so ready to abandon its fish/mercury stance.
We second Hightower's call for a thorough scrub of FDA. As we point out in our own research on fish and mercury, it's true that seafood is rich in vital nutrients: protein, iron, omega-3 fatty acids, which reduce "bad" cholesterol and the trace mineral selenium, which helps prevent cellular damage. But obtaining an adequate supply of these nutrients need not mean compromising on mercury. We advise consumers to find these healthful nutrients in worry-free foods such as walnuts, fortified eggs, margarine and low-mercury seafood such as shrimp and wild salmon. The government should work with independent scientists, such as Hightower, not with fish industry lobbyists, to guide consumers to the safest fish.
Klean Kanteen: Once, twice, still worth it
Since I started working for EWG a mere six months ago, I have been through two serious kid cup searches. Not necessarily the most momentous events during that period, but quite possibly the most time-consuming.
The first was for the perfect low-dollar BPA-free sippy cup - chronicled right here on Enviroblog. A frustrating, but ultimately successful process.
The second cup search was more recent, and a bit different because I was after just two sippy cups with sealing lids. These were to be the ones we'd use for our own kids, not the multiples you need for playdates and parties, when ten kids need something to drink all at once. Because we only needed two, I was willing to spend a little more. But. Deep down, I knew they'd get lost. I mean, what sippy cup that you carry over your threshold doesn't get lost? And spending money on something I know will be lost is slightly defeating - especially these days.
But I bit the bullet, as the saying goes, and went for the kid-size Klean Kanteen with the pop-top lid (my kids are a little old for the sippy attachment). And while the Siggs were brighter and cuter, I wasn't sold, since consumers couldn't find out what the bottle lining contained. And in this day and age, I not only want to know so that I can make an informed decision for our family's health, I believe generally in my right to know. Now if we had a law strong enough to give me some peace of mind about the safety of industrial chemicals (ever heard of the Kid Safe Chemicals Act?), I could relax a little about labeling. A little.
So we enjoyed a fall semester of Klean Kanteens and then, as predicted, poof! Not under the car seats, not in the school lost-n-found, and my husband swears he didn't leave them at swim class. So while we loved them, they're gone. Ugh. And while part of me doesn't want to buy them again, I'm going to.
Why? Because it's my strong sense that Kleen Kanteen makes products the way I think they should be made - with safe materials, fair labor practices, and a business purpose that transcends the profit-only model. Just check out the FAQ on the web site, and I'm sure you'll be impressed by the company's approach, as I am. Wonder why lids are plastic, not steel? What about the paint on the colored ones, is it safe? And why do they make them in China? Of course you do. These we have to.
And for the record, I'm glad these products are available for us to drink safely, I am. But. I'm not glad that I can't trust all the kids' cups on the shelf? I should be able to. And so should you. If you're ready to make that a reality, join our grassroots campaign to pass the Kid Safe Chemicals Act. It's high time for serious reform.
EWG asks HHS nominee Tom Daschle: what about toxics?
Topic A at the Senate confirmation hearing for Health and Human secretary nominee Tom Daschle was health reform. Also Topics B through Y. That's understandable: this country's health crisis is monumental. Fixing it has to be a top priority of the Obama administration. 
But we also want to know how Secretary-designate Daschle will confront the challenges of preventing illness and safeguarding public health by reducing exposures to chemical contaminants in food, water and the environment.
We were glad to hear the former South Dakota senator say that as a general proposition, "I want to reinstate a science-driven environment. I want to take ideology and politics, as much as humanly possible, out of the process and leave the scientists to do their job."
That's good news, because over the past two years, two separate congressional investigations have uncovered conflicts of interest among contractors hired by the National Institutes of Health, particularly the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program to assess the risk of chemicals in the environment. In some instances, contractors were also working for industries with direct financial interest in regulatory decisions.
As well, FDA advisory committees and other outside advisory panels have become heavily influenced by scientists with financial and business ties to the industries being regulated. We hope to hear exactly how Secretary-designate Daschle will address this issue.
We hope Daschle will press the federal Food and Drug Administration to consider all the science available as it decides how to protect people, especially children, from bisphenol A, a plastics component and toxic sex hormone, and other chemical contaminants in food, personal care products and medical devices. The Bush administration practice of giving weight only to industry-sponsored studies must stop, now.
As well, it makes sense for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to expand its biomonitoring program, which measures human body burdens of industrial chemicals. The program tests people six years of age and older -- and so far, its findings have been chilling. It hasn't measured chemicals present in the blood and urine of the fetus and infants -- the most vulnerable members of society, who are most likely to be damaged by exposure to dangerous substances. EWG's studies of cord blood show that some chemicals are reaching infants in the womb and that babies are being born pre-polluted. We need much more extensive research on exposure to chemicals and their impact at crucial stages of development.
We hope to hear soon what steps Daschle will take to investigate the extent to which babies and small children have industrial chemicals in their bodies and to regulate these chemicals to ensure our kids are safe.
Autism: There's more of it, not just better detection
Special to Enviroblog by Sonya Lunder, EWG Senior Researcher
A study published earlier this week confirmed what parents of children with autism have argued for years--that the dramatic increase in autism cases is not solely based on better diagnosis at earlier ages. The study, performed by researchers at the U.C. Davis Medical Investigation of Neurological Disorders Institute (known as The M.I.N.D. Institute) confirms and expands earlier publications, finding increasing rates of autism in California children throughout the 1990s.
The study authors call for increased funding and research into the environmental causes of this disease, a call we wholeheartedly support. Author Irva Hertz-Piccoto claims that 10 to 20 times more money is devoted to researching genetic rather than environmental causes.
But while genes play some role in autism, genetics alone can't explain the rapid increase in new diagnoses. Investigating environmental factors could identify exposures that put kids at risk, thereby enabling parents and parents-to-be to proactively prevent relevant exposures.
Many gene and environmental exposures have been hypothesized to be linked to autism. Most convincing to us is the theory that a host of genetic vulnerabilities lead autistic children to have impaired methylation systems and increased oxidative stress. Since many environmental contaminants provoke oxidative stress, including air pollutants, pesticides, heavy metals and food additives, autistic children may be at greater risk to everyday exposures to pollution.
There are so many unanswered questions about autism, but (un)fortunately we can now put this one question to rest. I don't know what will come next in this saga, but encourage you to look for more great research out of U.C.Davis' M.I.N.D. Institute in the future. We think they're on the right track.
All the EWG environmental health issues you care about - on Facebook.
I'm convinced that having a Facebook group is now like having a web site: if you don't have one, where are you, really? Does your group really exist? If you can't be found online, who's going to find you these days...at all?
And even though I'm a Johnny-come-lately (my excuse: age), EWG isn't. Nope, we've been on Facebook awhile now, maybe since way back in 2007. Check it out. We promise not to over message you (no way).
Instead, it's a great way to hear about our new reports (like the Green Lighting one we issued earlier this month), or the report on bottled water we did in fall 2008.
We also share action items, like our e-letter to the Energy Star program directors requesting lower mercury limits in compact fluorescent light bulbs - because we know the technology's out there and think the regulations ought to keep pace. Among other important (and always scintillating) updates from the hard-working EWG staff.
So please, join us. And if hanging out with us on Facebook isn't enough (how could it be?), by all means, follow on us Twitter. Naturally we tweet, too. We're @enviroblog.
Dear George - Don't go away mad. Just go away.
There will be many happy people around the world when the Obama administration takes over in January. Indeed, President Bush will leave the office as one of the least popular presidents in the history.
My focus is what he has done to our lovely planet Earth. For a start, take a look at the National Resources Defense Council's take on the Bush record or read the Boston Phoenix's 20 Reasons the Earth will be Glad to See Bush Go.
I'm glad to say goodbye to Bush because:
In January, my former colleague Bill Walker wrote about California's effort to to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. The Environmental Protection Agency denied the state's petition, citing "lack of evidence linking carbon emissions to specific health effects."
Walker described Bush administration food policy as "keep your fingers crossed and hope for the good weather."
The Bush administration seemed to think that if it ignored the issue of climate change, it would go away. Well, future generations will pay the price for the Bush administration's stubborn refusal to address this global problem. My former colleague Amanda Hanley wrote about it here.
The administration rarely missed as chance to weaken regulations aimed at protecting the public and workers from dangerous chemicals, as I wrote last July.
Bush administration appointees changed and manipulated data, stacked scientific panels, appointed inexperienced people to positions of authority and fired people who threatened polluters, as my colleague Elaine Shannon wrote in September.
Steve Johnson's tenure as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was marked by controversies. Among other things, he approved human testing of pesticides and hid dangers of global warming.
We work very hard here at EWG to bring out the truth about issues environment and public health. We are a non-partisan watchdog organization, and I can guarantee we will be watching what the new administration is doing, too. We promise to bring you many more exposes here at Enviroblog in 2009. Stay tuned and have a Happy New Year!
Breakthrough 2008 to blow-out 2009
Our new year's resolution: build on the accomplishments of 2008 to make 2009 the year we turn the corner on crucial environmental issues facing our society. We scored breakthroughs on a range of problems last year. Among them:
Advancing the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act.
EWG's work on toxic chemicals spurred the reintroduction of the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act and its requirement of mandatory biomonitoring of industrial chemicals in people. EWG briefed Congressional staff members on the legislation, that aims to replace the weak Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. In the next Congress, EWG plans to organize briefings and push for hearings and passage of the bill.
Progressing toward a ban of toxic plastic chemical BPA.
On October 31, the Science Board of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a stinging rebuke to the agency and embraced EWG arguments that bisphenol-A (BPA), a synthetic estrogen used to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resin may be a threat to human health. The panel forced FDA to retreat from its stance that trace levels of BPA are safe in food packaging, including infant formula cans and baby bottles. EWG scientists testified, wrote comments and served on the expert panel for the Science Board.
In September, the National Institutes of Health's National Toxicology Program (NTP)declared that BPA, shown in laboratory tests to disrupt the endocrine system, may alter brain development, cause behavioral problems and damage the prostate glands in fetuses, infants and young children.
In 2009, EWG will work with Congressional leaders and the Obama administration to press for a federal ban of BPA in food packaging and other products that expose children and pregnant women to the chemical.
With strong advocacy by EWG's California office, the California assembly office came close to passing the first state-level BPA ban. In 2009, 13 state legislatures are expected to consider similar measures.
Blowing the whistle on FDA plan to push mercury-laced seafood.
On December 12, the Environmental Working Group made public internal government documents disclosing the Food and Drug Administration's secret plans to reverse federal warnings that pregnant women and children limit their fish intake to avoid mercury, a neurotoxin especially dangerous to the fetus and infants. EWG obtained both the FDA plan, stamped "CLOSE HOLD," and memos by senior Environmental Protection Agency scientists attacking FDA's rationale. The Washington Post broke the story, and other national stories followed.
Reaction from Capitol Hill was swift and sharp. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., denounced FDA: "Now, in the administration's 11th hour, they are quietly trying to water down advisories for women and children about the dangers of mercury in fish, disregarding sound science on this issue....This backroom bouquet for special interests should be stopped in its tracks. If they slip this through, I will work with the incoming Obama Administration to restore science-based decisions on mercury."
Winning the debate (just not the vote) on farm subsidy fairness.
EWG's campaign for equity in farm payment programs triggered 475 editorials from U.S. newspapers clamoring for reform of the farm subsidy system and changed the debate on government supports. President-elect Obama has indicated that he intends to halt farm subsidies to multi-millionaires.
EWG's farm subsidy database, with over 124 million searches since 2004, is used daily by policy makers, opinion leaders and advocates who continue to push for an overhaul of our misguided farm policy.
Calling Congress to account for proposing to cut conservation funding
by $285 million -- only 29 days after passing the 2008 farm bill with promises to increase conservation spending. EWG issued two hard-hitting reports detailing the conservation programs slated for the chopping block and analyzing how much conservation funding states would lose if Congress went through with their proposed cuts.
Pushing back on the ethanol industry's lobbying
for billions more in subsidies and bailouts to keep expanding production of corn ethanol with all its unresolved environmental and social problems. EWG, working with the Clean Air Task Force, Friends of the Earth, and the Network for New Energy Choices, developed a detailed agenda for overhauling ethanol and biofuel subsidies and mandates as part of a comprehensive energy policy for the United States.
Fighting for New York's water supply.
On September 10 and December 12, senior mining analyst Dusty Horwitt testified before the New York City Council Environmental Protection Committee on proposed natural gas drilling in the New York City watershed. Natural gas companies want to use a process called hydraulic fracturing, which involves injecting water laced with toxic chemicals into the ground. The technique threatens environmental health and the safety of public drinking water, not to mention New York's bakers, who attribute their unsurpassed pizza and bagels to the purity of New York City water. EWG agreed with committee chairman James Gennaro that no gas drilling be allowed in the city's watershed.
Protecting national treasures from mining.
In June, after EWG exposed a surge in uranium and other mining claims near the Grand Canyon, Congress invoked its rarely-used emergency authority to ban mining on more than 1 million acres around the canyon, but the Bush administration defied the legally bindng resolution.
In 2009, EWG will press the Obama administration and Congress to protect the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River that flows through it. EWG will also work with the new Congress to pass comprehensive mining reform, following on House passage in 2007 of the first update of the nation's hardrock mining law since 1872. The Senate did not act on the bill, which bans mining activity that would impact around national parks and monuments and imposes the first-ever royalties on minerals taken from public lands.
Sounding the alarm over rocket fuel in drinking water.
EWG worked intensely to press EPA to crack down on pollution of perchlorate, a rocket fuel component and thyroid toxin, in drinking water. Agency leaders refused and were widely denounced by newspaper editorials and environmentalists.
On May 6, EWG Executive Director Richard Wiles testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at a hearing on legislation by committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to set national safety standards for perchlorate in drinking water.
Leached from military bases and manufacturing plants into water supplies, the chemical has contaminated the drinking water of 40 million people in nearly 30 states. Research shows it disrupts the production of thyroid hormones, essential for brain development. In 2001 EWG put perchlorate on the map by exposing an unethical human experiment: defense contractor Lockheed Martin was giving the chemical to people in a failed attempt to show it was safe.
California officials announced they would reassess their public health goal for perchlorate after EWG and other advocacy groups petitioned them to do so.
Fighting to ban Teflon-related compounds.
In August, in response to an intensive education campaign by EWG, the California state assembly passed a bill banning two Teflon-related chemicals -- perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluoroctanic acid (PFOA) -- from use in food packaging such as burger wrapping and pizza boxes. The chemicals have been linked to cancer and developmental problems in chidren. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. EWG will renew its efforts to see it passed in 2009.
Pioneering a new approach to assessing chemical risks.
EWG testified twice in front of the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies about the dangers of phthalates, industrial plasticizers that disrupt the endocrine system and have been shown to cause developmental malformations in male reproductive systems. Phthalates are banned in Europe for use in cosmetics.
On Dec. 18, in response to EWG and other environmental health advocates, the NRC recommended that EPA adopt a drastically different, and potentially faster and more definitive, method of assessing the risks of industrial chemicals like phthalates. Instead of studying each chemical (and similarly structured chemicals) in isolation, NRC said, EPA should conduct cumulative, real-world risk assessments for chemicals that cause similar health effects. NRC said EPA must recognize that humans are exposed to multiple chemical and that exposure levels change over time.
My new year's resolution? Parent power.
Long before working with EWG, I often visited the "For Parents" page on our web site. I appreciated and trusted the information there (still do!), but truth be told, what I really appreciated was that it was designed for parents, for me!
It let me know that EWG understands how concerned we parents are, how very much we want our children to be healthy, how important we are in triumphing over this whole chemical mess.
So now, from the "inside," working alongside a bunch of other equally concerned parents at EWG (27 young kids among us!), I get to work within the American parent community to encourage environmentally healthy choices at home by sharing our research and guidance, and - closer to my heart - empowering them to speak up for policy change that will make all of our families healthier, from the very, very beginning.
Why are we parents so important, you ask? Easy. 1: We establish practices and make purchases for our households that directly affect the environmental health of young children and pregnant women. Do we leave our shoes at the door, or track in toxins? Do we wash our hands often, and with what? Do we use green cleaners? Non-stick or cast-iron? And the choices go on - many of them critical to our environmental health.
2: We are constituents who can speak up for policy change. Strong, persistent constituent voices are often critical to policy change, since lawmakers, of course, serve at our pleasure. Because it's parents (really) who are uniquely poised to create the momentum we need to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act, the existing law that (barely) regulates industrial chemicals in the U.S. - chemicals like bisphenol-A, phthalates, and Teflon, among many, many thousands of others.
About a year ago, Barbara Ehrenreich reminded me in a short piece she wrote that the 'Great People theory of history' isn't how change really happens. Nope. It's the rest of us. You. Me. Your moms group. Your children's classmates' families. Concerned grandmas. As Ehrenreich wrote, using one historical example:
Women's rights, for example, weren't brokered by Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem over tea. As Steinem would be the first to acknowledge, the feminist movement of the '70s took root around kitchen tables and coffee tables, ignited by hundreds of thousands of now-anonymous women who were sick of being called "honey" at work and excluded from "men's" jobs. Media stars such as Friedan and Steinem did a brilliant job of proselytizing, but it took an army of unsung heroines to stage the protests, organize the conferences, hand out the fliers and spread the word to their neighbors and co-workers.
This reminder from one of our country's great social movements heartens me as parents from Seattle to Nashville, Pittsburgh to L.A. lift up their voices and demand change: we want safe products for our children and ourselves. We want to birth newborns without additives, nurse our babies with chemical-free breastmilk, and trust our government's now very broken consumer safety system. For starters!
So my new year's resolution, as a parent and EWG staffer, is parent power. I want to help foster it, support it, nurture it, partner with it, you name it. All to pass the Kid Safe Chemicals Act. It won't be easy or quick, but we can do it. And it'll be very, very worth it. Start now by learning about Kid Safe, perusing our resources just For Parents, and signing The Declaration. We need all hands on deck - yours included.
So Happy New Year! May 2009 bring us that much closer to a chemical policy that puts people first. I'll raise my glass of organic apple cider to that - you???