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
UNEP report highlights food crisis
Pollution portrait of a state reveals over
6, 100 violations
Pregnancy today: A lesson in toxics
Bisphenol A - what are the sources of exposure?
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
House holds hearing on broken toxic law
Special to Enviroblog by Sandra Schubert, EWG Director of Government Affairs
Yesterday's hearing in the House of Representatives clearly showed the need for reform of TSCA. All ten witnesses - representatives from labor, the environmental and public health and environmental justice communities, government, medical care providers, and the chemical industry - agree that TSCA needs to be reformed. In addition, there was widespread agreement that we need to prioritize chemicals that we find in people, have more data on the adverse effects of these chemicals, focus on risk, have companies prove that chemicals are safe before they are put on the market, and protect babies and children - the most vulnerable members of our society.
EWG was happy to hear this as it is exactly what the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act will do. Based on their comments, we are hopeful that the chemical industry will join us in our strong support of the bill, due to be reintroduced in the coming weeks.
FDA Science Board talks BPA, again
Yesterday, for the I-don't-even-know-what-time-anymore, the Science Board of the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held another meeting to discuss the dangers of BPA. Sure, it's important to discuss chemicals and their toxicity for humans. But there comes a time for action. Like right now.
BPA is a toxic hormone disruptor that contaminates canned infant formula, canned foods foods and beverages packaged in hard polycarbonate plastic. Laboratory tests link it to a growing list of serious health problems. Recent studies have found that BPA exposure during early life permanently changes the developing brain and reproductive systems.
EWG senior scientist Dr. Anila Jacob testified during the public comment period, as did Dr. Urvashi Rangan from Consumer Reports and Steve Hentges a.k.a. "the only guy in the world that will look you in your eye and tell you to give BPA to your kids." Steve is, as you can guess, from American Chemistry Council, the industry group representing BPA manufacturers.
Even though these sessions can be very educational, BPA contamination is a very serious public health issue. FDA officials offered little reassurance that they have is a plan to address quickly the known and serious routes of exposure, leaving millions of people at risk. There is enough evidence out there that BPA is harmful. There are also plenty of alternatives.
FDA should have a timely and transparent plan for reducing BPA exposures for children and other sensitive groups. The Canadian government has already deemed infant exposures to be a serious concern and announced prompt action to reduce risks. The U.S. government should do no less.
Industrial pollution doesn't have to begin in the womb
When EWG tested umbilical cord blood from 10 newborn babies in 2004, we discovered an unsettling reality: in today's world, industrial pollution begins in the womb. To be exact, the blood of these newborns contained an average of 287 industrial chemicals. 287!
Such tests are very expensive, of course, so we couldn't afford to test for all 80,000+ chemicals on the market. We spent $10,000 and found 287. We can only imagine what we might have found if we'd spent, say, $100,000 per sample.
Our findings are important to the study of environmental health because these chemicals aren't exactly benign. Hardly. They are carcinogens, flame retardants, and pesticides, to name a few. We are all exposed to low doses of these chemicals every day - it's simply unavoidable. They're in our personal care products, consumer products, the food we eat, and it's increasingly clear that these low doses matter - a lot. They are particularly harmful to developing babies and young children, for whom the smallest exposure at just the wrong time can have seriously damaging long-term health effects.
Ken Cook, President of EWG, gives a compelling presentation about our findings - including what we can do to prevent it - that we call 10 Americans. Just last week he shared it with guests at the Catawba College Center for the Environment in North Carolina. And lucky for us, local reporter Katie Scarvey attended and wrote a terrific article about it for the Salisbury Post. She beautifully summarizes Ken's talk, sharing his compelling argument that low doses of chemicals DO matter and that we can and should prevent them.
If you get the chance to see Ken live, go for it! In the meantime, check out the condensed version of 10 Americans on our Kid-Safe Chemicals Act web page. You'll be glad you did.
Epigenetics and environmental chemical exposures
Prenatal exposures to environmental pollutants may lead to chronic diseases later in life.
Toxic effects of environmental pollution on human health are well recognized. Yet, for a long time conventional wisdom held that a child developing in the womb is sufficiently protected and insulated by the placenta from harmful pollutants outside. This expectation no longer holds - we know now that the developing fetus is exposed to hundreds of industrial pollutants that find their way from the mother's body across the placenta, into the umbilical cord blood and then into the growing body of the child, as demonstrated by the ground-breaking research conducted by EWG in 2005.
Researchers worldwide are working towards understanding the full spectrum of health consequences of the prenatal, transplacental exposure to chemical pollutants. Animal studies suggest that these effects can be dramatic. For example, if a female rat is transiently exposed during the gestation period to a common vineyard fungicide vinclozolin or insecticide methoxychlor, both known endocrine disruptors, the male offspring grows up having lower sperm counts and frequent infertility. This study was carried out by scientists from the Center for Reproductive Biology at Washington State University, who noted that adverse changes in the reproductive system of male pups were associated with chemical modification of DNA structure, called DNA methylation where small chemical side chains or methyl groups are added to the primary DNA sequence.
Such changed in DNA are considered "epi-genetic" - above and beyond the straightforward DNA sequence that codes for specific genes. Epigenetics can be described as environmental instructions for the genome. Human genome contains the stored genetic information with approximately 25,000 genes packed up in chromosomes. In every cell, individual genes are turned on and off according to the functional needs of the cell. While every cell in the body has the same genome, scientists describe multiple "epigenomes," patterns of gene activation that tells cells what they are and what they do and whether they should act as a skin cell or a heart cell.
How do epigenomes work? Twins have identical DNA, but we all know that identical twins can look very different from each other, particularly as they age - it's their epigenetic profile that drives these differences. In a sense, DNA is like the hardware of a computer. The epigenetic profile is the software, telling the computer when and how to do its work. As we live our lives, everyone writes their own evolving software - by what they do, breathe, eat, etc. This software takes the form of methylation tags attached to the top of genes that turn genes on and off. Each tag is like a command in a computer program. Some tags are heritable, some we can change throughout life.
'In utero' or early life exposures to dietary and environmental exposures can have a profound effect on our epigenetic code, potentially resulting in diseases later in life, including the speed of aging and the risk of developing respiratory illness, heart disease, neurodegenerative disease, cancer, as well as behavioral and cognitive illnesses. Epigenetic changes in DNA of reproductive cells (germ line) are heritable and pass from parents to offspring. In the vinclozolin study, DNA methylation changes were passed through the germ line, so that the effects were observed in four subsequent generations examined by the scientists. In addition to reproductive problems, adult animals developed a number of diseases including prostate disease, kidney disease, high lipid levels, immune system abnormalities, testis abnormalities, and breast tumor development.
Are these findings relevant to human health? In a first-of-its-kind study published this week, researchers from the University of Cincinnati and Columbia University, NY reported that traffic pollution causes genetic changes in the womb that increase a child's risk of developing asthma. The culprit is prenatal exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are created as byproducts of incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as gasoline. When a mother is exposed to PAHs during pregnancy, methylation of specific genes is affected in the developing fetus which is associated with four times greater incidence of asthma symptoms in children prior to age 5. PAH levels are high in the air in heavy-traffic areas, posing health risk for inner-city neighborhoods and residential communities in proximity to major highways.
University of Cincinnati press release quoted the lead author of the study, Dr. Shuk-mei Ho: "Our data support the concept that environmental exposure can interact with genes during key developmental periods to trigger disease onset later in life, and that tissues are being reprogrammed to become abnormal later."
The main message of the study is that we need to act quickly and decisively to protect the health of our children from toxic environmental exposures. Increased frequency of childhood diseases, such as sky-rocketing rates of asthma among children, are clearly associated with chemical pollution of the environment that acts through epigenetic mechanisms, posing a risk to the present and future human generations. Protecting our air and water from pollution and ensuring that consumer products are made without toxic chemicals will go a long way towards solving this problem.
To learn more about epigenetics, watch this NOVA video
photo by Simone Ramella
UNEP report highlights food crisis
Not enough bad news in last few days? Read on.
A recent report by the United Nations Environment Program(UNEP) predicts that food production worldwide may fall 25 percent by 2050. At the same time, the prices will rise up to 30 -50 percent, and the population will increase by millions.
The loss is due to climate change, land degradation, water scarcity and degradation, among other things. The global economic downturn is not helping either, as well as our general mentality of not working with the nature but against it.
The reports calls for price regulations of commodities, as well as safety nets for those most at risk from hunger. According to UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steinerm, we need "a Green revolution in a Green Economy but one with a capital G". He adds that "simply ratcheting up the fertilizer and pesticide-led production methods of the 20th Century is unlikely to address the challenge. It will increasingly undermine the critical natural inputs and nature-based services for agriculture such as healthy and productive soils, the water and nutrient recycling of forests, and pollinators such as bees and bats."
To read the report, check out UNEP web site
Pollution portrait of a state reveals over
6, 100 violations
We talk often on this blog about how the current system of protection of public health from dangerous chemicals is broken and needs major reform. I am reminded of that every time I come to work, or go to the Environmental Health News, where I often shop for blog ideas. Yesterday, EHN featured an excellent investigation by Tony Bartelme of The Post and Courier newspaper in Charleston, South Carolina. Bartelme reported that the state of South Carolina has collected about $55 million in fines since 1991 for over 6, 100 violations of state pollution laws. Imagine how much money would have come in if environmental laws were actually good?
The newspaper reported that the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control had been criticized as " a toothless watchdog that too often sides with the businesses it regulates. " It added that "state lawmakers are slowly starving the agency's budget, even as the state's population grows and the public's expectations for health and environmental standards increase. In 1999, for instance, DHEC had 5,245 employees; today it has about 4,000, the lowest since 1992. The agency now operates on a budget of about $115 million a year, about $26 million less than the agency's budget 15 years ago in inflation-adjusted dollars."
The budget cuts don't surprise me. I'm used to seeing public health being treated as priority number 99 out of the top 100. And after working at EWG for a while, I thought nothing could surprise me anymore. But my jaw did drop when I read that there were more then 6, 100 violations of weak pollution laws in less then twenty years in one state alone. It should not be like that.
Pregnancy today: A lesson in toxics
When I was pregnant for the first time, I was all about prenatal yoga, checking my baby's amazing developing body online, and comparing symptoms with friends. As it should be.
What I wasn't doing was avoiding traffic pollution because I knew it could cause genetic changes that led to asthma, as a recent study shows. And really, how can you? Nor did I weigh the fish I ate to minimize my baby's mercury exposure. And I happily accepted hand-me-down baby bottles (reuse! save money!), which I later learned (after years of use) contained BPA.
Nope. I ate too much, slept a lot, and ultimately gave birth to a (thankfully) healthy, full-term baby boy. It wasn't until my second pregnancy that I read Sandra Steingraber's excellent book, Having Faith: An ecologist's journey to motherhood. In beautiful prose, she weaves the story of her own pregnancy into a scientific report on the critical moments of those nine months, when developing fetuses are most sensitive to chemical exposures. And I've never looked back.
Not that I regret reading the book. I don't. Or awakening to the toxic world we live in. It's better that my head is squarely out of the sand. But, I do regret that modern pregnancy is such a toxic minefield, a time when fetal chemical exposures can cause significant adverse health effects. In the U.S., we are lucky to have advanced maternal care, eliminating many of the health concerns that can be associated with pregnancy and childbirth. So it is disheartening that the list of don'ts for expectant mothers is impossibly long - and seemingly longer every day as science reveals more and more links between chemicals and our children's health.
So what's a pregnant woman to do? It's complicated, and we're not doctors. But if you're interested in taking some personal steps toward an environmentally healthy pregnancy, take a look at our Healthy Home Tips for Parents. Our public health researchers created it to be highly effective but very do-able.
And if you're like me, you'll get all riled up about this and get political. Because really, is this what pregnancy should be? A time to worry whether your neighborhood, your food, your air, your water, your everything could harm your baby because it's toxic? No! Of course not. It's a time of wonder and joy, a slow but exciting journey into parenthood - and chocolate desserts (ok, I'm not totally forgetting sleeping sitting up or the swollen ankles).
So let's change this. Sign The Declaration and join our campaign to pass the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act. Because a strong national chemical policy like Kid-Safe would systematically assess the chemical soup we live in, elevating human health right to the top of the evaluation criteria. Where it should be.
[belly photo courtesy of cafemama]
Bisphenol A - what are the sources of exposure?
On January 28, 2009, Susanne Rust of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on a new finding that endocrine disruptor and suspected cancer-causing chemical Bisphenol A may stay in the human body much longer than previously thought, according to a study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives from Richard Stahlhut and Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester and Wade Welshons of the University of Missouri-Columbia, entitled "Bisphenol A Data in NHANES Suggest Longer Than Expected Half-Life, Substantial Non-Food Exposure, or Both".
BPA, a commonly used plastics chemical, leaches into food and beverage from polycarbonate plastic containers, epoxy can linings, and baby bottles. A year ago, scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analyzed the data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and discovered that BPA contaminates the bodies of 93% of Americans tested; women had higher BPA levels than men, and children and adolescents carried more BPA in their bodies compared to adults. Two key uncertainties were highlighted in the CDC study: what are all the sources for BPA exposure and how long this chemical would persist in the bodies of people of different ages.
BPA persists in the body
The chemical industry and FDA have based their claims for BPA's safety to children on the assumption that this chemical has a short half-life in the body and is eliminated within 24 hours. However, when Rochester team re-analyzed the NHANES data in greater depth, they detected a new, startling finding that was previously missed: when a person abstains from food for 8-24 hours and thus avoids any food-based BPA exposure, BPA levels in their body drop off but never disappear. This persistence of BPA in the body may drive a lot of health risks, including breast cancer, diabetes and heart disease.
It's hard to reduce your exposure
In 2008, Canada banned BPA use in baby bottles and took steps to minimize contamination of baby formula. Many states in the U.S. have been moving along the same path. In contrast, FDA has long stood in this issue on the side of the chemical industry, failing to protect the public from the health risks of BPA. Aggravated by the FDA's inaction, consumers have taken matters into their own hands, seeking out BPA-free products. Many manufacturers eagerly responded to the consumer demand and started offering BPA-free options. But is buying a BPA-free water bottle and avoiding canned food a sufficient measure for getting away from BPA exposure? Scientists were puzzled why bodies of so many Americans are polluted with BPA. Although plastics are ubiquitous in our society, not everybody is eating canned food and drinking water out of polycarbonate plastic bottles every day.
BPA exposures from new, unexpected sources
As reported by the Journal Sentinel, "The research indicates for the first time that people are either constantly being bombarded with bisphenol A from non-food sources, such as receipts and plastic water piping, or they are storing the chemical in fat cells, unable to get rid of it as quickly as scientists have believed." The reference to receipts is fascinating - it is a little known fact that ordinary shopping receipts contain high levels of BPA, which smears on fingers and may end up being ingested or transferred into the body through the skin.
BPA contaminates much more than your body
An estimated 6 billion pounds of BPA are produced globally annually, generating about $6 billion in sales. In addition to food containers, BPA is an additive in many other consumer products, some like plastic water pipes and municipal water storage tanks may also leach BPA directly into the drinking water. Let us also consider the other side of BPA lifecycle: What happens to those 6 billion pounds every year once they are released into the environment? They do not just disappear; on the contrary, BPA accumulates in the freshwater and marine environment, where it could damage wildlife reproduction. In 2007, an interdisciplinary team of scientists from seven different research institutions, found aquatic animals and aquatic ecosystems to be at great risk for BPA-caused endocrine disruption.
Water pollution with BPA is not just a risk to wildlife, as demonstrated by another research finding, this time from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Tucked away among long data tables of a recent USGS report is a startling observation that BPA is 1 of the 5 most frequently detected chemical contaminants in groundwater sites analyzed by USGS. 30% of the samples tested by USGS scientists contained BPA. In many communities nationwide, groundwater is the main source of drinking water, and people in some communities might be continuously exposed to BPA simply from the water they drink. Water utilities have not been testing tap water for potential BPA contamination so we don't know how many people may be ingesting BPA with tap water. But just think about it: with 6 billion pounds of BPA produced every year, the purity of our water supplies may very well be at risk.
BPA is just one reason we need a new federal chemical policy
The BPA debacle highlights the importance of looking before we leap, especially with respect to toxic chemicals. We need a watchful federal policy so that manufacturers would have to demonstrate the safety of their products before they are put on the market. This is why EWG supports the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act that would require that industrial chemicals be safe for infants, kids and other vulnerable groups. The old system of allowing chemicals on the market with minimal review is clearly broken and must be replaced with a new approach that would put human and environmental health ahead of manufacturers' profits.
Photo by jhhwild
Lead in Lipstick: More enduring than love?
With Valentine's Day right around the corner, there's a lot of puckering up to be done. But if you're not into lead poisoning, we recommend that you go natural. That's right, ditch the lipstick, ladies.
Yeah, we've talked about this before. More than once, I'm sure. The 1979 ban on lead in certain products (house paint and gasoline come to mind) was very successful, dramatically reducing blood lead levels. Good news, right? Restricting lead = less lead poisoning. Simple, even.
So why is there still lead in lipstick, then? Easy: it makes lipstick stay on your lips longer, and the FDA has (once again) not stepped up to the plate. Here's how the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics sums it up:
More than a year after the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reported that popular brands of lipstick contain lead, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has still not released the results of its own testing of lead in lipstick, despite pressure from senators and repeated calls from health groups.In Oct. 2007, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reported that 61% of lipsticks it tested contained lead. In Nov. 2007, Sens. John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein urged FDA to test a range of lipsticks for lead, publicly report the results, and take immediate action to reduce consumers' exposure to lead from cosmetic products.
Fourteen months later, FDA has made no public statements, issued no reports, and taken no action to reduce consumers' exposure.
Why am I not surprised?
What you can do. As always, there's the personal and the political. To prevent your own exposure, you should use lead-free lipstick or no lipstick at all. Because lead is not a listed ingredient, it is impossible to identify lead-free brands without testing. Going without is safer.
To get political, you can ask the FDA to step up to the plate and ban lead in lipstick. You can also contact the folks who make your favorite lipstick and let them know that you like their product - but would prefer it without a dose of lead, please and thank you.
For more on the useful properties of lead, the 2007 New York Times article, "The Pernicious Allure of Lead" is fascinating - showing the poisonous metal's unbeatable usefulness over time.
Two toxic chemicals out of the children's toys, hundreds more to go
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, aimed at keeping lead and toxic plastic chemicals called phthalates out of children's toys, went into effect yesterday.
Congress enacted this law last year in response to numerous recalls of over 20 million toys, many made in China, tainted with these dangerous chemicals.
It requires manufacturers to test imported toys and label when and where they were made. Fines range from $100,000 to as much as $15 million for repeat offenders. The act provides criminal penalties of up to five years in prison for intentional violations.
San Francisco Chronicle environment writer Jane Kay reported yesterday that:
"even before the law took effect, two giant retail chains, Longs Drug Stores and Rite Aid, removed three styles of Valentine's Day mechanical singing-and-dancing plush animals from their shelves after receiving calls from [California] Attorney General Jerry Brown's office. The red plastic guitars attached to "Wild Thing Gorilla," "Ain't Too Proud to Beg Dog" and "Sing & Dance Puppy," manufactured in China by Dan Dee International, contain levels of lead that may violate [California laws] Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. Based on metal testing, the toys may also violate the new federal law, state officials said."It is particularly important that toys be free of lead. The scientific community agrees that there are no safe levels of lead, a potent neurotoxin that can damage the developing nervous systems.
While I am happy that Congress has passed a law that will clean up American toys shelves, I can't help but wonder, how did those chemicals end up in toys in the first place? Had we had a stronger policy on toxic chemicals, something like that would never have happened.
Listen up: Kid-Safe Chemicals Act conference call for all
Here at EWG we talk about the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act a lot. Like every day. Sometimes all day. Why?
Simple. We think it's time for a new law (the Toxic Substances Control Act that currently regulates industrial chemicals is notoriously weak) and that Kid-Safe is the right approach to federal chemical policy. We also think it has a good chance of moving out of the proverbial station and becoming law. With your help.
And since you probably don't talk about it every day, or all day (like we do), we've scheduled an open conference call so you can hear for yourself how Kid-Safe works, why TSCA doesn't, and how you can help make Kid-Safe more than just a bill on Capitol Hill (remember School House Rock?).
Please join us. We'll be talking for an hour on Thursday, February 19th from 1 to 2 PM Eastern (10 to 11 am Pacific). Feel free to post your questions here up to and during the call, and we'll see that they get answered.
Call-in numbers: Dial 1-218-339-3600. Enter code: 1036416#
A big thanks to the folks over at Healthy Child, Healthy World for hosting this call and promoting Kid-Safe.
Talk to you soon!
Breast Cancer Fund study finds strong cancer-chemical link
A new survey of scientific evidence conducted by researchers working with the Breast Cancer Fund makes a persuasive case that the industrialized world's rising breast cancer rate may stem from exposure to radiation and chemicals in plastics, pesticides, cosmetics and other common household goods.
"Increasingly sophisticated and compelling data link radiation and various chemicals in our environment to the current high rates of breast cancer incidence," says the study, "State of the Evidence - The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment," published in the February issue of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.
The bottom line, says Vassar College researcher Janet Gray, who led the survey team, is that "we should be concerned about the accumulated set of chemicals to which we are being exposed and to which our children are being exposed."
In a companion article, a team lead by Janet Nudelman, Director of Program and Policy at the Breast Cancer Fund, recommends a set of policy initiatives, among them, an overhaul and strengthening of federal laws that aim to limit human exposure to toxic industrial chemicals and pesticides.
The report targeted so-called "endocrine-disrupting" chemicals that cause changes in the body's hormones. The Breast Cancer Fund is calling for immediate comprehensive bans on two endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are essential building blocks of a host of plastic products:
- Bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic estrogen and building block of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resin, associated with damage to the brain, neurological system and reproductive system of lab animals.
- Phthalates, used as solvents and as "plasticizers" to make plastics like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible and resilient. Phthalates have been shown to cause abnormalities in male reproductive systems.
A federal ban on phthalates in toys, teethers, bibs and other children's products takes effect tomorrow (February 10, 2009). Similarly, some lawmakers favor banning BPA from children's products or food contact items.
But Nudelman says those measures are an important first step but don't go far enough, pointing out that both chemicals are in a vast variety of products that can leach toxins into people and the environment. "BPA and phthalates are so powerful, they can actually cross the placenta and impact the fetus in development and predispose the fetus to cancer and other diseases," she says. "If they can cross the placenta and affect fetal development, they have no business being in commerce, period."
"The picture of breast cancer causation that emerges is complex," said Breast Cancer Fund president Jeanne Rizzo. "While there is no single smoking gun, the trends that emerge lead us to stop asking IF there is a link between breast cancer and synthetic chemicals, and to instead ask how to act to reduce our exposure, given the strong and compelling evidence we now have."
We Oregonians love our public transit
It's no surprise to Enviroblog readers that transportation spending has long been tilted toward highways and away from transit - and commuters have been the losers. In fact, EWG found that between 1998 and 2003, commuters in 176 metropolitan areas paid $20 billion more in federal gas taxes than they received in federal highway trust fund money for both transit and highways. Taxpayers in 54 metropolitan areas lost $100 million or more during that 6-year period.
So why talk about an imbalance that's old, well-known news? Especially among transit advocates? Because an opportunity to change this unfortunate imbalance has presented itself, and thanks to Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure's subcommittee on Highways and Transit, for seizing the moment. Defazio saw to it that the federal investment in much-needed commuter rail systems was boosted from $9 to $12 billion in the final House stimulus bill. As one of many pro-transit Oregonians, I'm thrilled to see one of our House members so actively support much-needed funding for such a clear winner.
When trying to clear the air (and who isn't, these days?), directing funding towards public transit and away from driving is an obvious solution that often goes underfunded. But not this time. As EWG President Ken Cook summed up DeFazio's incredible work:
No one fought harder than Peter DeFazio for a major boost in mass transit infrastructure, which means more jobs and cleaner air, pure and simple. And he succeeded, against very steep odds. It's a clear sign that as chairman of the key subcommittee, DeFazio is going to put his mark on the nation's long-term transportation strategy later this year, when congress takes up massive transportation legislation. We could not have a better leader when it comes to creating greener, cleaner economy.
Check out Oregon's newest commuter line - it opened this week (literally!). Rep. Defazio knows from experience at home that commuter rail is a worthwhile investment in livability, sustainability, affordability, and clean air. Really, what's not to love?
Not So Bulletproof
Special to Enviroblog by Don Carr, EWG Press Secretary
The notion that proven and clean renewable energy technologies like solar and wind can be the driver for American energy independence took a hit today, and the culprit is the ever worsening financial crisis. As reported by the New York Times' Kate Galbraith :
Wind and solar power have been growing at a blistering pace in recent years, and that growth seemed likely to accelerate under the green-minded Obama administration. But because of the credit crisis and the broader economic downturn, the opposite is happening: installation of wind and solar power is plummeting.Factories building parts for these industries have announced a wave of layoffs in recent weeks, and trade groups are projecting 30 to 50 percent declines this year in installation of new equipment, barring more help from the government.
It takes lots and lots of money to build forests of wind turbines and fields of solar arrays. With the collapse of the credit market, many manufactures are finding it impossible to find financing for large scale projects. One would hope the federal government could step in (and very well could with a stimulus package) but currently, the US government spends two thirds of taxpayer funded subsidies on what it classifies as renewable energy on corn-based ethanol -- a fuel that underperforms compared to gasoline, contributes to water pollution, encourages the clearing of wildlife habitat and likely worsens global warming.
At least we're not yet buying advanced renewable energy from foreign countries like we do with traditional fossil fuels.
Oh wait, strike that.
On silky hair and toxic humans
If you are exposed to the sun, wind, chemical treatments, heat from blow dryers, chances are, you have dry hair. And if you are like me, you can write a book about the steps you have taken trying to make it silkier and shinier and to keep away that frizz that you occasionally have.
If you live in Canada, our progressive neighbor to the North, you can continue to use hair care products to keep the frizz down, because soon they won't contain dangerous chemicals. In the U.S., watch out!
Recently, the Canadian federal government decided to place two silicon-based chemicals known as D4 and D5, on its list of toxic substances. The two chemicals are used widely in shampoos and conditioners and are credited with giving the hair silky, shiny and smooth feeling. They are also found in numerous other items, like body lotions, soaps, lipsticks, baby bottle nipples, cookware and home cleaning products. According to our own analysis, we found them in more than 1 out of every 7 products from the 40, 000 we surveyed.
Canada is the first country to take such health-based action concerning the chemicals. Both of those (and many others, unfortunately) are extremely persistent, building up in the food chain, the environment, and potentially in people.
While Canadians should be applauded for their action to reduce the use of these toxic chemicals under its Chemical Management Plan program, our own EPA has yet to publish a single study or assessment on D4 and D5 under its own program, the High Production Volume (HPV) chemical challenge. The two have been prioritized for assessment in the HPV program since 1998.
Here come the plastics ambassadors!
Good news, everyone! The Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council and the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. are rolling out a new 'plastics ambassador' program.
You'll be happy to know that this is part of the industry's plan to 'aggressively respond to the onslaught of misinformation about their industry.' Because, in their minds, the general public (yes, that's you) 'does not intuitively understand that [they] are, in fact, a sustainable industry.'
Which is exactly where the new Plastics Ambassadors come in! Their job is to help you understand that the plastics industry is sustainable and good for consumers (right, you again). The ambassadors will 'unify and amplify' the voice of the industry. I don't know about you, but I can't wait for that all that unity and volume! It'll be like the "Wonderful World of Chemistry" exhibit at the New York World's Fair in 1964, all over again (no, I wasn't alive, but it's worth checking it out - if only to see the Dupont 'Happy Plastic Family Dance.' No really.)
One of the industry's goals is to 'promote policies that allow decisions about health, safety and the environment to be based on the best-available science.' Which is funny, because we also support science-based decisions. It's just that we support the neutral scientific studies with no industry ties. The kind we hope EPA and FDA will include in their chemical assessments going forward. So naturally we are thrilled with President Obama's clear emphasis on the importance on the role of science in policy making.
If you happen to encounter a plastics ambassador in the coming months, be sure you're ready. EWG has some great resources on plastic and how to use it safely:
- Tips on avoiding BPA
- What's the best baby formula?
- Plastics 101 with Dr. Greene: Know Your Plastics
[photo courtesy of Flickr commons]
Scientists: Lead contamination in drinking water is never safe.
When are traces of lead in drinking water dangerous?
The better question is, when aren't they?
That question became personal back in early 2004, when the Washington Post disclosed that, beginning in 2001, Washington D.C.'s drinking water had been contaminated with rising levels of lead, flushed from aging pipes by a new treatment process.
Last week, in Environmental Science and Technology, a research team led by Marc Edwards, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech whose tests helped uncover the lead crisis, reported that the number of babies and toddlers with elevated lead levels in their blood increased more than 400 percent between 2001 and 2004 period. The study, based on blood tests of more than 28,000 children seen at the Children's National Medical Center in Washington, was the first to draw a strong correlation between the city's water contamination and elevated lead blood levels in young children from the hardest-hit neighborhoods. 
But what does it mean for the hundreds, or possibly thousands, or even tens of thousands of D.C.'s children exposed to minute quantities of lead in their drinking water? As with most subtle, long-acting environmental toxins, there are more questions about lead than answers. But what we do know isn't reassuring.
The smartest take on the significance of early childhood exposure to lead contamination in Washington D.C.'s drinking water comes from Washington Post health and science reporter David Brown, a physician, who reports that most experts do not believe that IQ losses suffered by individual D.C. children are likely to be dramatic. "Studies have shown that lead exposure explains less than 4 percent of the variation in intelligence among individuals," he writes. "In contrast, societal and parenting factors account for more than 40 percent."
Dana Best, a pediatrician at Children's who co-authored the new study with Edwards and Simoni Triantafyllidou of Virginia Tech, told Brown that "in the worst-case scenario a child might have lost three to four IQ points, " harm that could be offset, she said, by good education.
Even so, Brown cited some studies that have demonstrated a paradoxical phenomenon: low exposures to lead can cause more intense damage than higher exposures, so any blood lead level greater than zero cannot be dismissed. "On a microgram-by-microgram exposure, lead has a greater effect on IQ at low concentrations than at high concentrations," Brown wrote. "In other words, the brain is more sensitive to small doses than to large ones, even though large ones ultimately do more damage. The consequence of this counterintuitive fact is that a child whose blood lead rises from two micrograms to five micrograms for several years might not only be affected, but that the effect might also be more exaggerated than one would expect."
The outsize impact of the first few micrograms of lead was the subject of a pioneering 2003 study by a team led by Richard Canfield, a senior researcher in Cornell's Division of Nutritional Sciences, with scientists from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital, the University of Rochester, the National Institutes of Health and the University of Washington. The study, published in the April 17, 2003 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, found that children suffer intellectual damage at a blood-lead concentrations below the level of 10 micrograms per deciliter (mcg/dl), or 100 parts per billion. That number is significant because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) calls for public health action if a child's blood-lead measurement is above the 10 mcg/dl level.
But, Canfield said, the study found that "most of the damage to intellectual functioning occurs at blood-lead concentrations that are below 10 mcg/dl. The amount of impairment was also much greater than the researchers had expected. "
The implications for D.C.'s children are uncertain, as the Post's Brown points out. What is clear is that we need to know much more about what's in our water supply, and we need to prevent another lead contamination crisis from happening in D.C., and everywhere else.
Image by Sebarex
