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
Make it personal & political on Earth Day
Infant formula: How to choose it & use it
Want some popcorn with your "Poisoned Waters"?
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
Does your iPhone speak organic?
Produce pop quiz:Sally and Donny each have $5 to spend on produce. Sally buys two organic apples ($2.50), two conventional tomatoes ($1.50) and a conventional head of broccoli ($1). Donny gets a conventional head of broccoli ($1), two conventional apples ($1.50) and two organic tomatoes ($2.50). Who is exposed to more pesticides? (Answer below.)
If questions like that make you want to run to the chips & soda aisle, you probably haven't seen EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides yet. Our lists rank fruits and veggies based on levels of pesticide residue, so you know:
- which conventional produce are OK if organic isn't available
- how to best budget your produce dollars
- that Sally is the smarter shopper (apples are #2 on the "Dirty Dozen" list but tomatoes are in the "Clean 15")
Now, next time you're in Sally or Donny's shoes (you know it's gonna happen), you can whip out your smartphone for the answers. Yup, EWG just created a Shopper's Guide to Pesticides iPhone app, so you'll have the full list of all 43 fruits and veggies we ranked, right on your phone, right in the produce aisle.
So your iPhone can speak organic!
Visit EWG's FoodNews website to download the Shopper's Guide iPhone app or the old-school paper version for your wallet. (And if you like the app, don't forget to leave a positive review!)
1 in 6 Americans live with dangerous air pollution: Do you?
The American Lung Association (ALA) just issued its 10th annual State of the Air report for 2009 yesterday. Use it to learn your county's air pollution ratings - they have an interactive air pollution map so you can click your state and drill down from there.
Or, if you're a city dweller like me, go straight to the city rankings - which are assessed by ozone levels, as well as short-term and year-round particle pollution. The overall findings are just scary - six in ten Americans live in areas where pollution has reached dangerous levels.
So what exactly is air pollution?
Air becomes polluted when chemicals are introduced into the atmosphere that endangers humans and other living organisms. Overall, these chemicals and particles pair up to reduce the quality of air. Air pollution is usually categorized as ozone or particle pollution.
Ozone pollution is an increase in the concentration of ozone in the air at ground level. According to AirNOW, a multi-agency U.S. government program:
Ground-level ozone is formed when two types of pollutants react in the presence of sunlight. These pollutants are known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen. They are found in emissions from:
* Vehicles such as automobiles, trucks, buses, aircraft, and locomotives
* Construction equipment
* Lawn and garden equipment
* Sources that combust fuel, such as large industries and utilities
* Small industries such as gas stations and print shops
* Consumer products, including some paints and cleaners
Particle pollution is "a mixture of microscopic solids and liquid droplets suspended in air. This pollution, also known as particulate matter, is made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, soil or dust particles, and allergens (such as fragments of pollen or mold spores)." Get details about health effects and prevention steps on AirNOW.
What are the health effects of air pollution?
Air pollution causes both short- and long-term effects on people. Examples of short-term effects are irritation to the eyes, nose and throat, bronchitis and pneumonia; long-term effects include chronic respiratory disease, lung cancer, and heart disease. And different people are affected by it in different ways.
The most vulnerable people are young children and the elderly, as well as people with health conditions like asthma and lung disease. According to Dr. Alan Greene, a respected pediatrician with an eye toward environmental health, children living in areas with high air pollution have higher rates of asthma and other lung diseases. In fact, New Zealand recently designated no child care zones to minimize childhood exposures to major sources of air pollution.
What can you do to reduce pollution?
Here are some steps you can take to cut your personal contribution to air pollution:
Drive less: This might not be the most obtainable goal for many (I am lucky to live car free in a city with great public transportation). But, if you have to drive, you can:
- carpool,
- telecommute,
- trip chain (plan your trips so you don't have to take multiple ones to the same destinations),
- maintain your car, tires and air filters,
- use use fuel-efficient vehicles and
- follow the speed limit.
Buy carefully:
- Don't spray as much as possible
- Minimize use of volatile organic compounds
- Use electric lawn mowers
- Start your barbecue with an electric probe.
- When upgrading, buy energy efficient appliances and products
- Don't waste
It's not always easy being green, but we all have to take the necessary steps to protect ourselves - and this beautiful planet we live on - from air pollution.
Green chemistry happens; Olestra finds a new use
Special to Enviroblog by Dave Andrews, EWG Senior Scientist.
Painting the wall with potato chips
Olestra, the laxative fat substitute, could represent a class of greener replacements for hazardous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in newer low voc paints. A recent Scientific American article made me curious how and if Olestra could represent green chemistry.
A previous Enviroblog post detailed the hazards of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), their common use in household products and their link to both short and long term adverse health effects.
Remember Olestra
Olestra, introduced to the diet-crazed public in the '90s, aimed to be the magic molecule, replacing fat in products without adding calories. Olestra had one major problem, however, it proved to be too effective in passing through the body (literally). The Olestra side effects led to more FDA complaints than any other food additive to date.
Olestra can still be found in some low fat snack foods and a counter of Olestra servings consumed continues to tick on the Olean website. Last check, it was over 5.8 billion.
What exactly is Olestra? Chemically speaking
The backbone of Olestra and its family of molecules, sucrose esters, is a simple sugar molecule. Using chemical synthesis, long chain fats are attached to this scaffold. Typically the fats are sourced from soybean, cotton, corn, or other vegetable oils. To date, most of these molecules have proven to be of low toxicity concern, but as the public has found out, they sometimes bring along discomfort and inconvenience.
Could Olestra replace VOCs?
It turns out that our stomachs' poor response to Olestra helped drive green innovation. Proctor and Gamble is now marketing a number of similar sucrose ester molecules for use as paint additives to aid in viscosity, thus allowing the elimination or reduction of VOCs. The chemicals are also being marketed as replacements for petrochemical lubricants. In both cases we approach with cautious optimism, the slippery substance Olestra.
As green chemistry and finding safer alternatives for products becomes an established practice, it is worth considering how this development occurred. From the outside, it seems that P&G needed a way to profit from these molecules and the first option fell through. In this instance, they found a green chemistry option.
What we do not want is toxic chemicals finding their way into a wide range of products, waterways. It is interesting that the multitudes of uses for a specific chemical are typically not anticipated during design. More importantly, a single chemical replacement for the many uses of an unsafe chemical is unlikely.
Update: The Procter & Gamble Company has requested that I emphasis the chemicals being used as replacements for solvents and lubricants are not Olestra but a family of similar compounds marketed as Sefose. These similar but distinct chemicals have been specifically tailored for their respective uses.
Mercury & fish: Why does the debate go on?
Special to Enviroblog by Sonya Lunder, EWG Senior Analyst.
The topic of mercury and fish is once again in the news. This time it was prompted by public comments submitted to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) about its controversial (hurry-up-and-get-it-out-before-George-leaves) mercury report, which largely concludes that the toxic effects of mercury in fish are mostly overcome by the beneficial fats in fish. Here at EWG an eyebrow or two (OK, more than that) were raised when these "findings" were released.
The problem with FDA's guidance? Bad science
FDA's new guidance is based on a fatally flawed model leaked last fall that was blasted by mercury experts at the Environmental Protection Agency - who cautioned against releasing it, citing scientific flaws and inadequacies.
The current draft, released minutes before the Inauguration, has slightly less outrageous language, but the basic findings remain the same. Recent public comments submitted by EWG, scientists and advocates identified the huge deficiencies in the modeling, which (not surprisingly) cast FDA's conclusions in serious doubt.
FDA presents the hazards of mercury and benefits of fish as a "he said, she said" type of argument, which could lead a rational adult to conclude that there is a legitimate scientific conflict about the issue. Which of course, there's not.
While it is true that the beneficial Omega-3 fats and other nutrients in fish appear to ameliorate or off-set some of the adverse impacts of mercury to the brains of the developing fetus and child, and does actually reduces risks to patients with heart disease. But. The conversation is skewed by the longstanding efforts of the fishing industry to downplay mercury risks.
Industry says... mercury ain't so bad
FDA scientists are not the first to fall for the industry's line on mercury. But as a government agency advising pregnant women and people with heart disease, they are taking dangerous risks with our health.
Comments supporting FDA's flawed work largely came from those with clear industry ties, like the National Fisheries Institute, StarKist, Seafood Producer's Association, Center for Consumer Freedom, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Shelf-Stable Food Producers Association. But you need a bit of a history to distinguish some other characters.
One bizarrely strong fish supporter
One commenter, Ashley Roman, presented herself as "a mother and physician." She neglected to mention she was an 'expert-for-hire' for the fisheries-industry sponsored Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition, which has concluded that pregnant women were not eating enough fish. No, really.
Dr. Roman's opinion on mercury is less restrictive than even FDA's (a bit shocking). She told the Washington Post in 2007 that she recommended her pregnant patients eat at least 3 servings of fish a week - a clear violation of the FDA and EPA's guidance for pregnant women. Dr. Roman added that "fish intake in pregnancy has never been linked with mercury toxicity" in fetuses or newborns. Huh?
The truth about mercury toxicity: it's not good for pregnant women
Assertions like these, echoed in FDA's draft report, are completely untrue. Mercury toxicity is known to overwhelm the benefits of fish fats in several international studies. And Dr. Roman need look no further than Massachusetts or Manhattan for evidence that exposure to even low levels of mercury during pregnancy has a negative effect on infant development.
The FDA should take a long, hard look at mercury
As it stands, the 2009 FDA draft is a relic of a previous Administration in which scientific findings could be stretched to defend nearly any policy decision.
We urge the new FDA to take a fresh look at the risks and benefits of mercury and seafood. There are likely some fish - with low mercury levels and lots of good fats - that can be eaten in large quantities with little risk. There are also some bad fish, like shark, tilefish, swordfish, mackrel, and others that are unsafe for at-risk groups. Consumers are hungry for clear guidance, and it just takes the right group of committed scientists to provide it. We're waiting.
In the meantime, check out our safe fish list for women.
Are you addicted to plastic?
A few months ago my family undertook - and managed to survive - a week without buying anything plastic. Like not one single thing - including sliced bread bags (just try and buy sandwich bread without 'em) and those teeny things that attach price tags to new clothes. A challenge for this pretty mainstream family, to say the least.
So I was fascinated to hear about the new indie film Addicted to Plastic: The Rise and Demise of a Modern Miracle. Have you seen it? Here's a trailer to pique your interest:
In this 85-minute film, you'll see plastics being manufactured, being designed, being recycled, being trashed, being burned, being sorted, and being worn - and then some.
The statement that struck me the most was the guy who said 'there are more things we don't know about plastics, than things we do.' And frankly, the more we do find about them, the more there is to not like. Plastic, as the film says, is biting back.
What do you think?
Make it personal & political on Earth Day
At EWG, we work to provide useful, science-based information to help you safeguard your family from environmental hazards. We also work to reform federal policy on toxic chemicals so that the earth is a cleaner, safer place for us all.
So please join us in celebration of Earth Day by changing how you live - a little or a lot, then by letting the government know that you want better protection from chemical pollution.
Make a personal change
- Switch to earth-friendly lightbulbs. Start with our Green Lighting Guide to identify which energy-efficient bulbs have the least mercury, where in your home they should go and how to use them safely.
- Eat organic when you can. Put our Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in your wallet (now!) so you can eat organic without breaking the bank.
- Do that dusting. Pets and young children are the most vulnerable to dust-bound pollutants, but cleaning your home is free, easy, and everyone benefits from cleaner indoor air.
Then get political
- Ask the Energy Star program to reduce mercury in compact fluorescent light bulbs.
Let's make meaningful progress this Earth Day - at home and in our national policy.
Infant formula: How to choose it & use it
Earlier this month, we daylighted a CDC report that showed perchlorate contamination in infant formula. Not surprisingly, we received quite a few questions about formula that week, so we put these recomendations together to supplement our perchlorate report FAQ.
Breast milk is best, but most families use formula to supplement or replace it when needed. If you use formula, here are some tips for choosing and using the ones that are safest for baby.
Infants need breast milk or formula.
Information about contaminants in formula and water can be scary, but remember that infants less than 1 year old should not be fed straight cow milk, and other drinks might not meet their complex nutritional needs. Breast milk and formula are the best foods for infants.
Choose powdered.
A toxic chemical called bisphenol-A (BPA) can leach from the lining of metal cans and lids. Liquid formulas have higher levels, so powdered is a better bet. If your pediatrician recommends liquid formula, choose the types sold in plastic containers and avoid ready-to-eat.
Use soy formula only if medically necessary.
The American Association of Pediatricians recommends that soy formula use be limited to infants who need it for medical reasons.
There are longstanding concerns that natural plant estrogens in soy formula may affect the developing baby's body. There is not enough research to make a solid conclusion, but in the meantime we recommend you limit soy formula use when possible.
Use filtered water.
Both bottled and tap water can contain contaminants that are toxic for babies whose sole or main source of food is formula. Examples are fluoride, lead and perchlorate. If you have fluoride, lead or perchlorate in your water, use a reverse osmosis filter. The American Dental Association recommends making formula without fluoridated water.
Avoid bottled water - including 'infant' water - because contaminants are not known. For the safest tap water, contact your local drinking water supplier to identify contaminants, then choose the most effective filter for them.
Choose glass or BPA-free plastic bottles.
Plastic bottles can leach a toxic chemical called bisphenol-A (BPA) into formula. Most companies sell non-BPA plastic. Look for details on packaging or from the manufacturer.
Always avoid
- Unfiltered water when reconstituting formula.
- Ready-to-eat liquid formulas in metal cans.
- Old or used plastic baby bottles; they are more likely to contain and leach BPA.
Want some popcorn with your "Poisoned Waters"?
![PoisonedWatersFrontlinePicture3.08[1].jpg](http://www.enviroblog.org/PoisonedWatersFrontlinePicture3.08%5B1%5D.jpg)
Special to Enviroblog by Michelle Perez, EWG's Senior Analyst.
Or maybe you're curious as to why endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the Chesapeake Bay may be causing transgender fish and frogs?
All joking aside, water pollution in the Chesapeake and Puget Sounds is a serious issue. At 9 p.m. Tuesday, 4/21, the PBS show Frontline is about to air a documentary called "Poisoned Waters."
Even though it's been 37 years since the Clean Water Act was enacted, our nation's water is plagued with:
- Factory-scale animal waste;
- Industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals that disrupt the endocrine system and cause bizarre sex organ mutations in fish and frogs;
- Runoff from concrete jungles and sprawling exurbs that clog our streams.
Still want popcorn?
Seriously...our source and drinking waters are in desperate straits.
From the film:
Water pollution has slipped off our radar screen in the face of other, seemingly more urgent crises.... but pollution is a ticking time bomb. It's a chronic cancer that is slowly eating away natural resources that are vital to our survival.
I'll be watching and will report to you afterwards.
You can get a sneak preview here:
Bottled water exposed - in pictures
[Cartoon by Steve Greenburg]
Who's afraid of the White House garden?
Special to Enviroblog by Amy Rosenthal, EWG's Farm & Food Outreach Coordinator.
Fresh fruits and vegetables for the First Family, school kids playing in the dirt at the White House. A reminder to Americans that food actually comes from the Earth - who's going to object to Michelle Obama planting a garden on the White House lawn?
Oh, that's right - big, conventional agribusiness. They're bent out of shape because the First Lady's garden is *shudder* organic.
That "shudder" is a direct quote from an email written by a Mid America CropLife Association spokesman: "the thought of [the White House garden] being organic made [us] shudder."
These worried agriculture trade organization officials (who happen to represent companies that produce pesticides) went on to write a letter to Michelle Obama about her garden. In it they make vague (and at some points disingenuous) claims about the importance of technology in farming, but entirely skirt the First Lady's choice not to use chemicals in her garden. The most direct reference to "organic" comes in this doozy of a sentence:
"Much of the food considered not wholesome or tasty is the result of how it is stored or prepared rather than how it is grown."
Wow - potentially "unwholesome" chemical residues on apples or carrots are the result of how they're prepared? Clearly they're not caused by any pesticides sprayed during the growing process. Thanks for clearing that one up, Big Ag!
Overall, the convoluted and evasive letter doesn't make much of a point beyond urging the First Lady to "consider the role conventional agriculture plays in the U.S." You mean the role of corporate agribusiness in sucking up government subsidies, contributing to climate change, poisoning air and water quality, and destroying American landscape? We can only hope she does consider it.
--
Read the whole letter here (it's worth it).
Want to tell the pesticide peddlers you support Michelle Obama's organic garden? Click here to sign the CREDO Action petition.
Not so green-- Green Revolution
Everybody knows that using one technique to solve a diverse set of problems often doesn't work. But somebody forgot to tell that to the creators of the Green Revolution.
The Green Revolution transformation that fundamentally changed agriculture throughout the world began after World War II. Instead of clinging to traditional practices from the old days, many farmers began using chemicals and pesticides, high-yield seeds and intensive irrigation. These new tools helped farmers increase the crop production significantly, which is not all bad.
But, not all is green about Green Revolution, and the approach came under much scrutiny since.
India benefited from the Green Revolution but now is suffering from its consequences according to National Public Radio's Daniel Zwerdling, whose excellent series, called Green Revolution' Trapping India's Farmers In Debt offered an in-depth look, from the farmer's perspective.
The Green Revolution solved the long-standing problem of famine in India, increased much of the production and made India one of the world's major rice exporters. It made India self-sufficient in grain production, highly significant for a country with the world's second largest population.
But the Green Revolution forced farmers to use huge amounts of ground water and to install powerful and expensive water pumps. Also, people began relying on just one or two sources of food, leading to less diversity and quality in their diets. But that's for another post.
The environmental consequences of the Green Revolution are even more worrisome, Zwerdling argues. Soil has been depleted of its nutrients; too much water has been used; farmers have to use three times more pesticides to destroy the pests that became immune to spraying.
The Indian government is subsidizing this ineffective process and its requiring that farmers to continue these wasteful practices. We know all about ineffective and unsustainable farm subsidies in this country!
Under the current situation, India is facing both economic and ecological collapse. Because of the costs associated with this type of farming, most of the India's farmers are in debt, trying to make ends meet. This is happening during a period of major food shortages and global economic crisis. What is needed is another revolution. One that would provide serious and sustainable solutions for worldwide agriculture.
The Kid-Safe Chemicals Act: In the blogosphere
So you've probably noticed that we love to talk about the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act, perhaps to a fault. Because we want to see it happen real bad.
The good news is that we're so not alone. Loads of people are talking about Kid-Safe - especially in the blogosphere. So rather than read (again) what EWG staff have to say about Kid-Safe (pass it, baby!), check out what the blogosphere has to say:
ACTIVISTAS signed The Declaration and encouraged others to do so, too. Because, as she said:
EWG wants 500,000 Americans to sign The Declaration so they can show Congress how very many people are ready for a real national chemicals policy. Go ahead, add your name. It's easy and it just might work. It's sure worth a try, anyway.
BABYMINDING says the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act means safer products. She writes:
Currently there are over 80,000 chemicals used in various consumer products including children's toys and personal care, most of which are not tested for safety. In fact, only around 200 are actually proven safe by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).If the bill passes, any chemicals or ingredients used in children's products will have to be proven safe and approved by the EPA before the products can go to market.
BIG GREEN PURSE quotes EWG V-P for Research, Jane Houlihan:
"Canada's findings "underscore the need for real reforms within the EPA's failed programs to regulate toxins in the U.S.," said Environmental Working Group VP for Research Jane Houlihan. "Congress and President Obama need to overhaul broken toxics laws, and establish a policy that forces the chemical companies to first prove their products are safe before being used." She goes on to say:
Clearly, a new mindset is needed focusing on preventing hazards like this from occurring. EPA needs to expedite its process on regulating proven toxic chemicals like D4 and D5 siloxanes. Just as importantly, the Obama Administration needs to adopt a "prevention agenda" to protect human health and the environment from toxic hazards - not just clean up after them.
BOSTON MAMAS attended a '10 Americans' presentation a few months and wrote a thorough post about it with a long list of actions to take, Stand Tall & Green. In it, she confessed to being a little overwhelmed by the sheer magnitud eof the problem, but she ends on an up note:
My personal turning point in this discussion was when Dr. Greene - no doubt looking out across a sea of terrified parents, many cradling babies - said, "The good news is that environmental triggers mean there are environmental solutions."
ECO CHILD'S PLAY reports about the General Accounting Office's 2009 call for chemical policy reform.
FAKE PLASTIC FISH wrote about Kid-Safe after listening to our open conference call on it back in February. She says:
A law like this will help to reduce the harm we are seeing from many plastics, including BPA and phthalates, as well as those in fragrances, dyes, and preservatives that manufacturers are not even required to list on labels at this point. If the chemicals are found to be unsafe and removed from the market, there will be nothing to reveal on labels in the first place.
GREEN & CLEAN MOM is ready for change. To wit:
The idea is that we as consumers as moms and parents do not know who to trust or what is safe. We can't just be more careful because we don't all have chemistry degrees to read a label. I support the Kid Safe Chemical Act and I hope you do, too.
THE GREEN PARENT wants products for kids proven safe before they hit the market (hear, hear!). She writes in Get the Chemicals Out:
I would like to know that they are willing to ensure that all chemicals in kids products are proven safe BEFORE they're used to create baby bath and lotion. How is it possible that this is not already the case?
GREEN TALK penned Stop Making our Kids Sick; Make Chemicals Safe. She wrote a letter to President Obama that included this call for reform:
We need to stop the exposure of toxic chemicals by updating the 1976 Toxic Substance Chemical Act (TSCA). A law that grandfathered 62,000 chemicals presumed to be safe. It has been more than thirty years since it was signed into law, and we are still living in the seventies. It is a re-run not worth watching.In this country, chemicals and the justice system have a lot in common. You are innocent until proven guilty. I can understand this approach with regard to the justice system, but please explain to me why manufacturing companies are not required to provide health and safety studies prior to chemicals coming onto the market? 20,000 new chemicals have come onto the market since TSCA was enacted.
HEALTHY CHILD HEALTHY WORLD even organized an open conference call on Kid-Safe. If you missed the February call, never fear, we taped it and you can listen to the podcast.
HUFFINGTON POST author Deidre Imus (founder of the Deidre Imus Environmental Center for Pediatric Oncology) writes about Keeping our Kids Safe:
If you are like most Americans, you have an expectation that our federal regulatory agencies will protect us from unsafe chemicals found in the products we use everyday. We expect our children's toys, baby bottles and drinking water to be safe.Congressional action is long overdue and urgently needed. Our country can no longer afford regulatory failures like The Toxic Substances Control Act.
MORE GREEN MOMS wrote I believe... it is time to rally around the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act for a recent Green Moms Carnival. She says:
We are clearly entering an era of governmental reform and it is essential that we elevate the visibility of this important Bill designed to protect our children. We can work tirelessly to educate our communities about the toxic overload we believe our families suffer every day.But our growing base of knowledge has little impact if we continue living under the extraordinarily lax standards established by the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
NATURE DEVA is adamantly in favor. She writes:
It's just wrong that there is not any real regulation of the chemical industry and how those unsafe chemicals make their way into our bodies. What do you think those chemicals do to our children - and how about our babies in utero? They come into the world pre-polluted!At least we have a fighting chance now that the new administration is in place and making changes to help the people. This would be one huge step towards improving everyone's health - especially our children.
NON-TOXIC KIDS writes The Kid-Safe Chemicals Act - Sign The Declaration. She says, "Oh yeah, am I ready and itching to support the Kid-Safe Chemical Act. If you want to see a compelling reason to do so, watch this."
SAFE MAMA says the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act needs more support (we agree!). She writes:
The Kids Safe Chemical Act is where we need to focus our energy and get behind it 100%. This Act will overhaul our nation's chemical regulatory law requiring industrial chemicals to be safe for babies and kids, make safety testing a requirement prior to hitting the market and will require testing of the already 62,000 chemicals in our products be re-evaluated for safety. Just to name a few. We're talking to YOU PHTHALATES!
THE SOFT LANDING tells readers that she signed The Declaration against pre-polluted babies, and suggest that *you* get a Kid-Safe blog badge.
AND MANY MORE! And there's plenty more @ O EcoTextiles, Lundeby's EcoBaby, and surely there are others! Did we miss yours? Forgive us and please add it in the comments section - it's be great to have them all in one e-place. You know?
Flame retardants pose health risks to recyclers
Electronic recycling facility workers face 6-33 times higher exposure to toxic flame retardants PBDEs than the general American population, reported scientists from the University of Texas in an article now in press in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Where does flame retardant dust come from?
PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers, if you must know) are included in plastic computer parts during manufacturing. Over the lifetime of a product, PBDEs are slowly released - with tiny dust particles that chip off the surface of computer equipment. At home and in the office we may be continuously inhaling small quantities of PBDEs which tend to linger in the body and accumulate to higher levels after long term exposure. But the real toxic hit happens during the recycling process. When computer equipment is completely disassembled to extract valuable metal components, a large portion of the PBDEs end up in the air that workers breathe.
Flame retardants pose an occupational hazard
Comparing PBDE air values reported from a California electronic recycling facility and estimates of US food, air and dust intake, University of Texas research team concluded that PBDE exposure in US electronic recycling facilities is a largely unrecognized occupational health hazard. Furthermore, recycling workers might carry PBDEs and other toxic chemicals home to their families on their clothing. Elevated environmental and blood PBDE levels were also detected in similar occupational studies in China, Sweden, and Norway.
Considering that PBDEs build up in the body, where they disrupt adults' thyroid system and possibly decrease testosterone levels in exposed men, it makes sense that the scientists strongly advised to lower levels of PBDEs in the workplace where exposure exists. The article concluded with a statement that "health care providers, plant safety professionals, and government agencies can play a role in recognizing the problem and in decreasing worker exposure."
Consumer power matters
As buyers and users of computer equipment, we can help shape the debate and vote with our purchasing choices so as to decrease levels of toxic chemicals in consumer products. Constantly developing technology offers to us amazing new levels of convenience, facilitating our work and home life and making it easy to live a disposable lifestyle. Many of us feel that we are doing our bit for the environment by driving the extra mile to drop off an old laptop or cell phone at a recycling center. Yet, is this enough?
The high costs of recycling
As the new study demonstrates - in agreement with findings from plastic and computer recycling sites worldwide - there is a strong reason to care about the fate of recycled products, since they affect the health of our fellow citizens who work in recycling facilities. The cost ratios are also striking. For example, let's take the case of plastic bags, a simpler situation than computer recycling. According to statistics from the San Francisco's Department of the Environment, it costs $4,000 to process and recycle 1 ton of plastic bags, which can then be sold on the commodities market for less than 50 dollars. So recycling is as important as it ever was - but it cannot be considered as a sufficient solution.
Let's remember the first 2 R's
We all remember the three R's - reduce, reuse, and recycle. The recycling part of the solution has received the well-deserved attention and support. Many types of plastics can be recycled - but many are not recyclable. And recycling itself is costly and can carry negative environmental consequences as well. Clearly, we need to work towards safer recycling techniques. More importantly, though, we need to make sure that the first two R's are not forgotten - reducing, reusing, and making safer, durable consumer products point the path out of the current wasteful predicament that endangers human health.
Why should you care?
The truth is that once toxic chemicals are produced, they will stay with us for a very long time, eventually polluting the environment and the bodies of people everywhere. And when it comes to PBDEs, computer equipment is just one source of exposure - we can inhale and ingest flame retardants that are added to furniture, mattresses, and sometimes even clothes our children wear. Even more worrisome is the fact that PBDE contamination of the environment is on the rise. As reported by Tony Perry from LA Times on April 1st:
Flame-retardant chemicals that have been linked to reproductive and neurological problems in animals have seeped into coastal environments even in remote regions and have been found in high concentrations off populated areas such as Chicago and Southern California, a federal study revealed Tuesday."This is a wake-up call for Americans concerned about the health of our coastal waters and their personal health," said John H. Dunnigan, assistant administrator of the National Ocean Service, a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which released the report.
High levels of the chemicals were found in sediment and shellfish samples in areas including the Pacific Northwest's Puget Sound; the Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla., coast; New York's Hudson-Raritan Estuary; Lake Michigan off Milwaukee, Chicago and Gary, Ind.; and off remote shores in Alaska. The highest concentrations were near industrial centers."
Change in toxic chemicals policy needed
We need to fundamentally change our policy approach to toxic chemicals in the environment and consumer goods, so that manufacturers are required to prove their products are safe before they are put on the market. Otherwise, harmful chemical exposures will just keep on adding up, putting people and the environment at greater risk.
Photo by georgehotelling
Rocket Baby: A funny take on a serious matter
It's Friday, folks! So we thought we'd lighten up a little (yes, it's possible). Especially since we came across this video spoof that sends an important message, but made us laugh, too.
And if you ever wonder what else we're watching, we just added a playlist on our You Tube channel called "What EWG is watching." Check it out and, if you see anything out there that you think might make the cut, send them to lisa@ewg.org.
A new target for deadly lead?
Special to Enviroblog by EWG senior analyst, Sonya Lunder.
Yesterday Janet Raloff of Science News wrote about a new study linking lead levels in older women to an increased risk of mortality. Naila Khalil and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh report that women whose blood lead levels measure > 8 micrograms per deciliter were a whopping 60% more likely to die during the study. The main reason was heart disease and stroke. Since about 90% of accumulated lead is stored in our bones, elderly women are at increased risk because the loss of bone density releases lead into circulation in the bloodstream.
That's a lotta lead
Several things are notable about this study. For one, lead levels above 8 are these days high for adults - CDC studies indicate that fewer than 5% of American adults are estimated to have this much lead in their bodies. But a couple decades back, when lead was common in gasoline, these levels would have been pretty unremarkable. That means we are only learning decades later that this common and replaceable chemical was causing serious harm.
Hindsight is 20/20: What are we missing today?
If we miss dramatic things like chemicals that kill you, how can we be assured that other common chemicals like the ones contaminating your canned food, hair dye or shower curtain aren't also causing more subtle but insidious harms? We need a bit more respect for the fact that it is incredibly difficult to track down the environmental causes of common diseases, and try to prevent exposures instead of waiting three decades to study the results in affected adults.
Unique risks to older people
The second take-home lesson is the unique risks to an older population (and I don't just mean the elderly). We rightfully focus a lot of energy on preventing risks to children, whose immature body systems are incredibly vulnerable to environmental chemicals. But aging leads to increasing rates of chronic diseases, and a gradual decline in the body's capacities, especially to excrete toxic chemicals or repair the damages they cause. The persistent chemicals we've accumulated in our bodies reach their peak in later life. Common toxicants like lead and mercury strain the weakened cardiovascular system, and air pollution takes its toll on those with reduced lung capacity and lung disease.
Early exposures lead to problems later in life
Finally, in the case of BPA we've learned in the laboratory that early life exposures can alter organs in a way that only manifests later in life. Suk-Mei Ho and Gail Prins at the University of Cincinnati discovered that animals exposed to BPA in early life were more susceptible to prostate cancer when their body's hormone levels were changed to simulate the effects of aging. We need to take a closer look at the effects early life exposures that may not manifest for decades.
The good news: We've successfully reduced lead exposures
The good news here is that the substantial progress we've made to reduce lead levels in the environment will undoubtedly lower the lead-related mortality for future generations of women. However, we can definitely learn some humility from this example and apply what we've learned to our own daughters - even if we can't see the results today.
Toxic babies
It's hard to talk about pregnancy without talking about a woman's right to give birth to pollution-free babies.
In 2004, EWG tested umbilical cord blood of 10 babies born in U.S. hospitals and found a total of 287 chemicals, an average of 200 chemical per child! All this at the time of the infant's most critical period of development of the baby, when it needs a chemical-free and nutrient-rich environment, not an industrial site! That those chemicals are present in its mother's womb is wrong on so many levels!
But babies are not just born pre-polluted due to environmental factors, they are harder to conceive. According to the Telegraph, newspaper in Calcutta, India:
"A study of 100 childless couples who have experienced early miscarriage in the past two years revealed genetic deficiencies in sperms produced by almost 55 per cent of the males in the group. The common factor was constant exposure to air pollution."
The Telegraph further reports around 15 to 20 per cent of all pregnancies in India were ending in miscarriage, because males, exposed to pollution, were producing defective sperm.
But you don't have to go as far as India. You can go to the U.S. farmlands to encounter dangerous agricultural chemicals. According to Sandra Steingraber, the author of the book "Living Downstream," chemicalization of farming has sent toxic farm chemicals downstream and into contact with people.
We are all interconnected. The choices that people make in one part of the world affect the people on the other side of the blog. Those choices affect whether others enjoy basic human rights and necessities. The right to food. The right to give birth to non-polluted babies.
But mom, they're pretty.
Last week I lamented the nail polish offered to my 3-year-old daughter by our hairdresser. This week, I'm back with another toxic situation on my hands. This time, from the dentist. And again, my daughter.
Her first trip to the dentist
So here's the story: we love our dentist. They work wonders with kids, never complain about the complications with our dental insurance, and are conveniently located. So what's not to love, right?
The treasure box, that's what. You know the drill: the kids do well in the chair, so they get rewarded with a trip to the treasure box, where they can select any (often toxic) trinket that their little heart desires.
Taking things away - all. the. time.
OK, so this might seem like small potatoes compared to the positives, but when my kids come home with brightly colored play necklaces (most likely covered in lead paint), I'm not so happy. And when I have to get rid of yet another toy because it is/might be harmful to my children's health, I'm even more unhappy. As are they.
As I said last week, I regularly say "no" to my kids (don't we all?), but what gets me is how I often I find myself taking away seemingly simple pleasures because they're not simple, not when they're toxic.
And since I don't - and won't - have access to an expensive lead testing machine, I make decisions based on what I've read (kids jewelery often contains lead paint) and the fact that - and here's the big one for me - I've lost my trust in the government and manufacturers to protect my kids' environmental health. Which is precisely why I've taken on that role myself.
"But mama, it doesn't have lead in it"
Since my my daughter is three, she still puts things in her mouth. Like play necklaces...and the lead that may well be on them. The serious adverse effects of lead are well known, and as a parent I take them seriously. The likelihood that painted play jewelery contains lead paint is also pretty well known - though without testing it I can't be sure.
It breaks my heart and makes me really mad all at the same time to hear my daughter say "But mama, it doesn't have lead in it," to convince me to let her keep the necklaces.
I don't want to take the necklaces away. Really, I don't. But isn't it my job, as her caregiver, to keep her away from lead and any other toxic chemical that could hurt her? To take away the necklaces because they aren't safe? What would you do? Do you feel this way, too?
Some good news: The Kid-Safe Chemicals Act
I take heart in knowing that the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act is gaining traction. And that I can get behind it and DO something to improve this mess, right from home. Visit our Kid-Safe web page to see what it's all about it and get involved. You can get started right now by signing The Declaration.
Perchlorate -- Let's Get Serious
Sun!
Finally!
The kid and husband were at a cycling race, so Saber the Wonder Dog and I drove out to the Shenandoah Valley and hit the trail that runs along the waterfalls. Last week's rains were crashing down the rocks, and the spray smelled fresh and cool.
But nobody was drinking out of those seemingly pristine pools. I'd lugged a bottle of water from home, and so had the Boy Scouts, the exchange students, the families and toddlers, the dog walkers and the trout fishermen.
Just because it occurs naturally, doesn't mean it's safe
Nothing in the water that wasn't natural. But we all knew that included bear scat, deer scat, fox scat, raccoon scat, dead crawfish and eau de possum. (Saber the W.D.'s fave.) And of course, those unforgettable little giardia bombs.
Which got me to thinking about some of the reactions to our perchlorate report, published last week. Our report highlighted a recent study by scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who had found perchlorate, a component of solid rocket fuel and a thyroid toxin, in all 15 brands of powdered infant formula tested. The most popular types of formula, made with cow's milk, were also the most contaminated, according to the study.
After we published our analysis of the CDC study, a number of people posted dismissive comments arguing that perchlorate occurs in nature and suggesting that concerns about it were exaggerated.
True enough, there's a baseline level of perchlorate in the earth - as the CDC scientists duly noted. But there's a heck of a lot more perchlorate in the water and soil around old rocket launch sites and chemical-making and storage locations. The CDC report pointed out, for instance, that much contamination found in certain California wells came from the Colorado River and originated at a former perchlorate manufacturing facility in Nevada.
The Colorado, by the way, is a source of drinking water for something like 25 million people and irrigation water for vast farm acreage.
Anyhow, however an impurity gets into source water, we don't drink source water, and we sure don't let our kids drink it. We routinely treat our municipal water, and some of us filter our tap water to take out perchlorate, along with other nasties like lead and arsenic.
Which, of course, occur in nature. And are not to be trifled with.
Lead occurs naturally, too
(According to the Environmental Protection Agency Journal, the Romans -- early globalists -- knew that lead mining and smelting were poisonous and banished these noxious activities to the provinces, to be carried out by slaves and other expendables. But they found lead plates and goblets too convenient to give up, so they ignored the subtle symptoms of trace lead toxicity, among them intelligence deficits, mental illness and reproductive problems.)
What have we learned?
Haven't we learned a thing or two over the last couple of millenia? Lead's neurotoxicity is well established. There is still much to study about the effects of trace perchlorate. But scientists have established that it can impair production of thyroid hormones, which are essential for brain development in early life and for good health in later life.
We know enough, in other words, not to gamble on our kids' health.
The solution to perchlorate pollution is federal regulation and a serious clean-up financed by the defense and aerospace industries that spilled the stuff in the first place. What we don't need to do is delude ourselves.
I wade in those sparkling pools. So do my kid and my husband, when not cycling or ice-climbing. And of course, Saber the W.D. noses in.
But natural or not, we don't drink the water.
Canada bans flame retardant. The U.S? Not so much.
Special to Enviroblog by EWG senior analyst, Sonya Lunder.
EWG staffers were pretty thrilled by the recent Canadian government decision to ban the use of Deca, a type of flame retardant, in electronics. Once again, we are left applauding progress to the north, not at home.
What is deca, anyway?
Deca is a fire retardant, a type of poly-brominated diethyl ether (PBDE), that is added to plastics used in computers, television screens and other electronic items to prevent them from catching fire when they're hot. Some other types of PBDEs have been banned (penta and octa), but Deca has escaped scrutiny largely because its presence can be difficult to measure.
Why is deca a health concern?
EWG tests in show that Deca accumulates in people and their homes, and that children have the greatest exposures to the chemical. This is especially concerning because single-day exposures to Deca cause permanent changes learning, memory and behavior in newborn mice. In our 2008 report on PBDEs in toddlers and their mothers, we explain the risks associated with Deca exposure:
Like other PBDEs, Deca upsets the developing brain and reproductive system (EPA 2008d). But recent studies indicate that it also impacts the reproductive system, possibly at even lower exposure levels (Van der Ven 2008). In addition to its direct toxicity there are serious concerns that Deca breaks down in the environment to form PBDEs with fewer bromines which are more persistent and bioaccumulative in people.
Why do we continue to take these risks with our kids' health?
So what's going on in the U.S.?
Two states--Maine and Washington--have recently banned Deca, and 10 others have attempted similar action. The EPA and U.S. Congress have done nothing to restrict Deca use. You'll find a thorough overview of which states and countries have successfully or unsuccessfully taken action in our 2008 report on PBDEs in toddlers and their mothers.
In 2004, Europe passed a directive to ban Deca in electronics by 2006, which caused major manufacturers to scramble to find alternative ways to prevent fire. And they have successfully done so.
Electronics manufacturers shifting away from Deca
In the meantime, electronics makers have largely shifted away from using Deca due to restrictions in Europe and actions on the part of some U.S. states. Our 2008 guide to reducing your PBDE exposure lists all the manufacturers who have made the switch. It is clearly a bit embarrassing that EPA can't get it together to ban a toxic, replaceable chemical that everyone else agrees isn't worth the risk.
New findings make strong case for ban
Several recent findings have increased concern for the toxicity of Deca. For example, Swedish researchers recently published a study confirming the toxicity of single-day exposures to newborn mice. Also, small studies link other PBDEs in adults or in their homes with altered thyroid hormone levels, indicating that the toxic risks of this chemical might not be felt exclusively by children. A significant body of evidence shows that Deca is broken down into those same PBDEs. In fact, a study just last month found that human liver cells break down Deca into the same toxic compounds that are linked to altered thyroid levels.
Now if only we weren't always looking north and across the pond to decide what's safe or not. Because if the U.S. government says it's safe, nobody's listening.
On rocket fuel in infant formula
You don't need to be a parent to know that moms and dads have a lot to worry about--anything from their kids' healthy growth and development to the friends they choose and those math homework assignments. Now, parents need to add one more thing to the list: the rocket fuel chemical perchlorate.
What - and where - is perchlorate?
Perchlorate is a thyroid hormone disruptor that contaminates water supplies of millions of Americans in 28 states and territories. The chemical is also in food: our analysis of data from the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that three quarters of the most commonly consumed foods and beverages contain traces of perchlorate. Many Americans are getting a double perchlorate hit - from both food and water. At particular risk are babies in the womb and newborn infants; normal brain development depends on adequate levels of thyroid hormone.
CDC scientists study powdered infant formulas
Now we have another piece of the news for you. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found perchlorate in powdered infant formula. The study found that two most contaminated brands, made from cow's milk, accounted for 87 percent of the U.S. powdered formula market in 2000.
These findings raise new concerns about the rocket fuel ingredient, found in most of us. The CDC has warned that reconstituting cow's milk/lactose formula with water contaminated with perchlorate would cause over half the infants consuming the mix to exceed the so-called "safe" dose set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And the "safe" level is not very protective of public health to begin with.
We need a strong federal safe drinking water standard for perchlorate
This study presents more proof that what we need is a federal standard that would protect the public from this potent chemical. At her confirmation hearing, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson pledged that she would act "immediately" to reduce perchlorate contamination in drinking water.
Since then, EWG has called on Jackson to fulfill that promise, but so far the agency has not made public a plan of action. The CDC study provides some of the strongest evidence that it is time for EPA to change Bush era perchlorate policies that protect polluters and defense contractors and set a stringent, mandatory standard that protects the health of pregnant women, infants and other vulnerable populations.
What you can do
Until that happens, you can limit the exposure to perchlorate in water you drink by using a good filtration system. The best first step is to call your local water utility or look on its website and see if it found perchlorate in the water you are drinking.
Also, you can write to EPA officials and ask them to take action - like they said they would.
EPA set to monitor toxic air in schools
USA Today's March 31st story "EPA to monitor 62 schools' air," left me feeling angry and hopeful. Hopeful because the Obama administration is starting to make good on its promises to take public health and the environment very seriously.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced plan to monitor air and air pollution outside of the 62 schools nationwide. The move comes as a response to USA Today's investigation that concluded that some schools appear to be loaded with toxic chemicals.
Using government data and computer simulations, USA Today discovered that over 400 schools had higher level of toxic air. Higher levels in fact, then an elementary school in Ohio closed because the levels of carcinogens found there exceeded the levels that state considers acceptable, by 50 times!
Schools are supposed to be safe, healthy environments where kids can learn and grow in. Growing is a crucial word here, since kids are especially prone to negative effects of chemicals while their bodies are still developing. So, why are schools exposing kids potentially dangerous levels of chemicals? And even more important, why is it that USA Today is doing the initial digging and data analysis, instead of the government?
This scenario, among many others, shows the impact on public health of eight years of inaction. And it reaffirms the important watchdog role played by the press. While I am hopeful about the new administration, we all know that with the newspapers closing or cutting their newsroom staff, journalists will have even less time to investigate and dig into the data on their own. In my 3 years working on EWG's press team, many great investigative journalists have left the environmental beat or their newspapers, and they haven't been replaced. And that is really bad news.
