ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG TODAY
We need you to help protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
Get EWG widgets & blog badges.
ENVIROBLOG TO YOU
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Help EWG Bottled Water Research (and win a prize!)
BPA legislation in California: The time has come
Higher Ethanol Fuel: A Lose-Lose
Science update: More proof that BPA leaches from bottle to body
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Infant formula: How to choose it & use it
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
Monthly Archive
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG is working hard to pass laws that limit or ban the dangerous chemical bisphenol-A (BPA).
But until they pass, we think you should have the latest info on sources of exposure and our tips to avoid them on your own. Because before the personal becomes political it's, well, still personal.
Who's affected by BPA??
- The developing fetus and baby are the most vulnerable to BPA's toxic effects. Unfortunately they also have the most intense BPA exposure of any age group.
Many parents who have replaced their polycarbonate baby bottles are unaware that BPA contaminates liquid baby formula sold in metal cans. Since formula can make up 100% of a baby's diet over her first 6 months of life, parents should choose BPA-free types. - Adults ingest much less BPA than babies. But a recent study linking BPA exposures in adults to heart disease and diabetes raises concerns about the safety of current exposures.
Adult exposure comes primarily from canned foods and polycarbonate food containers, but BPA-containing medical devices could also be a source. Pregnant women and older children should avoid BPA. Eat a varied diet, avoid canned foods, and don't use polycarbonate plastics for warm food or drinks.
How are we exposed??
EWG Senior Scientist Olga Naidenko wrote a recent post here on Enviroblog summarizing all the ways we can be exposed to BPA.
In short, BPA has countless uses, several of which have been highlighted as an exposure risk. BPA is a component of non-metal dental fillings, it is in thermal paper for many receipts, and it is increasingly used in medical devices. There is little research about the magnitude of exposures from these products.
EWG's Tips for avoiding BPA
Although completely eliminating exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) may not be possible, there are steps you can take to reduce your family's exposure to this chemical by avoiding common sources and limiting exposure for the highest risk groups.
- BPA in formula and baby bottles: Check our BabySafe guide to bottles and formula and a previous Enviroblog post specifically about choosing and using infant formula safely.
- BPA in canned foods: Almost all canned foods sold in the United States have a BPA-based epoxy liner that leaches BPA into the food. EWG tested 97 canned foods and found detectable levels of BPA in more than half of the foods. The highest concentrations were in canned meats, pasta and soups. Only 1 manufacturer claims to use no BPA. Eden Foods uses an alternative technology for canned beans but not for its tomato-based products. Pregnant women and children should limit their consumption of canned foods to avoid BPA. Rinsing canned fruit or vegetables may reduce the amount of BPA you ingest.
- BPA in water and food containers: Less BPA leaches from plastic water bottles and food containers than from cans into canned foods and baby formula. Nevertheless it is good to take simple precautions to reduce your exposure.
Polycarbonate plastics are rigid, transparent and used for food storage containers and water bottles, among other things. Trace amounts of BPA can migrate from these containers, particularly if used for hot food or liquids. Soft or cloudy-colored plastic does not contain BPA.
When possible, avoid polycarbonate, especially for children's food and drinks. This plastic might be marked with the recycling code #7 or the letters "PC". Plastics with the recycling labels #1, #2 and #4 on the bottom are better choices because they do not contain BPA. Avoid putting any plastic containers in microwaves. Wash plastics on the top shelf of your dishwasher or by hand.
Some metal water bottles lined with an epoxy-based enamel coating could leach BPA. Look for stainless steel bottles that do not have a liner. Avoid using old and scratched plastic bottles.
And keep your eyes on Enviroblog and your inbox for upcoming e-advocacy on BPA legislation. We plan to beat this chemical at home and in the halls of Congress.
No more tears......just cancer causing chemicals
Baby products should not contain toxic ingredients, according to common sense as well as 40 + organizations lead by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) co-founded Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.
Just last week, the Campaign sent a letter to Johnson and Johnson asking that its products made for children don't contain hidden carcinogenic contaminants 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde.
No More Toxic Tub
The action comes after a recent Campaign-sponsored No More Toxic Tub report that found those two contaminants in over 60 percent of the 48 products tested. Both 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde are known carcinogens and formaldehyde can also trigger skin rashes. Like other toxic ingredients often found in your shampoo, lotion and deodorant, they are not limited in personal care products. In addition, since they are contaminants and not ingredients, they are not disclosed on product labels.
Not breaking the law isn't good enough when the law is weak
The line of defense for the manufacturers has been the typical "we didn't break the law" as well as the usual "small doses are insignificant." It is true that companies did not break the law. But it's also true that the law - the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) - is so weak that under it, the federal government wasn't able to ban asbestos! A chemical responsible for at least 10,000 deaths a year in the U.S.
Low doses matter
The small doses are not insignificant because we are all exposed to chemicals in personal care products every day, several times a day. Those exposures are there in addition to exposures to other toxics in food we eat, water we drink, air we breathe and so forth. All of these exposures add up, and could lead to diseases later in life.
The companies don't have to use the toxic ingredients, as alternatives are available. Even Johnson and Johnson can make formaldehyde-free products, as they do in Japan.
Tell Johnson & Johnson to get rid of the toxic chemicals
Without a tough federal law that would require the chemicals in personal care products be safe, consumers are left out on their own to make the best purchasing decisions.
That's why we created Skin Deep, a cosmetics database that can help you make informed decisions when it comes to toxic contained in personal care products you use.
Until the law is changed, you can join us and tell Johnson and Johnson that you don't want these toxic chemicals in your baby's shampoo and they should take it out!
Got Bats - or Mosquitoes and Encephalitis?
About bats, mosquitoes and encephalitis, "Carnac the Magnificent" (the Johnny Carson character) might say: "What are three things that are affecting my property value?"Last summer, my wife, son and I liked to sit on my deck at sunset to watch the bright orange sun filter through the lush green canopy of the protected forest. It was SPECTACULAR.
SPECTACULAR.
We'd have dinner out there and then sit back for the show. It was great. And no one had to wear any bug repellent because there weren't very many mosquitoes. Instead of mosquitoes, we'd stare up at the bats swooping around the yard. It was fun to see them narrowly miss the house, a tree, or even one another. Those bats looked like they were having a great time.
BTW, did I mention that it was spectacular?
Pretty sunset.
Entertaining bats.
No mosquitoes.
Good company.
But those days have ended.
The bats are gone.
After inspecting some important hibernation locations, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection revealed that 80 to 90 percent of the bats have died this past winter from White Nose Syndrome. [CT DEP]
Now we have mosquitoes. LOTS of mosquitoes.
And all those mosquitoes make me worry about encephalitis. I have a four year old son and now a 3 month old baby that could be especially susceptible to "triple E" or West Nile Virus.
So we'll be eating dinner inside this year.
Learn more about white nose syndrome from the US Forest Service.
[Thanks to baskyes on Flickr for the terrific pic]
It's practically summer: Quick, grab the (safe) sunscreen
Every year about this time we get a note from our preschool asking parents to either sign off on the school's sunscreen application regimen (their brand) or to bring your own. We've always brought our own because I was not at all keen on the brand the school used.
Not sure who got the last laugh when I learned last year that my "this one's safer" brand was, ahem, loaded with oxybenzone. How did I know? EWG's Cosmetics Database, of course. And for the curious, oxybenzone is on our list of ingredients to avoid.
And what did I do? Ditched the toxic stuff immediately (not cheap), and followed the practical advice on EWG's handy 1-page guide to safe sunscreen. Leading me to a safer product and a better understanding of how the stuff actually works. Now we're neither burned nor toxic. Success!
What does EWG suggest for safe summer fun?
- USE SUNSCREEN that's effective and safe. Start with EWG's list of "best" sunscreens. Make sure the SPF is 30 or higher. Buy new sunscreen every year and avoid powders and sprays.
- KEEP KIDS SAFE since they're more sensitive to sun damage. Use sunscreen, play in the shade, and keep infants out of direct sun as much as possible. Check our special sun safety tips for kids below.
- AVOID MIDDAY SUN WHEN INTENSITY PEAKS. Summer sun is more intense between 10 and 4, also at high altitudes and in the tropics.
- SEEK SHADE OR BRING YOUR OWN. Cover up with a shirt, hat, and UV-protective sunglasses. Remember that invisible rays can reflect up toward you from the ground, so you may still need sunscreen if you wear a hat.
- SLOP ON SUNSCREEN AND REAPPLY OFTEN. Put it on before you go out in the sun. Sunscreen washes off in water and can break down in the sun -- reapply often. Wear daily on skin not covered by clothing.
- AVOID PRODUCTS WITH BUG REPELLANT. You don't typically need them at the same time of day, and the mixture of ingredients leads to greater amounts of the pesticide soaking through the skin.
- CHECK THE UV INDEX when planning outdoor activities.
- SKIP SUNLAMPS and tanning beds.
- CHECK YOUR SKIN for spots and changes, and remember that natural tone (not just tan) is beautiful. You know your skin best, so examine it for changes, lesions, and spots regularly. Be extra careful if you have freckles, moles, take certain medications (such as some antibiotics), or have a family history of skin cancer. Early detection is best, so consult your doctor for more information.
A few tips just for kids
Kids are more vulnerable to damage caused by the sun. A few blistering sunburns in childhood can double a person's lifetime chances of developing serious forms of skin cancer. Keep your family safe in the sun by using a sunscreen that's effective and safe. Take these special precautions with infants and children:
Infants under 6 months should be kept out of direct sun as much as possible. Their skin is not yet protected by melanin. So when you take your infant outside, take special care:
- COVER UP your baby's sensitive skin with protective clothing, tightly woven but loose-fitting, and a sun hat.
- MAKE SHADE with your stroller's canopy or hood. If you can't find a shady spot to sit, put up an umbrella.
- AVOID SUN DURING MIDDAY -- take walks in the early morning or late afternoon.
- FOLLOW PRODUCT WARNINGS FOR SUNSCREEN ON INFANTS UNDER 6 MONTHS OLD - Most manufacturers advise to avoid use for infants or to consult a doctor before using. The American Academy of Pediatrics now says that small amounts of sunscreen can be used on infants as a last resort when shade is not available.
- TEST THE SUNSCREEN by applying a small amount on the inside of your child's wrist the day before you plan to use it. If an irritation or rash develops at any time, try another product. Ask your child's doctor to suggest one that will not irritate.
- SLOP ON SUNSCREEN and reapply often, especially if your child is playing in the water or sweating a lot.
Get the guide. You can download our 2008 shopper's guide to safe sunscreens now and sign up to be notified as soon as our updated 2009 version is ready. Because who wants to be burned by the sun and contaminated by sunscreen? Not me, not this summer.
[Photo courtesy of Mirko Macari on Flickr CC]
Help EWG Bottled Water Research (and win a prize!)
"Purified by equatorial winds." "Pure as the driven snow." "Resonates with the energy and frequency of well-being." Your ... bottled water?Bottled water companies use some fancy phrases to tell you what's in their products. But personally, when it comes to purification, I'll take reverse osmosis over equatorial winds.
Environmental Working Group wants to make sure bottled water companies give you accurate and useful information about their water sources, purification techniques and water quality testing results. But first, we need to do some research. And that's where you come in.
Join the 2009 Bottled Water Label Scavenger Hunt.
Here's how to get involved:
- The next time you need to buy a bottle of water (even we EWG'ers sometimes forget our reusable bottle) choose a non-sparkling, unflavored water bottled in glass or clear plastic.
- Carefully remove the entire label from the bottle. We need all the information from the label, so if necessary, cut the plastic around the label to get it all off.
- Write down:
- the name and location of the store where you purchased the water
- the date you purchased the water
- your name, email and mailing address
- Mail your labels and other information to:
Environmental Working Group
Attn: Nneka Leiba
1436 U St. NW, Suite 100
Washington, DC 20009
Whoever sends the most labels (duplicates not counting) by June 15 will win a stainless steel water bottle with the EWG logo and a jumbo-sized, reusable grocery tote printed with EWG's pollution solutions tips. Plus, everyone who participates will get a Shopper's Guide to Pesticides magnet!
We work hard to make sure you have the scientific facts behind the products you buy. But we can't do it without your support.
So helping out with EWG research? That definitely will make you "resonate with the energy and frequency of well-being."
BPA legislation in California: The time has come
As you likely know, the Minnesota legislature recently passed a statewide prohibition of bisphenol-A (commonly known as BPA) in baby bottles, sippy cups and other food containers for children 3 and under. Suffolk County, New York, has also banned BPA in such items, and the Chicago city council voted just last week to ban the sale of any baby bottle or sippy cup containing the chemical.
Next stop? California.
This is all great news and incredibly heartening for those of us who have long been working to pass similar policies elsewhere. Like California.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is working hard to pass the Toxics-Free Babies and Toddlers Act (SB 797) in California, which would virtually eliminate BPA from food and beverage containers for children under 3 years old.
What is BPA?
BPA is a chemical produced in large quantities for use primarily in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. Bisphenol A (BPA) was discovered to be a synthetic estrogen in the 1930s. Today it is widely used in certain kinds of plastics and epoxy resins, including those commonly found in baby bottles and used to line metal infant formula cans.
Why is it in our bodies?
Research by the Centers for Disease Control has found that 93% of Americans tested have BPA in their bodies, and children have higher levels than adults. According to the National Institutes of Health, the main way people are exposed to BPA is from the chemical leaching from containers into food and drink. Studies by the Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada, and others have documented that BPA leaches into canned infant formula and out of polycarbonate baby bottles. No BPA is found in powdered formula; nor is it a background contaminant that would unintentionally contaminate bottles, cups, cans, or jars.
What's the problem with BPA in our bodies?
BPA is a known hormone disruptor, and studies have firmly established that infants and children are at the greatest risk of harm. The National Institutes of Health are concerned that BPA exposure in infants may lead to problems with brain development and behavior, early puberty, breast cancer and prostate cancer. New research has also suggested that BPA may interfere with metabolism and lead to obesity, heart disease and diabetes in people. Other recent research has found that low levels of BPA reduces the effectiveness of chemotherapy drugs.
What would the CA Toxics-Free Babies and Toddlers Act do?
Millions of babies and toddlers in California are being exposed daily to the harmful toxin BPA. This hormone-disrupting chemical can be found in baby bottles, food and beverage containers and formula containers and is leaching into their food and drink. While some manufacturers have already removed this substance from their products, it is still found in a wide variety of products. SB 797 will help protect children from this dangerous chemical by banning the use of BPA in children's feeding containers.
SB 797 would limit the amount of BPA allowed to leach from baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula cans and baby food jars. Specifically, the bill would prohibit the manufacture, sale, or distribution of these products designed for children 3 and younger that contains more than 0.1 parts per billion (ppb) of BPA.
What can you do to help pass this bill?
If you live in California ask your state senator today to vote "YES!" on this important legislation. And if don't live in California but have friends and families who do, tell 'em about it! We have a Cause on Facebook for our grassroots campaign to pass the bill - please join!
We want the California state senators to know that minimizing BPA exposures for young children is very important to their constitutents.
Higher Ethanol Fuel: A Lose-Lose
Corn prices are projected to reach $5 a bushel this year, thanks to heavy rains in the corn belt and fewer acres planted. That's good news for corn farmers, who have watched prices sag after last year's record highs past the $7 mark.
But it's not so good for consumers, who can expect higher food prices.
And it puts even more stress on the corn-based ethanol industry, which ramped up too big, too fast in mid-decade and then suffered a flurry of bankruptcies and lagging demand.
The ethanol industry is desperate.
As reporter Philip Brasher of the Des Moines Register pointed out in a smart analysis yesterday, "Biofuels producers didn't take into account sufficiently the potential risks of a downturn in energy prices, or the possibility that agricultural commodity prices could increase sharply." Also, Brasher writes, "Their dependence on the government created another risk for the industries."
Fact is, there wouldn't be much of a market for ethanol if the 2007 energy independence act hadn't mandated steadily increasing quantities of biofuels in fuel for vehicles and other motors, up to 11.1 billion gallons by this year and 36 billion gallons by 2022.
Even so, the ethanol industry over-built and over-produced.
Now, in a last-ditch quest for new markets, the industry is pressing the Environmental Protection Agency to raise the cap on ethanol in engine fuel from 10 percent to 15 percent. The resulting blend would be known as E15.
The idea makes great financial sense for the ethanol industry.
But as for the rest of us, we think it's a lose-lose.
Why?
Bad for the air. Bad for health. Bad for engines.
My colleague, Olga Naidenko, has conducted an extensive review of the scientific literature on the environmental and mechanical effects of fueling engines with higher ethanol fuel.
Her painstaking study deserves close attention. For those of you who are reading on the run, here's my speed read:
- There's a long list of good reasons to be wary of E15.
- There is no good reason to embrace it.
Your chain saw should start when you want it to.
There's considerable evidence ethanol/gasoline fuel can, to use a technical term, gunk up your chain saw, boat motor, weed trimmer, lawn mower, jet ski, generator, snowmobile and all those other expensive, useful machines you use for work and play.
Some studies have even indicated that the ignition of small motors could be impaired by high ethanol fuel and might fire up spontaneously - not a happy prospect, if you've set down your chain saw too near your ankle. Me, I've been known to get pretty close to my outboard motor's prop blades while tinkering with the cotter pin, and I like my hand where it is.
Now, the research is not definitive. But until there's more study and solid scientific answers to the gunk and ignition questions, those of us who don't have enough money to replace all our gear would not like to see the Obama administration grant the ethanol industry's plea for E15.
E15 may make more smog.
Other red flags have been raised by studies suggesting that engines burning fuel blends with above-E10 ethanol spew more toxic emissions, including the probable carcinogens acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
Again, this issue needs more objective research. But in the meantime, those of us who breathe air are understandably skeptical that E15 will do anybody much good.
Except, of course, the ethanol industry, which faces an existential moment.
Business Week: Ethanol is a "scam."
If you're not convinced, after reading Dr. Naidenko's thorough work, take a look at journalist Ed Wallace's excellent piece, "The Great Ethanol Scam," published May 14 online edition of Business Week.
Wallace marshals yet more facts - not opinion, facts - that should give any thinking person pause:
...Using ethanol actually creates more smog than using regular gas, and the EPA's own attorneys had to admit that fact in front of the justices presiding over the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 (API v. EPA).Second, truly independent studies on ethanol, such as those written by Tad Patzek of Berkeley and David Pimentel of Cornell, show that ethanol is a net energy loser. Other studies suggest there is a small net energy gain from it.
Third, all fuels laced with ethanol reduce the vehicle's fuel efficiency, and the E85 blend drops gas mileage between 30% and 40%, depending on whether you use the EPA's fuel mileage standards (fueleconomy.gov) or those of the Dept. of Energy.
Fourth, forget what biofuels have done to the price of foodstuffs worldwide over the past three years; the science seems to suggest that using ethanol increases global warming emissions over the use of straight gasoline.
The mechanics' golden -- sputtering, stalling, spewing -- parachute
So who needs E15? The ethanol industry, of course.
And, Wallace jests, underemployed car shops, where he reports the word is that "if the government moves the ethanol mandate to 15%, it will be the dawn of a new golden age for auto mechanics' income."
Speak for yourself.
EPA has solicited public comments on the ethanol industry's proposal for E15 fuel.
If you'd like to tell the Obama administration what you think about this idea, it's easy. Go to the EPA docket at this link, click on "Add Comments" and fire away.
You can agree with us, Ed Wallace, the National Marine Manufacturers Association and other makers and users of small engines. Or you can agree with the ethanol industry. Whatever you think, let the government hear your voice. Government should make decisions as momentous as this after hearing from everybody with a stake in the outcome.
Not just those who stand to make the most money.
[Photo courtesy of oxyboricua on FlickrCommons]
Science update: More proof that BPA leaches from bottle to body
Whenever researchers find more evidence that a substance in common use is toxic, the chemical lobby's reflexive rejoinder is that there's still no proof it harms people, as opposed to cells in culture or lab animals.
As we all know, testing on people is not ethical. Moreover, new science looks for more than a smoking gun - meaning, acute toxicity, or poisoning. Scientists are exploring the new frontier of environmental toxins that act as hormones gone awry, causing subtle cellular or even genetic changes that set the stage for complex disorders like behavioral problems or sow the seeds of cancer in later life.
In these cases, the chemical industry simply discounts the latest research, however ominous, and calls for more study. This time-tested delaying tactic keeps many a toxic chemical on the shelf.
Growing body of evidence about BPA
In the case of bisphenol-A (commonly known as BPA), a plastics component and synthetic estrogen that disrupts the endocrine system, lab animals given miniscule doses have suffered irreversible reproductive system damage and loss of brain function. Researchers have also associated the chemical with cardiovascular problems, obesity, adult onset diabetes, cancer and resistance to chemotherapy. The list grows by the week.
Moreover, plastic compounds made with BPA - epoxy resin and polycarbonate plastic - are notoriously unstable. BPA has repeatedly been shown to leach from bottles and epoxy-lined cans into food and drink.
The link from bottle to body is here
A study published yesterday in Environmental Health Perspectives connects the dots between BPA-laden food containers and BPA in the bodies of people using those containers.
The authors -- scientists from Harvard University and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- write that their study is "the first to quantify the corresponding increase in urinary BPA concentrations following use of polycarbonate drinking bottles."
Study found a 70% increase in urinary BPA levels - in one week
During the study, 77 Harvard student volunteers experienced a nearly 70 percent increase in urinary levels of bisphenol A (BPA) after drinking cold beverages from BPA-laden polycarbonate Nalgene and Lexan water bottles for just one week.
What does this mean for the BPA debate?
The ground-breaking Harvard/CDC study poses serious implications for the impact of BPA exposure on infants fed with polycarbonate bottles, whose entire diet could be contaminated with BPA.
"These astonishing results should be a clarion call to lawmakers and public health officials that babies are being exposed to BPA, and at levels that could likely have an impact on their development," said Renee Sharp, EWG's California Director."The adults in this study were willing participants who understood the risk of exposure, but babies are unwitting victims of the silent but serious threat this hormone- disrupting chemical poses to their health."
This study bolsters the case for strong regulations
The Harvard/CDC study comes on the heels of Minnesota's statewide prohibition of BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups and other food containers for children 3 and under. Suffolk County, New York, has also banned BPA in such items, lawmakers in California and Connecticut are considering similar proposals, and the Chicago city council voted yesterday to ban the sale of any baby bottle or sippy cup containing the chemical.
EWG is working hard to pass the Toxics-Free Babies and Toddlers Act (SB 797) in California, which would virtually eliminate BPA from food and beverage containers for children under 3 years old.
"If the legislation to protect California's youngest from further exposure to BPA is defeated," says EWG's Sharp, "those elected officials responsible for its demise should be held to account for protecting the profits of the chemical industry instead of children's health."
If you live in California, please ask your state senator to vote "YES" on SB 797 - your voice matters.
Women's health: An Enviroblog round-up
While it may be true that for each and every day, week and month on the American calendar there is something to celebrate or advocate, this week we're into it. Why?
Because it's National Women's Health Week. It's also a few days after mother's day, so rather than focus on kids - a concern to us and many women - we decided to shine some light on women's health.
So we pulled together a little round-up to celebrate National Women's Health Week. From body burden to safe cosmetics, and from mercury to breast cancer, we've blogged about it in 2009.
Whether you're young or not-so-young, a mother or a grandmother or neither, there are environmental health issues that affect you, and we do our very best to see that they're addressed by policy makers. Here is a sampling:
Pollution in people: It's an inside job.
Beverly Wright has done battle with oil refineries and landfills. She has dug her New Orleans East neighborhood out from under tons of contaminated sludge smeared across the landscape by Hurricane Katrina.
Mercury in fish: Why does the debate go on?
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.
A new target for deadly lead?
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.
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.
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.
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.
So that's what's been on our minds related to women's health in 2009. You?
[Photo courtesy of MrUllmi on Flickr]
China-made toys contaminated with fire retardants
Special to Enviroblog by David Andrews, EWG Staff Scientist
I have a 9 month-old son who is teething. It is nearly impossible to
keep him from trying to chew on the TV, computer, remote, vacuum
cleaner or any other item in my house that I know has unnecessary
harmful chemical additives. Now I'm supposed to worry about those same
chemicals in his toys? Come on.
Special to Enviroblog by David Andrews, Staff Scientist
Study finds new pollutants in Chinese toys
A study by researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences published 4.29.09 in Environmental Science and Technology reports widespread use of brominated fire retardant chemicals in Chinese-made children's toys.
If you can't keep toys out of your kid's mouth (I thought they were made to be chewed on?!), then we need strong regulations to keep these toxins out of toys. Unfortunately, we parents are still waiting for comprehensive legislation that ensures that kids' products are safe for kids to play with.
Chemicals linked to fertility problems, hormone disruption and more...
Brominated fire retardants are dangerous for children because laboratory studies have shown that they disrupt hormone systems and effect brain and behavior.
These chemicals are extremely long-lived in the environment and the concentration in your blood was probably 10 times lower in a decade ago (assuming you live in the United States). My kid wasn't born 10 years ago, but he probably has higher concentrations than I do, maybe because I stopped chewing on toys and electronics a couple decades ago.
Last September, EWG reported that toddlers and preschoolers had 3 times as much of the most studied fire retardants - the polybrominated diphenyl ethers (known as the PDBEs) in their blood as their mothers. Exposure to these PBDE-laden toys could explain some of these differences.
Nearly all children's toys seem to have a "Made in China" label. Some 70 to 80 percent of all toys sold in the United States are manufactured in China. The Chinese researchers purchased and tested 69 toys, including Barbie and other dolls, soft plastic teethers, swords, race cars, foam toys and action figures. They found brominated fire retardants contaminated most of them.
They found these toxic fire retardants in the toys:
- Deca (the type of PBDE currently manufactured in highest quantity) is a form of PBDE banned in 2 states and Canada; and
- Penta & Octa are no longer manufactured in the U.S. due to health concerns, and have been banned in 11 U.S. states, Canada and Europe.
3. Brominated-ethanes (DBDPE & BTBPE). These are new flame retardant chemicals in use despite the absence of health and safety information.
Loopholes in U.S law allow toxic imports
Although Penta and Octa PBDEs are banned for most uses in Europe and Canada and no longer made in the U.S. because of health and safety concerns, a loophole in federal regulations allows finished goods containing these chemicals to be imported. In 2005, when these chemicals were withdrawn from the U.S. market it was thought that they were not manufactured in other countries. It appears that we were wrong about that.
Replacing banned toxins with related chemicals is a bad habit
One of the most troubling findings in the Chinese toy article is the prevalence of a new brominated fire retardant Decabromodiphenyl Ethane (known as DBDPE), which turned up in nearly half of the hard plastic toys and all the teethers manufactured in China.
We know almost nothing about the health and safety of this "replacement chemical," but it has many of the bad chemical characteristics of the PBDEs which are being removed from the market. Our chemical policy needs to be modernized to ensure that we are not replacing a known toxic chemical with a new chemical that we will find out is toxic in a few years.
Let's get fire-retardants out of toys!
It is time to make sure that fire retardants and other chemicals that bio-accumulate in our bodies and pollute the environment are no longer used to make consumer items - especially children's products - anywhere in the world. In a global economy, it is all too easy for Chinese-manufactured goods to wind up in our kids' playpens and preschools.
[photo courtesy of tomeppy on Flickr]
Toxic 'mylecules' on facebook
Everybody knows that to reach a wide audience these days you can't just rely on traditional media.
Even the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the lobby for the chemical industry, knows that. How do I know that? Facebook, of course. The public relations arm of the ACC recently created its own facebook application, called 'mylecules.'
The ACC on facebook: Your friends as molecules
The application is similar to other facebook applications and, according to the ACC press release, it "allows users to create "molecular bonds" with select friends or groups of friends to establish the "common bonds" users share with their friends. The virtual three-dimensional molecular bonds allow each user the ability to interact with their very own Mylecule, and to connect directly to the profiles of their friends."
Ok, so the ACC decided to re-brand themselves. That's a good idea. Because, you know, most people know them as the as the well-heeled chemical industry lobbyists who have fought tooth-and-nail against overhauling the failed federal toxics law that has allowed over 80,000 chemicals to be used in commerce with little or no safety tests, ultimately polluting an entire population. Yes, you included.
Is Mylecule popular? Not so much.
The ACC's first effort on facebook was creating a fan page for American Chemistry, without the word Council in it, because, I guess that sounds too much like a group a group of industry lobbyists - which they are. But you don't know that until you click on 'info' where you learn that "The American Chemistry Council represents the companies that make the products that make modern life possible, while working to protect the environment, public health, and the security of our nation." How many fans? 279. Ouch.
With so much information out there, consumers need to be careful when filtering what is relevant and what not, what is trustworthy and what not. I am curious to see how the new ACC application does and whether it reaches more than its current 8 fans and whopping 152 users. I am still not sure of its relevance, but maybe I just don't need to see my social connections in molecular format. You?
Join EWG on Facebook: Meanwhile, while you're on facebook, don't forget to join EWG's facebook group! There are thousands of us - more and more every day. See you there.
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
We're excited to tell you about our new Healthy Home Tips for Parents email series!
EWG's scientists and public health researchers created a list of the most important steps you can take at home to promote your family's environmental health.
We squished it all onto 1 page so it's easy to use, but for each tip there's additional information that we think you'll appreciate knowing - the why's and how's that support our recommendations.
Tips for Parents in your inbox
Every month we'll send you a tip from our priority list, along with our reasoning and suggestions for carrying it out. We'll start in June with choosing better personal care products.
If you're ready to get started right away on the path to a healthier home, download the 1-page tip sheet now on our For Parents web page. And while you're there, check out some other resources for parents, like our video on choosing the best infant formula and our safe fish list.
Learn now: EWG's Anila Jacob talks about toxics in the home on TV
If you just can't wait till June to hear more, take a few minutes now to listen to EWG Senior Scientist, Dr. Anila Jacob, talk about health risks from common toxics in the home - and what you can do to minimize them. It's an educational few minutes.
Not on our email list? Hop on so you don't miss out
You can quick sign up for our email list here. Be sure to choose the Greening the Planet for Kids' Health group so you'll get the Healthy Home Tips for Parents series.
Talk to you soon.
Pollution in people: It's an inside job
Beverly Wright has done battle with oil refineries and landfills. She has dug her New Orleans East neighborhood out from under tons of contaminated sludge smeared across the landscape by Hurricane Katrina.
A professor, author and leader of the environmental justice movement, she has trained and organized thousands of people to help low income communities stand up against polluters.
Photo: Jennifer Hill Kelley, Beverly Wright, Julian Canales-Ortiz, Suzie Canales, Jean Salone
But last week, Wright was stunned to learn that she was also under assault from her water, her food, her household products, even her perfumes, soaps and moisturizers.
Biomonitoring tests commissioned by the Environmental Working Group found Wright's body polluted with up to 39 toxins, including mercury, lead, perfluorchemicals used in Teflon, stain and water resistant textile coatings, flame retardants, synthetic fragrances and rocket fuel.
"I'm very disappointed," Wright said, "to find out that while we were fighting so hard to get chemicals we know are dangerous reduced in the environment, there were so many chemicals inside our homes that were also poisoning us. That puts us in double jeopardy - and I say triple jeopardy because of our skin color."
Other environmental justice leaders who participated in EWG's body burden tests, released last week, echoed Wright's sense of betrayal. These are smart, savvy women who've made intense studies of local industries spewing filth into their neighborhoods. They've gathered literally years of data about the cancer and serious illness rates where they live. They know their stuff.
Or so they thought.
Until they found out, through the EWG-commissioned body burden tests, that their stuff is loaded with unregulated, undisclosed chemicals that have been shown in laboratory tests to cause harm to animals.
The chemical industry argues that just because a product like bisphenol A causes permanent damage to young animals, that doesn't mean it will hurt humans in early life.
These women don't think so.
Every day, they live with pollution perpetrated by heavy industry, and they now realize their homes aren't a safe harbor.
My blood is full of plastic?
"I've made very specific choices in my life, because of my daughter, to try to live a more sustainable life," said Jennifer Hill-Kelley, an environmental policy consultant with the Oneida Nation near Green Bay, Wisconsin. Kelley's day job: working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on restoring the tribe's waterways, heavily contaminated by mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, that a paper company dumped into nearby Fox River and Green Bay.
"I'm very frustrated to learn of the bisphenol A [a plastics chemical and synthetic estrogen] that is high concentration in me," she say. "And the flame retardants and the musks. I'm concerned the choices I made aren't good enough for my seven-year-old daughter -- because my exposures are her exposures."
Jean Salone, who has spent years fighting the Citgo oil refinery across her Corpus Christi neighborhood's fenceline, has been careful since her 2001 bout with breast cancer to drink only bottled water and eat non-homegrown vegetables. (Her backyard soil is contaminated with benzene from the refinery.) Her blood tested high for bisphenol A, which, as she soon learned, was used to manufacure all those water bottles. As well, her body burden includes flame retardants, non-stick chemicals and 37 to 42 other toxins.
Suzie Canales launched Corpus Christi's Citizens for Environmental Justice after her sister died of breast cancer at 42. Confronting the largest cluster of oil refineries in the U.S., the group organized body burden studies that documented soaring blood benzene levels and a shockingly high birth defect rate in the city.
Photo: Suzie Canales, Julian Canales, Rep. Lois Capps, D-CA
Her own bisphenol A level measured high - and, she fears, that also means a high level for her six-year-old grandson Julian, who lives with her and who was born with a hole in his heart.
"The law is broken...."
"His body is still developing," Canales said, gesturing at Julian, who accompanied her to Washington. "What's really upsetting and makes me angry is, for too long, the government has bent over backward to protect corporations at the expense of the people, of children. Why are so many children having asthma, birth defects? Why is there so much cancer? It's because industry is unregulated as far as these chemicals go. The law is broken, the law needs to be reformed, to protect the people, not the billion-dollar corporations."
So what really causes autism?
Special to Enviroblog by Sonya Lunder, EWG Senior Analyst
If you follow scientific news on autism, then you've probably noticed frequent reports of new discoveries of genes "linked" to the disease."
While an estimated 130-something genes have been linked to autism, last week week's report in Medical News Today about "genes" that cause autism, was slightly more dramatic than the rest. More than a dozen researchers surveyed the genetic codes of about 10,000 people, many with autism, and discovered that a genetic variant in a region of the genome that governs brain connectivity is more common in people with autism.
Are genes a promising lead? Perhaps...
For those of us eager for a cause and a cure, the wait isn't over. The genetic variant reported by the researchers was found in 65 percent of patients with autism but also 60 percent of those without the disorder. The researchers estimate that these genes or variations account for 15 percent of all autism cases. However someone whose genetic code contains this pattern has just 20 percent increased risk of autism.
The most promising aspect of this discovery is that it is likely to lead to further research.
Environmental factors may pull the trigger
Most everyone who studies autism acknowledges that many genes play a role in the disorder but that environmental (or non-genetic) factors likely trigger the disease in susceptible people.
Those following the elusive hunt for the environmental factors that trigger autism have amassed an eclectic list of possible factors.
Some environmental causes of autism?
- Childhood television-watching and possibly rainy weather. Confusing, eh?
- Vinyl floors in the bedroom evidently doubled the risk of autism in Swedish children, compared to those whose bedrooms have wood or linoleum.
- Having an "older" mother or father -- meaning moms over 35 and dads in their 30's or 40's and older.
- Breech birth, but scientists themselves have no idea how autism might cause a baby to be positioned head-up at delivery or how position in the womb could cause a healthy baby to become autistic.
- Stress during pregnancy. Stress...an unavoidable aspect of daily life. Perhaps the most dubious claim for the causes of this epidemic.
This list is incomplete, slow to emerge and quite unsatisfying. Like genes, there may be a host of environmental stressors that trigger autism. But I think we need to look a little harder. What relatively recent developments across our society may stress the developing brain and other systems of a fetus and young child?
What about oxidative stress?
EWG scientists are intrigued by a study by researchers at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences that shows that children with autism have abnormal response to oxidative stress.
This pattern could be affected by a variety of genes that govern the body's ability to quickly produce antioxidants in response to external stresses. And a long list of environmental exposures--from air pollution to pesticides--would be more challenging for children whose genes make them vulnerable to oxidative stress.
Maternal stress and breech births have been around for ages. Let's get funding flowing to look for other factors that can prevent this devastating disease from affecting the next generation.