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
Puberty is tough enough without BPA
Beijing Games Had Worst Air Pollution Ever
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
Dear CEO: It's time to reduce children's exposure to BPA
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
About BPA: Do you feel lucky?
By Elaine Shannon
Well, do you?
Clint Eastwood/Harry Callahan's pithy question rings in my head, every time I read the chemical lobby's defense of bisphenol A(BPA), a high-volume industrial plastics chemical. 
Many experiments have shown that BPA, a synthetic estrogen as well as a plastics hardener, disrupts the endocrine system and causes a growing list of chronic, often permanent disorders in lab animals.
To which industry routinely responds: 1) animals aren't people, and 2) in people, BPA is, as one industry spokesman put it, "efficiently metabolized and rapidly eliminated from the body."
Scientists who think BPA is as bad for people as for lab animals can't prove their cases by experimenting on people.
Epidemiological studies of human populations can't isolate the impact of a single chemical like BPA. The human body burden, now comprising close to 500 chemicals, according to Environmental Working Group's biomonitoring tests, is an unintended consequence of the age of innovation after World War I. The period produce a rich array of "miracle" materials, symbolized by DuPont's iconic 1935 slogan, "Better Things for Better Living Through Chemistry," and Monsanto's streamlined plastic House of the Future in Disneyland's Tomorrowland, vintage 1957.
There is much yet to learn about how BPA affects the human body, acting singly and in combination with all those other chemicals that pollute people.
So -- back to Dirty Harry's question: Do we feel lucky?
I don't. Not about this stuff. I'm not willing to bet that BPA, which is in water bottles, drink bottles, cans, and also medical devices such as IV drips, is benign, washes harmlessly through the human body and leaves no mark, especially on infants in critical stages of development?
Every new, independent scientific study of this chemical reinforces my skepticism of industry's see-no-evil position:
- Yale researchers have recently found that when embryonic mice are exposed to BPA, the chemical strips hydrogen-carbon structural units, called methyl groups, from the gene responsible for fertility. As a result, as the mice grew to maturity, their uterine linings did not develop normally, rendering them unlikely to carry pregnancies to term. "We've discovered the exact mechanism by which BPA affects this gene," Yale scientist Hugh Taylor told me. The gene in question -- HOXA10 -- is the same in mice and people.
- Scientists at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences report in this month's Environmental Health Perspectives journal that mice exposed BPA in the womb developed "numerous abnormalities" in the form of both benign and cancerous lesions throughout their reproductive tissues. The researchers, led by veteran reproductive scientist Retha Newbold, wrote that "The BPA doses were low and within the range of human exposure...The findings...raise concerns about widespread exposure to BPA and, in particular, exposure to fetuses, infants, and children."
- Scientists at the University of Rochester and University of Missouri-Columbia, also in the current Environmental Health Perspectives, estimate that BPA does not clear out of the human body as quickly as had been thought.
I could be wrong. Hope I am, given the fact that an estimated 93 percent of us would test positive for BPA, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Still, I've kicked most of that modern-living-plastic out of the kitchen and the kids' stuff.
How about you? Feel lucky about BPA? Do you think its dangers are still in the realm of the theoretical and untested? Or have you heard enough?
Share your thoughts here -- and join our new interactive forum on the nation's toxic chemicals policy.
You can also find my posts and add your own comments on Huffington Post.
EWG's Healthy Home Tip 1: Choose better body care products
Most people use around 10 personal care products every day with an average of 126 unique ingredients.
The government's NOT protecting us
We'd like to believe that the government is policing the safety of all of these mixtures we're putting on our bodies, but they're not. Instead, these under-regulated chemicals are causing concerns for human health and the environment - whether they seep through your skin or wash down your drain.
We think you deserve better than that. So we created a our Healthy Home Tips series to make it easier to safeguard your family's health. This month's tip is: Choose better body care products.
What makes a body care product "better"?
Better products meet their claims and are free of ingredients that could harm our health or the environment. Labels might claim that a product is "gentle" or "natural," but with no required safety testing, companies that make personal care products can use almost any chemical they want, regardless of risks. So, always read product labels - especially the ingredient list - before you buy.
Learn how to choose better body care products
We make these choices as simple as possible on our Healthy Home Tips page, where you'll learn:
- How to read a label
- How to shop for the grown-ups in the house
- How to find the safest body care products for your kids
Tell your friends about our Healthy Home Tips
We know you're not the only one who wants to choose better body care products. Tell your friends about our Healthy Home Tip Series so they, too, can be informed when faced with rows of under-regulated products at the store.
More about EWG's Healthy Home Tips
In May we announced a new Healthy Home Tips email series here on Enviroblog. Have you signed up yet? If not, hop on our children's health and toxics e-list so you can get the next 10 tips right in your inbox.
Talk to you in a month when we discuss our next Healthy Home Tip: Going organic and eating fresh foods.
When breast cancer has 'No Family History'
By Lisa Frack
A while back, EWG staff scientist Olga Naidenko wrote here about the need to focus breast cancer research on prevention - with an emphasis on the role of carcinogens. I was reminded of her post when I saw the film No Family History about the environmental causes of the disease. The filmmakers describe the film - which includes EWG's Research Director Jane Houlihan - this way:
No Family History turns the debate about breast cancer upside down by proposing before solutions about prevention, rather searching only for a cure.A few dedicated experts tell the story of how they began to realize all the toxic exposures in daily life that could be causing the epidemic - toxics in their home and even their own personal care products.
A few dedicated breast cancer activists relate how they tried to improve regulations to prevent breast cancer, and how they have changed their own lives to make it safer.
See what you think:
Growing veggies in my (leaded?) urban soil
I live in an old house (1911) and used to work in affordable housing, so the dangers of lead paint aren't new to me. And with toddlers around for years now, I know to avoid paint chips in the mouth and lead dust in the air.
What I didn't connect - until recently - was that there might be lead in our soil, which is where we grow food. And that for those who have backyard chickens (a hot urban trend - at least in my sustainability-obsessed corner of the world), those super fresh eggs can deliver a dose of lead if the chickens are eating it. Yowza.
Since we don't have chickens (yet), I focused on our vegetable garden which just happens to be right behind an old, old garage that had chipped so much paint into the yard it was bare. Ugh.
Two recent articles tell you what you need to know
In May, the New York Times ran an article about a Brooklyn homeowner and avid backyard gardener whose yard is loaded with lead. And just two weeks ago my hometown paper, The Oregonian, ran another - the columnist's own raspberry bushes had visible paint chips under them. Together, they answered all of my questions.
Does it really matter if there's lead in - or near - my vegetable growing soil?
Most probably. While there is some disagreement out there (lack of field data), the general consensus is that it's worth testing and adapting your garden if you have high lead soil levels. Why? Because some soil types and some plants and some lead sources can add up to a hazard worth avoiding. The main concern is lead dust landing on your vegetables, which (happily!) you can just wash off. The less certain concern is uptake from the soil into the plant itself.
What should you do if you're a backyard gardener?
Test your soil. Understand the results, then mitigate if needed. Why test if you think there's no risk? Because according to the Times, environmental engineers and soil experts say "any place" is potentially tainted. Specifically, they list these causes for lead-tainted soil:
Excessive lead in soil is the legacy not only of lead paint but also of leaded gasoline, lead plumbing and lead arsenate pesticides. Although these products were outlawed decades ago, their remnants linger in the environment. Lead batteries and automotive parts, particularly wheel balancing weights, are still widely used and are sources of soil contamination.Soil is likely to contain high levels of lead if it is near any structure built before 1978, when lead-based paint was taken off the market, or if a building of that vintage was ever demolished on the site. Pesticides containing lead were often used on fruit trees, so land close to old orchards is also of concern. And beware of soil around heavily trafficked roadways; it, too, is probably laced with lead.
I tested our soil for $20 at a local lab (which handles mail orders) and learned that, thankfully, our levels are low enough to keep on keepin' on with the arugula, tomatoes and basil. But if you test and learn that your levels are high, you can mitigate - and keep on gardening. Mitigations range from washing your veggies before eating them (to remove the dust) to building raised beds with clean soil from off site to doing some phytoremediation to clean the soil over time. All do-able, some easier than others.
The good news is that lead need not halt the urban gardening trend - but it needs to be included in your garden plans. Where you're the boss of your food. Isn't that nice?
[Thanks to jefield and Flickr creative commons for the photo]
Puberty is tough enough without BPA
Special to Enviroblog by Alex Formuzis, EWG Communications Director
Every child's journey through puberty is different, but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone describe the experience as "wonderful," "awesome" or "let's play two!"
A high-pitched, crackling voice, acne, a disproportionately large head and generally looking like a lurch could describe my own bout with the inevitable.
These days, puberty is starting earlier
And today, more and more young people are experiencing signs of puberty at earlier ages, particularly among girls. Some are beginning to develop breasts, pubic hair and see the first signs of their period as early as 6 years old. 6!! While most experts claim the cause is genetic, there is a growing body of science connecting these early physical and sexual changes to the environment: meaning a link between early, onset puberty and exposure to man-made pollutants.
New study shows link between BPA exposure and early puberty
Last week, a new study from researchers at North Carolina State University and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) discovered a connection between exposure to BPA and early puberty and reproductive health problems with female lab rats who were given doses of the chemical "equivalent to or below the dose that has been thought not to produce any adverse effects," [Science Daily, June 18, 2009].
According to the study's news release:
The study found that female rats exposed to a BPA dose of 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight (µg /kg) in their first four days of life experienced early onset of puberty. Female rats exposed to 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg) during their first four days of life developed significant ovarian malformations and premature loss of their estrus cycle.
"The 50 mg/kg level is important," says lead researcher Dr. Heather Patisaul, "because it is equivalent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 'Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level' for BPA. So, by definition, we should not have seen significant effects at or below this level, but we did."
BPA is linked to an increasing number of diseases
So, in just the last two years, we've seen independent research linking BPA to breast cancer, diabetes, infertility and now early puberty and certain reproductive problems in females.
I continue to wait for research linking BPA to something good, like increased IQ, longer life spans, lower blood pressure and the sudden ability to 'get' algebra.
The abstract of the study is published online at the Biology of Reproduction.
[Thanks to yellowblade67 and Flickr for the photo]
Beijing Games Had Worst Air Pollution Ever
Remember the Chinese government's draconian crackdown on air pollution before the 2008 Olympics? 
Turns out it didn't make much of a difference after all, according to a new analysis by researchers from Oregon State University and Peking University.
The study, published June 18 in the online edition of Environmental Science & Technology, found that the mean concentrations of particulate matter, measured during and after the Olympics and Paralympic games, held between July 20 and September 20, were "not statistically different."
Some decreases in pollution occurred during the games, the study fund, but mostly thanks to rain and wind. Government controls, the researchers said, accounted for just 16 percent of the improvements noted.
These conclusions undercut the Chinese government's high-profile efforts to make its air safe for athletes and spectators - and greenwash its reputation for sketchy environmental and industrial health standards.
During the Olympics and Paralympics, Chinese officials ordered half the cars off the road on alternate days and closed factories and construction sites, not only in the capital city but also in industrial enclaves as distant as the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. Some businesses were ordered to switch from coal to natural gas, and some truck movements were stopped.
Yet, the study shows, air particulate concentrations in Beijing during the games were 2.9, 3.5, and 1.9 times higher than those observed during previous Olympics in Atlanta, Sydney and Athens, respectively.
Moreover, the study said, pollution levels in Beijing were roughly twice the guidelines set by the World Health Organization.
As Oregon State scientist Staci Simonovich told the London Daily Telegraph: "This demonstrates how difficult it is to solve environmental problems on a short-term, local basis."
If a Communist state can't dictate effective pollution curbs, even briefly, that suggests that all nations need to think through their clean air plans. In a non-authoritarian state, you have to build political consensus for regulation. That isn't easy, so you don't want to have to do it twice.
The new study offered an interesting insight into the way China's official environmental agency works. It noted that Peking University's readings for some particulate concentrations were generally1.3 times higher than those from the Beijing
Environmental Protection Bureau, a government agency. The paper attributed the disparity to "differences in the measurement methods used."
Given the high stakes for the Chinese government in making the air seem clean, we're skeptical that lower readings occurred by accident, Whatever the case, the Peking U. - Oregon State study seems careful and reliable.
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
Today we invite you to join an important conversation about our nation's chemical policy - and how we're going to reform it. The fact that we need to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is hardly in dispute.
The Government Accounting Office (GAO) put TSCA on its 'high-risk' list earlier this year. Even the American Chemical Council (ACC) acknowledged the need for change.
On the Kid-Safe blog you'll find all the info you need on TSCA reform - in one convenient place:
- Important action opportunities,
- Timely updates about the bill's status in Congress, and
- Thought-provoking commentary from policy experts, decision makers, and the media.
Read some of the latest posts
- Is our stuff killing us? by Elaine Shannon
There's a lot to love about the 21st Century. Wireless. Hybrids. Ipods. Hockey in June. But modern life comes at the price of a body burden of pollutants. The stuff we like is amazingly light, pliable, tough, tiny, shatter-proof, stain-proof, waterproof, spongy, fire-resistant, explosive, clear, brilliant, fragrant, sleek, silky or some of the above because it's made of complex mixtures of chemicals -- that end up in us.
- Winning on BPA? Not so fast. by Richard Wiles
It's been quite a ride with the fight against the toxic plastics chemical bisphenol A (BPA)- David vs. Goliath, public interest advocates and a handful of scientists pushing back against lobbyists and dealmakers, shady government contractors, bogus science, backroom strategy sessions.
- Measuring Pollution in People. by Nena Baker
The mass spectrometers needed to measure traces of chemicals and their byproducts in human samples of blood and urine are big beige machines that, to the untrained eye, look like something you might find at your neighborhood photocopy store.
Check it out today - and weigh in!
The more voices at this table, the better. Read and comment on our new Kid-Safe blog today.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this important national conversation about our nation's failing toxics policy. The need for a strong law that values human health is clear, and it's only together that we'll get there.
Dear CEO: It's time to reduce children's exposure to BPA
On June 10th, EWG's President Ken Cook wrote a letter to Coca-Cola's Chairman and CEO, Muhtar Kent, calling on him to take immediate steps to reduce children's exposure to BPA.
I thought you might like to read it - before or after you call the company yourself to reinforce his powerful words.
Together our message is louder, stronger. Speak up with us, the time has come.
Dear Mr. Kent,
Along with hundreds of thousands of Environmental Working Group (EWG) supporters, I was very disappointed to read reports in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and The Washington Post that a Coca-Cola representative joined chemical and food processing company lobbyists in a recent meeting to consider, among other things, the use of "fear tactics" to protect the market for the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA). According to minutes of that meeting, one participant proposed a media campaign around the misleading slogan: "Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?" The "holy grail," the memo said, would be to find a pregnant woman to serve as a spokesperson to tout the benefits of BPA.
Is this the kind of "marketing" effort that The Coca-Cola Company stands behind when it comes to toxic chemicals that contaminate the food supply?
The leaked minutes depict desperate industries willing to do almost anything to avert government restrictions on the use of BPA in products for young children. The overall impression is one of callous disregard for the ample scientific evidence that BPA, known to be a synthetic estrogen since the 1930s, disrupts the endocrine system and is associated with breast and prostate cancer, neurological and reproductive system disorders and diabetes and obesity - all on the rise in the U.S. in recent years.
Scientists have repeatedly shown that BPA readily leaches out of plastic food containers into their contents. Notably, Canadian government researchers have found that BPA migrates from can linings into popular soft drinks, including numerous Coca-Cola products: Coke, Diet Coke, Fresca, Barq's Root Beer, Full Throttle Fury Energy Drink, Sprite and Tab.
It is clear that the days of BPA in food containers designed for young children are coming to an end. The states of Minnesota and Connecticut have adopted laws to prohibit use of the chemical in products for children three and under. The California State Senate has passed a similar measure, and the city of Chicago will soon prohibit the sale of any BPA-laced products for children three and under within the city limits. Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has promised to reassess her agency's position on low-dose exposures of BPA.
More than a decade ago, because of concerns about high levels of BPA in bioassays of teenagers and young adults, most Japanese food processing removed or dramatically reduced the use of BPA in can linings, switching to safer, less expensive PET(polyrthylene terephthalate) film lamination. As a result, a 2002 study found that BPA levels among Japanese students dropped by fully 50 percent between 1992 and 1999.
On behalf of EWG's supporters, I strongly urge you and your company to join other major U.S. corporations like Walmart, Toys R' Us, Nalgene and Sunoco in taking steps to reduce children's exposure to BPA. I thank you for your consideration and look forward to your response to this request to protect millions of your customers from further exposure to a toxic chemical that poses a serious threat to public health.
Sincerely,
Kenneth A. Cook
President
Pick up the phone to say it for yourself
Coca-Cola: 1-800-GET-COKE, ext. 2
Del Monte: 1-800-543-3090
Sample script: "Hello, My name is ______________. I'm shocked and disappointed in your unethical approach to business when it comes to BPA - placing profits ahead of my family's health and using fear tactics to placate consumers about a clearly dangerous chemical. BPA needs to go - NOW. Thank you."
[Thanks to dan1710 on Flickr for the can image]
Time to say goodbye
I will never forget my job interview here at EWG--I woke up at 3am to catch the plane from Detroit and to make my 9am interview time. I slept for one hour the night before because I was nervous and quite honestly, scared. A few weeks before I had graduated from Michigan State University with my Master's in Public Relations and was ready to make the difference in the professional world, working for a non-profit advocacy in the nation's capital.
The moment I walked in to the EWG office, I fell in love with it. The people, the atmosphere and the décor, plastered with EWG' s slogan the power of information, made me feel right at home. As the daughter of a former journalist, I was raised with the mantra that information is power.
I spend almost 3 years here at EWG bringing that information to you, as EWG's Press Secretary. I made contact with thousands of reporters nationwide, and I've blogged since the day one. So, as I am sure you can imagine, it is with sadness that I write my last blog at Enviroblog. Friday is my last day at EWG.
It is difficult to decide what would be my favorite moment at EWG - would it be the first interview I ever set up with Fox affiliate in Boston about a fluoride industry cover-up; the time we persuaded EPA not to expose the public to chromium-6, a known carcinogen; or meeting so many people who loved EWG? Or even meeting those who worked for the "other side," and who told me openly that they fear "EWG coming after them"? It could also be the moment a few weeks ago when my mom sent me a power-point presentation in Serbian on the dangers of BPA, the issue we brought to light. The professional challenges and successes of working at EWG have helped me grow as a professional and a person. The people that I have worked with have been an inspiration to me as well as comrades in arms. We have all worked together to protect the most vulnerable populations from chemicals and toxins.
So, why am I leaving and where am I going?
I came to the US 11 years. I meant to stay for a year, to learn English. I ended up staying here much longer. The NATO bombing of my country prevented me from returning, and then school and work kept me here for another decade. Even though my years in the US have been a growing and developing experience for me, the time has come, I feel, to reunite with my family. So the move from EWG is a transcontinental one for me. Before I settle back in my city, Belgrade, I plan to spend some time teaching English at Samveda Training & Research Centre in Davangere, India.
So this is my final note, from this continent, on this blog. It's been an honor to be the part of the amazing team at EWG, as well as a writer for this blog. And as one of my favorite quotations goes: How lucky I am to have something that makes saying good-bye so hard.
9 safer shopping tips from the pros @ Skin Deep
For me, EWG's Skin Deep database has always been a place to get a score. Then, depending where in the 1 to 10 hazard range my personal care product falls (come on, toothpaste, get a 1!), either rush off to buy it, avoid it like the plague, or keep searching. But there's so. much. more. in Skin Deep.
If you, also, haven't been any further than those hazard scores, take a closer look at the gobs of science-based guidance in there. EWG's staff scientists and public health researchers have prepared some great tips - from the simple (no powder on babies!) to the more challenging (don't use it at all). So wherever you are on the green spectrum, there's a step to take that you can do right away. Take, for example, these 9 safer shopping tips:
- Use our What Not To Buy list to avoid especially problematic ingredients -- like mercury, lead, and placenta -- and the products that contain them.
- Use fewer products. Is there something you can cut from your daily routine, or a product you can use less often? By cutting down on the number of chemicals contacting your skin every day, you will reduce any potential health risks associated with your products.
- Use the "Advanced Search" feature of Skin Deep to find products that have fewer potential health issues. Choose a product category and exclude the hazardous ingredients -- carcinogens and neurotoxins, for instance -- and Skin Deep will generate a custom shopping list for you.
- Read labels. Marketing claims on personal care products are not defined under the law, and can mean anything or nothing at all, including claims like organic, natural, hypoallergenic, animal cruelty free, and fragrance free. Read the ingredient label carefully to find evidence that the claims are true.
- Use milder soaps. Soap removes dirt and grease from the surface of your skin, but also strips away your body's own natural skin oils. Choosing a milder soap may reduce skin dryness and your need for moisturizers to replace oils your skin can provide naturally.
- Minimize your use of dark hair dyes. Many contain coal tar ingredients that have been linked to cancer in some studies.
- Cut down on your use of powders; avoid the use of baby powder on newborns and infants. A number of ingredients common in powder have been linked to cancer and other lung problems when they are inhaled. FDA warns that powders may cause lung damage if inhaled regularly.
- Choose products that are "fragrance"-free. Fragrances can cause allergic reactions. Products that claim to be "fragrance free" on the packaging may not be. They could contain masking fragrances that give off a neutral odor. Read the ingredient label -- in products truly free of fragrance, the word "fragrance" will not appear there. Find "fragrance"-free products with our advanced search.
- Reduce your use of nail polish. It's one of the few types of products that routinely contains ingredients linked to birth defects. Paint your toenails and skip the fingernails. Paint nails in a well-ventilated room, or outside, or avoid using nail polish altogether, particularly when you are pregnant. Browse our custom shopping guide for advice on nail polishes that contain fewer ingredients of concern.
Did you find at least 1 to implement right away? I did: I'm forgoing the nail polish this summer. An easy one since with a 3-year-old daughter in the house, because if I wear it, naturally she wants to wear it, too. Just what I need is toxic nail polish on her little toes. No thanks!
[Thanks to Flickr CC and Dreamglow for the great pic]
Take our BPA quiz, then pick up the phone...
It's almost the end of the school year - perfect time for a little pop quiz to see if you've been paying attention:
QUESTION: Which of these tactics did BPA industry lobbyists concoct?
- Employing fear tactics like threatening consumers with limited access to affordable baby food. (Guess they don't want to talk about the safe substitutes for bottles, cups, and formula cans already on the market).
- Using a "pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA" as their 'holy grail' spokesperson.
- Focusing fear tactics on historically exploited populations including "Hispanic and African Amercians and the poor."
- "Befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process."
- All of the above.
ANSWER: (E) All of the above.
Yowza. Ready to fight back? So are we.
Call now to protest their tactics and demand no more BPA
Coca-Cola: 1-800-GET-COKE, then press 2
Del Monte: 1-800-543-3090
Sample script:
"Hello, My name is ______________. I'm shocked and disappointed in your unethical approach to business when it comes to BPA - placing profits ahead of my family's health and using fear tactics to placate consumers about a clearly dangerous chemical. The BPA needs to go - NOW. Thank you."
After you call...
- Tell us about it. Email EWG about your conversation.
- Get your friends to call. Send an e-card to ask your friends to call today.
- Donate to EWG so we can keep these big corporations from profiting off your family's health.
Thank you for calling. Now the BPA industry lobbyists know that yet another consumer will not stand for their unethical tactics.
Recycling CFLs in Maine... and beyond
Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) might save you money, but they contain mercury.
Soon the state of Maine will have ample recycling thanks to a new law. Maine Public Radio reported today that a law that would require any retailer that sells CFLs to take them back for recycling.
But what if you don't live in Maine?
You'll have to search around to find a place to bring your used bulbs. Take them to Ikea, Home Depot, or call your municipality or garbage disposal company about where to take them locally.
Be very careful not to break the bulbs on their way to the recycling center. Once the bulb is broken, the mercury is released and you'll be stuck going through a complicated clean-up procedure.
Mercury is more toxic to growing bodies.
While it's fun to have your kids crush soda cans or break glass bottles at the recycling center, leave the CFL recycling to non-pregnant adults.
The week from hell for BPA
This post was written by EWG's Jovana Ruzicic and Alex Formuzis
Beginning last weekend, the food and chemical industries began what could only be described as a "week from hell." An email that included the minutes from a May 28 strategy meeting of their respective Washington lobbyists and spin doctors on how to burnish the image of BPA in the media and kill efforts to move BPA legislation in California somehow wound up in articles in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the Washington Post. Bummer.
Success in CA Senate - despite industry's underhanded tactics
And, to make matters worse, yesterday the California State Senate passed legislation that would actually protect future generations of babies from further exposure to the toxic hormone disrupting chemical by removing it as an ingredient in baby bottles, sippy cups, formula and food containers for children 3 and younger. That's a shame.
It seems the plans to implement "fear tactics" and targeting pregnant women, young children and minorities with the specter of 'no more baby food' and sky high food prices if BPA wasn't part of the daily diet didn't have the sway industry had hoped on the majority of the California Senate. The upper chamber ultimately stood on the side of California's families and passed the Toxics-Free Babies and Toddlers Act (SB 797), authored by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) and sponsored by Environmental Working Group (EWG).
If this measure becomes the law of California not only will future generations of babies born and raised in the state be safe as a result, but California's actions will make it almost impossible for the federal government not to take action to impose a nationwide restriction on the how the chemical can be used.
Congress puts the heat on industry
As if both of these defeats weren't enough for the chemical and food guys, yesterday Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee's oversight subcommittee, announced plans to investigate the skullduggery of the food and chemical lobbyists and called on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reassess its previous decision that low-dose exposure to BPA posed no health risks.
It must be nice to be The Chairman.
Less than 24 hours after Chairman Waxman and Rep. Stupak sent their letters to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg and the Chairman John Rost of The North American Metal Packaging Alliance (NAMPA), who attended the now infamous gathering at DC's Cosmos Club when industry hatched its "fear tactics" strategy, we're seeing action.The FDA has announced plans for a top-down review of the agency's previous deliberations on BPA with a goal to be finished within weeks, and Mr. Rost and NAMPA have hired a crisis consultant, according to today's article by Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Regarding the fate of Senator Pavley's BPA bill in California: it now must be considered by the General Assembly, where last year the chemical industry was able to kill a similar measure, afterward throwing a big shindig to celebrate another year of BPA-laced baby bottles available on store shelves in California.
As the sponsor of the bill, I can assure readers that EWG will not stop our efforts to see it signed by the Governor, nor will we let up on industry's shenanigans. It's important that any lawmakers on the fence about this bill understand just who they'll be standing with when it comes time to vote.
Photo credit: GETTY
Thank You For Buying Our Toxic Plastic
It's 1960. Embattled tobacco industry reps, accused by the Federal Trade Commission and health groups of hawking products that kill people, retreat to a sumptuous hideaway and devise a campaign to salvage cigarettes by, among other things, targeting women.
Soon after the confab at Miami's luxe hotel Fontainbleau, long, slender cigarettes appear, most prominently Virginia Slims, cultivating feminists with its "You've come a long way baby" pitch. The tobacco business comes roaring back, and by 1968, women account for 47 percent of the American market.
Though smoking rates have declined since the 1990s, when anti-smoking sentiment hit a tipping point in the U.S., surveys indicate as many teenage girls as boys smoke, and 18 percent of adult women still smoke.
Flash forward to last week. Embattled food and chemical industry reps, trying to head off a nationwide ban of the toxic plastic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in cans, bottles and other food containers, huddle in a back room of Washington's exclusive Cosmos Club -- and decide to target women. 
Their dilemma: over the past dozen years, BPA, a synthetic estrogen, has been found to disrupt the endocrine system, even in trace doses. Bills to ban the chemical from baby bottles and other children's food containers are before Congress, the Cailfornia legislature and other state and local lawmaking bodies. Recently, the baby bottle industry yielded to pressure from state officials and consumer groups and agreed to turn to non-BPA plastic.
The canning industry, in the bullseye because it coats the insides of virtually all food cans produced in the U.S. with BPA-rich epoxy lining (Eden Foods, the rare exception, uses non-BPA can linings except for tomatoes), is in no mood to compromise. The chemical industry, which rakes in an estimated $6 billion in global BPA sales annually, is downright hostile to the idea of limiting BPA to things you don't eat on, like cell phones, computer casings and washing machine paint.
The Cosmos klatch minutes, which give a new meaning to the word cynical, leaked in a heartbeat to the Washington Post, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Environmental Working Group. The conversation, it seems, comes straight out of Big Tobacco's playbook.
In a scene that could have been lifted from Thank You for Smoking, novelist Christopher Buckley's brilliant take on Washington lobbyists, an industry note-taker and emailer recounted:
Attendees believe a balance of legislative and grassroots outreach (to young mothers ages 21-35 and students) is imperative to the stability of their industry.
Presumably, the industry reps focused on women because they make family purchasing decisions and care about health. The notetaker added:
Their 'holy grail' spokesperson would be a "pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA."
I couldn't make this up. Even Chris Buckley couldn't make this up.
Imagine: top lobbyists, among them Kathleen M. Roberts of the canning industry's North American Metal Packaging Alliance, slip into the glittering Beaux Arts mansion that houses the formerly all-male Cosmos to concoct a media campaign that centers on a pliant pregnant pitchwoman.
But who? What young mother will agree to tout a product that dozens of scientific studies have shown causes permanent damage to an embryo?
Surely not anyone who has read even a bit of the evidence that BPA disrupts the development of the reproductive system and brain, that it may harm the cardiovascular system, cause cellular changes leading to breast and prostate cancer, trigger diabetes and obesity and impede the body's response to chemotherapy.
There's more. The notetaker wrote:
Attendees suggested using fear tactics (e.g. "Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?") as well as giving control back to consumers (e.g. you have a choice between the more expensive product that is frozen or fresh or foods packaged in cans) as ways to dissuade people from choosing BPA-free packaging.
What the notetaker didn't note was that there are alternatives to BPA. Japan abandoned BPA can linings back in 1998 because students and young adults were turning up with alarming blood levels of the toxic chemical.
Another tawdry moment: according to the email, the lobbyists decided that:
Focusing on the impact of BPA bans on minorities (Hispanic and African American) and poor is also important.
Translation, if this passage needs any: fear tactics work well on impoverished, historically exploited people who don't have time to read those dry scientific reports because they're working two or three jobs trying to hold their families together, and paying top dollar for medical care when their kids get really sick because they don't have health insurance.
EWG has posted the entire email at this link, so you can read it for yourself.
But for you young mothers and fathers who don't have time today, here are a few words you won't find: Safe. Healthy. Truth. Fact. Honesty. Candor. Integrity.
The tobacco industry didn't throw those words around either. That worked well, didn't it?