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
Lead: It's Here, There and Everywhere
Will the Evian babies make you stupider?
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
CA bill would ban fire retardants from some baby products
We're pleased to reprint this post by Jessica Webb of Healthy Child, Healthy World about this important bill. EWG has testified in the CA legislature to support it.
A current bill in the California State Legislature, SB 772, aims to prevent the use of highly toxic brominated and chlorinated fire retardant chemicals in widely used baby products such as cribs, high chairs, strollers, nursing pillows and infant carriers. The bill recently passed California Assembly's Business and Professions Committee by 7 to 2, due to the outspoken passion of its many parent advocates. This was a remarkable and laudable show of power by the citizen lobby and parents like yourself.
In response to California fire code regulation Technical Bulletin 117 (TB 117), the use of halogenated flame retardants has increased drastically since the 1980's. The statewide regulation requires that baby products (made for ages 6 and under) resist flammability for at least 12 seconds when exposed to an open flame. Halogenated flame retardants are among the cheapest of their kind that satisfy this regulation and until recently, their presence in baby products has not only been encouraged by the state, but required in order to meet TB 117 standards.
However, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Bureau of Home Furnishings, little to no evidence suggests that these baby products actually present a serious fire threat. In addition, the National Fire Protection Association maintains that there is no credible evidence suggesting that flame retardants actually reduce the number of fire deaths in California. For instance, even though the rate of fire deaths decreased by 38% in California, the decrease was greater still in states that have no regulations such as those enforced by TB 117.
Serious public health concerns persist regarding the consequences of chemicals in flame retardants. Such chemicals are in the same family as those found to be present in children's sleepwear in the 1970's, and subsequently these chemicals were banned when they were found to extremely dangerous. Exposure to the chemicals has been linked to endocrine disruption, cancer, birth defects, neurological and developmental disorders, ADHD, learning disabilities, reproductive problems, thyroid disorder and many more health issues.
The primary chemicals used in the flame retardants can pass through the placenta and gather in human body fat and breast milk. As a result, exposure occurs preterm, during development, and through oral and physical contact with baby products. Consequently, toddlers have three times the amount of flame retardant chemicals in their bodies than do mothers. These chemicals leach from products and into dust, pets, and the home environment; an average home will acquire up to several pounds of these chemicals.
Despite the growing concern, the bromine industry and like-minded groups are pushing to actually increase the use of these chemicals in a vast range of manufactured goods. For example, to oppose SB 277, the industry has collaborated with neutral-sounding lobbying groups such as "Californians for Fire Safety" to argue that flame-retardants are saving lives.
In a stunningly shameful attempt to override the bill, bromine industries marched Asian burn victims and African American children from Inglewood Unified School District through the Capitol and urged them to beg the Assembly members to save children from fire death.
Supported by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and by the Consumer Federation of California, SB 772 strives to modify Technical Bulletin 117 such that it will no longer enforce regulations that lead to baby products containing highly toxic chemicals. In addition, the bill also authorizes the Bureau of Home Furnishings provide modifications if it determines that any baby products pose a serious fire hazard.
For the future health of our children, it is our hope that California law makers hold strong in the fight to do away with toxic chemicals that continue to infest our households and families.
Want to learn more about flame retardants? See EWG's 2008 study about flame retardants in moms and their toddlers and check out our tips for reducing your exposure.
Thanks to Healthy Child, Healthy World, ValentinaPowers & Flickr for great content and a pic]
My friend neoprene, allergen of the year
By Olga Naidenko, EWG Senior Scientist
In 2009, the dubious distinction of the "allergen of the year" was awarded to a group of chemicals most of us have never heard of: mixed dialkyl thioureas. Mixed who?
These chemicals are common additives found in everyday neoprene synthetic rubber products - everything from computer mouse pads to shoes, athletic braces and wetsuits.
Based on 10 years of research conducted by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, dialkyl thioureas prove to be the most common culprit of neoprene allergy.
According to a press release from the group's 2009 annual meeting:
Many cases of allergic contact dermatitis from the allergens in neoprene have been reported, including cases caused by rubber orthopedic braces, prostheses, splints, and foot supports; athletic shoes; rubber masks; swim goggles; wet suits; a slimming suit; a computer wrist rest; a sleep apnea mask; neoprene gloves; and rubber-based materials in automobiles...Experiments have shown that large quantities of thioureas are leached from rubber compounds, and the level of the leached thiourea compounds was found to be sufficient to elicit allergic contact dermatitis.
When allergen-containing neoprene products touch the skin, a susceptible person typically experiences a reaction that can range from redness to blistering. Often, avoiding the neoprene products is the only solution because protective covering of the offending material is either impractical or insufficient. For example, if neoprene footwear is the main source of allergic exposure, socks would not help because sweat actually causes the allergen to leach out of the shoe and onto the skin.
Yet another reason we need chemical policy reform
This is yet another reason for a reform in our chemicals policy so that manufacturers would need to prove their products are safe before putting them on the market, rather than testing them on customers (that's us).
The latest science on neoprene allergy is a timely reminder that a significant number of products on the market contain ingredients whose safety has not been adequately tested and demonstrated. As shoppers, we have the right to demand and expect that toxic ingredients should not be used in everyday products.
Contact allergy is, of course, one type of toxicity among many that may be associated with toxic chemicals. Yet, identifying sources of allergy is a very important start. Kudos to the American Contact Dermatitis Society for bringing attention to allergens that are very common but under-recognized - even though they may cause significant contact dermatitis.
Some other award-winning allergens to avoid
A few other lucky winners of the "Allergen of the Year" title:
- 2008 - Nickel
- 2007 - Fragrance
- 2006 - Commercial hair dye ingredient p-phenylenediamine
- 2005 - Topical corticosteroids
- 2004 - Cocamidopropyl betaine, a hair & skin-conditioning agent
Unfortunately, many of these allergens and irritants are commonly found in cosmetics and personal care products. For example, Skin Deep, EWG's Cosmetic Safety Database, lists:
- 18,818 products containing fragrance
- 1,525 products containing p-phenylenediamine
- 3,417 products containing cocamidopropyl betaine
What can you do? Once again, the best advice we have for shoppers is to be very vigilant in reading labels and looking for products that don't contain these ingredients! Check out our tips on deciphering cosmetics labels.
[Thanks to Flickr & creative666 for the great wetsuit pic]
Nail polish: We've come a long way (in 9 years), baby.
It's always nice when the list of products that don't contain highly toxic ingredients is longer than the list of those that do.
And that is exactly the case with nail polish, as a recent survey by the National Healthy Nail Salon Alliance shows. This 2-year-old organization (a network of 35 organizations, scientific researchers, advocates and government agencies), works to 'protect and improve the health and welfare of women working in the nation's nail salons.' And, by default, customers, too.
What's so bad about nail polish, anyway?
Most of us can imagine that a product that smells and works like nail polish has at least something toxic in it - or perhaps that simply reveals my 'there-must-be-something-toxic-in-that' bias.
And true enough, nail polish has - until very recently - contained three chemicals of concern: toluene (that smooth finish), formaldehyde (hardener), and dibutyl phthalate (flexibility & moisturizing sheen). If you're not already familiar with these chemicals, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics summarizes their toxicity well:
- Toluene affects the central nervous system and can cause headaches, dizziness and fatigue. It is also a possible reproductive and developmental toxin.
- Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen that can also irritate the eyes, nose and throat, and lead to skin irritation and an allergic rash called dermatitis.
- Dibutyl pthalate is a developmental and reproductive toxin. Exposure can affect thyroid function, and in utero exposure is linked to reproductive problems in baby boys and decreased sperm count. You can read more from EWG here.
Good news after years of hard work: 'Toxic trio' is being phased out
After nearly a decade of pressure, we're seeing results. Way back in 2000, EWG released a report (Beauty Secrets) about a low-profile CDC study that showed the prevalence of dibutyl phthalate (DBP) in people's bodies - especially women of child bearing age.
We took the study results a few steps further and found the chemical to be more toxic than the CDC had thought and identified some routes of exposure, including a long list of nail polishes. It was during this research that EWG uncovered the major concern of hidden phthalates in products and first laid out the major gaps in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
It also laid the groundwork for the Not Too Pretty project where a coalition of environmental and public health organizations, including EWG, worked together to track down those missing phthalates - leading to the launch of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in 2004.
Since then, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and its members pushed hard for companies to change their products. We began to see significant change in 2006 when some major cosmetics companies decided to go 'three free' - an important success given the FDA's total failure to regulate cosmetics ingredients.
Reduce your exposure and support healthy salons
If you must paint those nails (we suggest skipping it if you can...), choose a polish that doesn't contain the toxic trio - aka "three free" and, if you're not a DIY type, bring it with you to the salon. There's no guarantee they'll offer one of the better brands or that you'll remember which ones are better brands (that would be me).
Plus, it's better for the salon employees and might even present an opportunity to do a little consciousness raising. Here are the 17 brands that recently confirmed they're three free (download a wallet guide here):
Acquarella, Butter London, Chanel, China Glaze, CHI, Colorpops, Lippman Collection, L'oreal USA, NailTini, OPI Products, Orly International, Rescue Beauty Lounge, Revlon, Seche, SpaRitual, Suncoat, and Zoya.
Also, ask the salon about ventilation - for your sake and for the employees. Using less-toxic polish but breathing in everyone else's - especially since inhalation is an exposure route - isn't going to minimize your exposure. Or visit a 'green' salon if there's one near you.
With all this good news on less toxic nail polish, am I going to let my 3-year-old daughter paint her nails? Nope. She can keep using her washable paints - they're perfect for the job.
[Thanks to Flickr CC & Okarol for the nail salon pic]
Sunscreen series: About those mineral sunscreens...
By Lisa Frack with Sonya Lunder, EWG Senior Analyst
So you've read our 2009 sunscreen report cover to cover, right? OK, probably not - we're all too busy to handle that much information in the middle of summer - no matter how useful and scintillating and well written.
Introducing: Enviroblog's sunscreen mini-series
So the good news is that we've cut it all up into more manageable pieces so you can become an expert on sunscreen safety in 6 posts, right here on Enviroblog. Painless! Easy! Definitely worthwhile (not that I'm biased). Every Monday, starting today, we'll tell you a little more, until at summer's end - hardly noticing it - you'll be a veritable sunscreen safety expert.
Our first topic: Alternatives to mineral sunscreens
Many zinc and titanium-based sunscreens earn high ratings from EWG because they can provide stable, broad spectrum protection with fewer safety concerns. You might have noticed that all of our top- rated (62) beach and sport sunscreens contain at least some zinc or titanium.
Mineral sunscreens score well but not everyone likes to use them
Ever since we released our sunscreen report in late June, we've been hearing from fans, (Facebook) friends and family across the country that some people just don't like the look and feel of the mineral sunscreens that predominate our 2009 recommended list. And let's face it - while it doesn't bother me or my kids - they are thicker and leave a white film on your skin.
We've also heard from folks who prefer to avoid nanoparticles - which are an ingredient in mineral sunscreens. We'll discuss these in greater depth in a future post in this 6-part sunscreen series.
But if people are less likely to use a sunscreen - very possible if they don't like how it goes on or looks - then it's a good idea to find an alternative that they will wear. We feel confident recommending our top-rated mineral products, but we understand that some people prefer to avoid them.
Which all begs the question: What sunscreen should you use if you don't like the look and feel of mineral sunscreens or prefer to avoid nanoparticles?
If you've decided not to use a mineral sunscreen, you'll find almost 300 alternatives in the Skin Deep cosmetics database. Choosing one of these non-mineral sunscreens will result in some trade-offs, though: many contain oxybenzone (an alternate UV filter we generally suggest avoiding), and many of the ones that don't contain oxybenzone are sprays. We generally aren't big fans of sprays because you can inhale more chemicals with them; pumps cause less inhalation than continuous sprays.
Buy your sunscreen online & benefit EWG
If you can't find your ideal sunscreen in a local store, buy it through EWG's Amazon Associates site where we get a percentage of sales. Thanks!
PS - Check back next Monday for the 2nd post in our sunscreen series: So you found the perfect sunscreen: Now what?
Lead: It's Here, There and Everywhere
Written by Guest Blogger Lydia Denworth, Author, Toxic Truth
Back in August of 2007, I was trying to work on vacation. I was squirreled away in a back bedroom surrounded by files and books when I got a Google alert. Millions of toys were being recalled because of dangerously high levels of leads.
It was a bittersweet moment. When I started work on a book about the battle over lead, I heard a lot about how lead was a problem of the past. That, of course, was part of the point: the book was about what it took to be able to say exactly that. But I often said that lead has a way of coming back to haunt us.
Looking at the email, I wanted to throw open the screen door and shout: I told you so! At the same time, who wants to be right about such a thing? If only it were a problem of the past. For one thing, I wouldn't have to now run to the toy bin and extract every Thomas the Tank Engine.
Furthermore, I was literally surrounded by the history of the battle over lead. Within arm's reach was a book that mentioned the first federal pamphlet warning parents about the dangers of lead in toys--in the 1930s. Another book described a study that found that 25% of Mattel toys had dangerously high levels of lead--in 1957.
Have we learned nothing? I thought bitterly.
At least this time, much of America shared my outrage. Congress soon passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which aimed to keep products for children 12 and younger lead free (or nearly). It was meant to go fully into effect a few weeks ago.
Between then and now, a backlash arose. When the Consumer Product Safety Commission looked at how to implement and enforce the new law, they literally found that lead was "here, there, and everywhere," a spokesperson told me. The CPSIA would have to apply to an enormous array of products from barrettes and books to t-shirts and plush toys. A wide range of manufacturers would be affected.
Soon concern shifted from Fisher-Price to the mom who silk-screens kids' t-shirts in her basement or the charity shop that resells used toys. Would small businesses be forced to close? The blogosphere filled with posts about the unintended consequences of the CPSIA.
I am sympathetic. I agree that the law needs to bring common sense to bear. The mom making t-shirts should probably not have to pay for testing if every part of her product (fabric, ink, etc.) has already been tested by its manufacturer and found lead-free. I hope and believe the Consumer Product Safety Commission will be responsive to these concerns. The fact that it instituted a one-year stay of enforcement in February instead of requiring the testing on the original schedule indicates there are details to be worked out.
But steeped as I am in the history of lead, I fear we are now losing sight of other consequences. Lead poisoning is entirely preventable--no lead exposure, no lead poisoning. The CPSIA will limit children's exposure to lead. Take the regulatory eye off that goal and lead creeps into a surprising variety of products.
Artificial turf is an example that's been in the news recently. In New Jersey and California, authorities found fields with unacceptably high levels of lead. The California fields contained nearly six times the allowed concentration--and 37 times the lower level mandated by the CPSIA.
Lead in artificial turf makes the colors in logos and lines brighter. When a field is new the risk is low, but as a field ages and weathers, the risk of lead dust being released increases--exactly as it does with lead paint. Kids playing on the field can inhale or ingest that dust.
The history of the effort to protect children from lead provides an alarming list of missed opportunities. A few examples:
- Australian doctors first linked lead paint to childhood lead poisoning in 1904. American doctors thought the Australians were "addlepated by the heat" and mostly ignored them.
- Twelve countries banned lead paint from interior use in the 1920s. The United States waited until 1978.
- When pediatrician Herbert Needleman treated his first lead-poisoned child in 1957, doctors were still routinely failing to diagnose lead poisoning--even when the patients were nearly comatose or suffering convulsions.
- The Clean Air Act of 1970 required the EPA to begin regulating the levels of lead in the air within thirty days. Sixteen years and several lawsuits later, EPA took lead out of gasoline.
Manufacturers of leaded gasoline said the same thing we're hearing now about the CPSIA: the costs of getting the lead out are prohibitive and the benefits aren't worth it. In the 1980s, the EPA took the then unusual approach of producing a cost-benefit analysis. Yes, the analysts said, taking lead out of gasoline would cost the industries concerned hundreds of millions of dollars. But the EPA used the health research that was just then emerging to also show that if lead remained in gasoline, it would cost the country nearly twice as much in health care, lost wages, special education and other costs.
When lead finally was taken out of gasoline, new paint, food cans and other products, the effects were dramatic. Before 1980, millions of American children had elevated lead levels. Today, that number is down to just over 300,000. That is still too many, but it represents a major improvement.
Now we know even more about what lead does to children's brains. Lead affects IQ, reading, auditory processing, and attention and has been linked to juvenile delinquency. The latest studies show that there's more harm done between 3 and 10 micrograms per deciliter than between 13 and 20. Is a brighter team logo on a soccer field worth that cost?
We must not now become complacent and go backwards. Regulations like the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act prove that we can learn from our mistakes and relegate toy recalls for lead paint to the history books--where they belong.
[This piece was originally posted on Beacon Broadside, a project of Beacon Press; you can learn more about Lydia's work here.]
Toxic parties? You bet.
By Lisa Frack
I'm a veteran of many a house party for change - and a big fan of the concept. In fact, I got started in online activism at a friend's Moms Rising house party, where we watched a short film and discussed how we could create change - in our own lives and in the public policies that govern them.
For some of us it was the beginning of some serious activism, for others it was more of a consciousness raising and a chance to connect with friends about important issues - all important outcomes.
Since these parties are such a fun, effective way to learn and get active on an issue that you care about, I want to share four ready-made house parties with you. All about toxics, of course. Something for everyone:
- '10 Americans' party for Kid-Safe chemicals
As you know if you're a regular Enviroblog reader, EWG is working hard to pass the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act in Congress (because the current law is broke, broke, broke). But we can't do it without your help!
One effective way to inspire grassroots involvement is for supporters like you to host a house party to inform and inspire your social network to speak up, too. A cornerstone of the party is our '10 Americans' video about toxics policy (it's entertaining, I promise!) - so you can inform and inspire your guests at the press of a button.
It's simple, and we'll help you every step of the way. Just email Lisa here.
- Healthy Home Party
Healthy Child, Healthy World bring us this kit - with a short video on creating healthy environments for children - to makeover your home. As they say:
We would like to help you raise awareness and action through community education. With the information we provide, you'll be able to educate and empower your family, friends, schools, and community to protect children's health and development from the common contaminants we are exposed to every day. YOU can make a big difference and inspire those around you to take Easy Steps to create safer and healthier living environments.
- Green cleaning party
Women's Voices for the Earth has it all figured out to help you bring together your friends and family to make non-toxic cleaning products and learn about household cleaning chemicals, which, like tens of thousands of chemicals found in the consumer marketplace, are available with virtually no information on the potential consequences for human health and little oversight by the government. - Safe cosmetics party
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has a party kit for guests to make their own cosmetics and learn about the policy issues related to cosmetics safety.
Get your kit and take a look at some parties in the spotlight.
Know of any others? Have you hosted one a house party with a purpose? We'd love to hear about it.
[A big thanks to cafemama for yet another perfect pic]
Will the Evian babies make you stupider?
By Elaine Shannon
In our case, just the opposite: watching those chubby-cheeked acrobats fires our curiosity. How do they do that?
Okay, we know it's just digital-age magic, but it's still fun.
The video must have the same effect on other people, judging by the millions of views on You Tube.
In fact, the spot seems to be doing exactly what ads are supposed to do - getting people interested in a brand.
Only problem is, when we search Evian.com, we find out a lot less about the actual water in the Evian bottle than we used to, pre-roller-babies. According to Youtube, the making-of video about the roller babies video has attracted an audience of millions. What if Evian paid as much attention to explaining the making of the bottled water?
As recently as last month, Environmental Working Group's research staff, which was rating bottled waters for adequate disclosure, found Evian to be considerably more informative than many of its competitors.
Evian's website named the specific source (Cachat Spring), described its treatment method succinctly (none) and linked to an 11-page water quality report with test results for a long list of chemical contaminants.
Why wouldn't Evian want to feature this report? Go figure, because the water comes off well: no contaminants above permissible levels and full compliance with all regulations.
But in recent weeks, now that roller babies have invaded the website, the water quality report has vanished. At least. If it's there, we can't find it. If you can, flag us.
The site no longer identifies the water's source nor treatment method, other than to claim the water is "untouched by man."
Instead of testing results, the site offers medicine-show slogans, for instance, that the water is the "essence of purity." Its invitation to "renew your youth" isn't just hot air. It's downright condescending.
Bottom line. Roller babies, brilliant. But the folks at Evian have a thing or two to learn about cyberspace. The web has plenty of room to accommodate straight-forward, science-based reports detailing what's in the bottles, so prospective customers can make informed choices. There are these devices called hyperlinks...
Is this hard?
Lack of disclosure earned Evian a C on EWG's bottled water report, "Is Your Bottled Water Worth It?" That's a better grade than rivals Perrier and Pellegrino, which both flunked.
Evian could have scored so much higher if it hadn't dumbed down its website and dulled its appeal to thinking people.
Until Evian realizes it can entertain and enlighten, we're switching our loyalties to You Tube's "puppy vs. cat."
At what price tuna?
By Olga Naidenko, EWG Senior Scientist
How much does a can of tuna cost to an average shopper in a U.S. supermarket? Something like 33 cents a can, if you look hard enough and search for a good sale. Not a bad deal - if you only count the sticker price.
Now let's think a little bigger.
Take, say, the U.S. as a country. What would the cost for that same tuna can be on a national level? It turns out that the numbers there are far from economical. Most tuna in the U.S. comes from the still plentiful, yet rapidly depleting tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.
Pacific fishing areas are used by fishing fleets from many countries: Japan, China, Taiwan, Koran, Phillipines, Spain, and, of course, the United States. To have a right to fish in these regions, distant fishing fleets and their governments pay access fees to the island nations in whose territorial waters tuna stocks are moving.
We (you) pay $18M annually to put fishing boats on the water
Every year the U.S. government pays a stunning $18 million simply for the right to put a mere 40 (40!!) American tuna fishing boats into the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, under the so-called U.S. Treaty signed with 16 Pacific island nations.
While the number of fishing boats may change from year to year (though the access fee does not), even at the highest number (40 tuna vessels on the ocean), that still adds up to $450,000 perboat. Now that's an example of government subsidies at an amazing scale.
Of course these millions don't appear out of thin air. Rather it's your money - taxpayer dollars that are generously disbursed by the government to support the tuna fleet.
The actual amount of the U.S. fishing subsidies is likely to be much higher, according to the ground-breaking research published by EWG earlier this year.
It costs a lot more than $$
The problem is by no means limited to economic cost, either. Fishing subsidies contribute to keeping too many fishing boats on the water, which - surprise! - results in overfishing and severe depletion of the fishing stocks. Soon, those "33 cents a tuna can"-times will be gone. Instead, tuna products are on their way to disappearing from the supermarket shelves as tuna are literally fished to the bottom.
We should shift subsidies to save tuna
As Renee Sharp, EWG's California Office Director and a lead author of EWG's fishing subsidies studies study, described in a recent Enviroblog post, "the U.S. and the world are going to have to shift subsidies to forms that enhance fishery conservation rather than depletion."
This commonsense conclusion appears to elude the government bureaucrats in charge of negotiating fishing agreements with Pacific island nations. In fact, as reported last week by Christopher Pala in Environmental Science and Technology, the U.S. is actually planning to increase its tuna fishing, thus accelerating depletion of the entire fishery.
According to the news story:
The U.S. is coming under harsh criticism from Pacific island nations and conservationists for ramping up its catch of bigeye tuna at a time when scientists are calling for an immediate 30% reduction. By invoking a treaty it signed with 16 Pacific island nations, the U.S. has declared itself immune from a reduction in catch that fisheries scientists say is long overdue. In contrast, other nations are preparing for 10% per year cutbacks starting in January 2010.
Do you think U.S. taxpayers should pay buckets of money to help speed the demise of the world's last great stocks of tuna? We really don't think so. In fact, we wrote a full report on the issue earlier this year.
We applaud Environmental Science and Technology for calling attention to this important issue. Fisheries conservation is an essential, urgent need, so that our children will be able to actually try what tuna tastes like rather than only knowing Charlie the Tuna as a cartoon character. Not to mention there are 1 or 2 other things to spend taxpayer money on these days.
[Thanks to Flickr & Secret Seasons for the pic]
Prop 65 misses the mark on BPA: Let's hope Sacramento does better
By Lisa Frack, EWG Online Organizer
Just when we were cheering Oregon's progress, we watched California take a step backward.
Why? Because yesterday a state panel in California decided not to declare exposure to the plastics chemical bisphenol A (BPA) toxic to the developing fetus and child, despite mounting scientific evidence of health risks. Not a surprising decision given this panel's rather undistinguished record protecting public health.
CA decision out of step
Wednesday's decision is at odds with the positions of the federal government's National Toxicology Program and the federal Food and Drug Administration's advisory Science Board. It also doesn't follow the strong case presented in the hearing by state scientists and many others for listing BPA as a danger to human health. They cited dozens of research studies finding that BPA impairs normal development of male and female reproductive systems.
Bill Allayaud, EWG's Director of Government Affairs in California, testified about BPA in front of the DART committee (read his full testimony). He wrapped up this way:
In closing, we urge the Committee to consider carefully today's decision. BPA clearly meets the Committee's 1993 criteria for listing as a reproductive and developmental toxicant on the basis of "sufficient evidence in experimental animals, such that extrapolation to humans is appropriate" (DART-IC 1993). This includes careful experimental design, relevant routes of exposure and dosing levels well below those that result in maternal or systemic toxicity.As the NTP and the FDA Science Board have determined, the weight of evidence supports concern for present-day BPA exposures. EWG urges the Committee to join these authoritative bodies and list BPA according to authority granted under California Proposition 65.
But the panel - hardly a group on the cutting edge of public health science - didn't act on all that, deciding to leave BPA off its list. A list where it very much belongs.
Prop 65 and the DART panel: How it works
What is commonly known as Prop 65 in California is actually the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, which was enacted as a ballot initiative (aka proposition). It requires the Governor to publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. For any chemical on the list, warning labels are required on products; sales are not restricted in any way.
The law is administered by the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA); additions to the list are considered by a Development and Reproductive Toxicant Committee (DART), whose members are political appointees.
DART Panel is not exactly health-protective
The DART panel (responsible for yesterdays' decision) has voted to list only one chemical over the past 3 years. It took the panel until 2006 to decide that second-hand cigarette smoke might actually be dangerous to pregnant women and little kids - a full decade after the FDA and the states launched - and ultimately won - an all-out legal and regulatory assault on the tobacco industry.
Further, its assessment of chemicals is constrained by the unusual requirement that it focus only on studies that show harm during pregnancy, which forces it to ignore evidence that early life exposures also contribute to harm.
So let's ban it in the legislature
The California State Senate recently approved a BPA ban authored by Sen. Fran Pavley, (D-Agoura Hills). The state assembly is expected to vote on the bill sometime in the fall. If Prop 65 isn't going to protect us from BPA, we sure hope this bill makes it all the way to the Governor's desk - and out the other side.
Live in California? Join our Facebook Cause for SB 797 to ban BPA in the CA legislature.
Learn more about BPA
EWG research has detected BPA in liquid baby formula and canned food in concentrations that could pose risks to infants, young children and pregnant women. We've also confirmed that all major U.S. formula companies use BPA in the linings of liquid formula cans - though most formula-makers claim they are looking for a suitable replacement.
Get the full story on our BPA timeline - it details the history of bisphenol A, from its invention 120 years ago to today. And learn how to avoid it - since Prop 65 is unfortunately leaving that job to you.
Buying our way to utopia? Not so much.
By Lisa Frack
Hi, my name is Lisa and I spend more time reading labels than ballots. There, I said it. Why do I spend so much time reading labels? A bit of introspection tells me that there are 3 main reasons:
- To prevent toxic chemicals from affecting my children's health,
- To support companies that value the environment and the people affected because I want my money to do good, not harm, and frankly,
- To keep my money out of the hands of companies who are trashing the environment and communities where they work - and profiting all the while. I really don't want them to think I like what they're doing.
Can we change the world, one purchase at a time?
I don't hunt down 'greener' products specifically to force the market to serve me better or to change public policy, but I do believe a little in what Diane MacEachern coined my Big Green Purse.
I am American, after all, and aren't we trained to shop our way to change? Trained to be satisfied by an indirect, needle-in-a-haystack message to manufacturers from the cash register? It's so dang handy to buy what I need and send a political message simultaneously. So great to multi-task! Getting political and buying milk all at once! If only it were working.
I mean, I've been buying organic produce and less-toxic stuff for years, yet - surprise! - the problems persist. Sure, I'm not expecting to buy my way to strong environmental and health-protective policies single-handedly, but even if a whole lot of us join forces (we have already, haven't we?), I am very skeptical that buying organic peaches and BPA-free water bottles for the next 10 years is going to alter, say, the backwards U.S. farm subsidy system or ensure that the chemicals allowed in children's products won't give them cancer or prevent them from having children. You?
Lessons from Food, Inc. on Huffington Post
When I read Susanne Friedberg's piece on Food, Inc. on Huffington Post last week - Vote Now, Eat Later - I was struck all over again by the argument that the current obsession (mine included) with buying our way to safe food and toxic-free products is getting in the way (yes, getting in the way) of the real political work it will take to effect the significant and long-overdue regulatory change we need to ensure safe products and food and create manufacturing and agricultural practices that value people and land and animals.
How is it getting in the way? Simple: It's easier to read labels than to try to make systemic policy change, it's more convenient to incorporate change-making into activities in which we're already engaged, it's time-consuming to research and locate safer products, so we have less time for political meetings, and it gives us a false sense that we are making change, when really we're not.
Ms. Friedberg tells us, and I couldn't agree more, that it's going to take far more than shopping (sorry) to get out of this one, so roll up your sleeves and let's get political. She actually covers 4 reasons why market-driven change is NOT the answer:
- It's an impractical and unfair burden on consumers.
- It only delivers changes that the market finds profitable.
- Being a safer alternative doesn't guarantee anything else (like living wages and the rest of it).
- It is fundamentally undemocratic to suggest that money spent on safer products is a potential vote for change.
She wraps up short, sweet and to the point:
Informed consumer buying power is not trivial. It is also no substitute for political actions to empower everybody to worry less about ...food and enjoy it more.
Don't stop reading labels: That's our goal but we're definitely not there yet
Oh, I'm not recommending that you quit reading labels. Not a chance. Just suggesting that when the ballot comes, when a pro-environment candidate runs, when a representative is ready to cast a vote in your state legislature or in Congress, when your county gets ready to spray pesticides on the roadsides, it's time to make some time for the democratic process of making - and reforming - public policy.
And you can start right here, with the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act. What can you do? So glad you asked:
- Sign the petition to protect kids
- Add your organization
- Speak up! Contact your legislators
- Host a Kid-Safe House Party
- Tell your friends
- Get a badge for your blog
These are the actions that will take us where we want to go, to a place where we don't have to read labels because (imagine, for just a moment) our products and food are safe.
[Thanks to robholland & Flickr CC for the shoppin' pic]
Eden Foods: A BPA-Free Pioneer
By Nena Baker, Author, The Body Toxic and EWG Guest Blogger
No one is more pleased to see the hazards of bisphenol A in the spotlight than Mike Potter, father of six, grandfather of four, and founder and president of Eden Foods. His company began using BPA-free cans in 1999, after two years of frustrating negotiations with his can suppliers.
"It's regrettable that the use of BPA has gone on so long," Potter told me. "I've been flabbergasted as I've observed the lack of will on the part of the rest of the food industry to take advantage of an option we created."
The back story on Eden's switch to BPA-free cans for bean products
In 1997, Potter learned that new research was raising questions about the safety of bisphenol A, and that one of BPA's many applications was in the linings of cans. "Being a canner, it got my attention, " said Potter.
He asked his can suppliers - three of them at the time - if bisphenol A was in the cans they were selling to Eden Foods. "I made hundreds of phone calls to these three manufacturers," he said. "Remarkably, I couldn't find out if it was in the cans I was using or not."
The can companies didn't have to disclose what chemicals they were using as long as they claimed it was a trade secret.
"I was flabbergasted that legally, it was none of my business. I had no right to know, as a consumer, a food manufacturer, a parent or grandparent." Two of his can suppliers (whom he declined to name) gave Potter "half information and half answers."
One can supplier, Ball Corp., "ascertained that I wasn't going to go away. They weren't going to disclose specifically what was in the linings of their cans, but they did help me understand the heavy chemistry that goes on to make the linings and how that process leads to bisphenol A."
Asking the "high-school" question: What did you use before?
So Potter asked what he describes as the "high-school question." What did Ball Corp. use before the days of the formulation that results in bisphenol A leaching into canned food? "They told me they used an enamel made from vegetable resins. So I asked: Can I get my cans with that on it, please?"
The answer was yes, if Eden Foods paid 14 percent more for the BPA-free cans. "That's hundred of thousands of dollars a year for us," which is a big deal for a small company in the very competitive food business.
He felt he had no choice
Potter felt he had no choice but to switch to BPA-free cans. "It was the right thing to do. I didn't want BPA in food I was serving to my kids, my grandkids or my customers." Eden Foods didn't promote its switch to BPA-free cans 10 years ago. "At the time, consumers hadn't heard about bisphenol A. The name itself was like Swahili."
But with growing awareness about BPA's laboratory links to recent trends in human diseases - a chilling list including breast and prostate cancers, increases in urogenital abnormalities in male babies, a decline in semen quality in men, early onset of puberty in girls, metabolic disorders including Type 2 diabetes and obesity, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder - Eden Foods recently began labeling its bean cans "BPA-free."
For the moment, Eden Foods tomato products are packaged in industry-standard BPA-containing cans. "The FDA hasn't approved any other type of processing for highly acidic foods," Potter said.
Where there's a will, there's a way
But Potter, who is also involved in the Non-GMO Project, is convinced that "modern industrial chemists can solve this problem" - especially if consumers demand it.
"It's not fun dealing with this stuff," said Potter. "But where there's a will there's a way."
Investigative journalist Nena Baker is the author of "The Body Toxic: How the Hazardous Chemistry of Everyday Things Threatens Our Health and Well-being" (North Point Press/Farrar, Straus and Giroux).
You can grab it in paperback starting next week, and listen in to Ron Reagan's 30-minute interview with Nena on Air America, Wednesday, July 15, 2009.
Chloramine + Lead Pipes + Fluoride = Contaminated tap water
By Olga Naidenko, EWG Senior Scientist
The lead pollution crisis of the Washington, D.C. water supply - and the culprit that caused it, the water disinfection chemical chloramine - is a powerful example of how things can go terribly wrong when water quality problems are considered and tackled in isolation.
Earlier this year, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) scientists reported the shockingly high lead levels in the blood of young Washington, D.C. children tested between 2001 and 2004, when the District of Columbia's drinking water was being contaminated with lead from aging pipes.
Unfortunately, this situation is not unique: similar results have been reported in Greenville, North Carolina, according to studies by the Duke University researchers.
Chloramines and lead pipes: Not so good together
American water utilities are increasingly switching to chloramines, a mixture of chlorine and ammonia, for final disinfection of drinking water. Chloramine was supposed to be a "safer" water disinfectant than chlorine because it reduces formation of toxic chlorination byproducts. A 2005 survey by the American Water Works Association found that approximately a third of all utilities now use chloramines.
Water disinfection byproducts are associated with increased risk of cancer and possibly adverse effects on the development of the fetus, so minimizing their levels in drinking water is a good thing. Yet, chloramines drastically increase the leaching of lead from pipes. And here is a real challenge: there are tens of thousands of lead service lines in the water system administered by the DC Water and Sewer Authority. Add to these lines the lead based solder used to join copper pipe, brass and chrome plated faucets, and water fixtures, and the opportunities for lead to leach into the drinking water multiply.
We all accept that water disinfection is a public health necessity. However, we need to thoroughly consider the full impact of any chemical added to drinking water given the current water distribution infrastructure in place, not in some theoretical vacuum. As described by Duke researchers, chloramine-induced lead leaching might be lessened by the addition of anticorrosivity agents during the water treatment process. Is that sufficient for protection of public health? We really don't know! Chloramine itself has been associated with severe respiratory toxicity and skin sensitivity. Overall, despite ongoing research, water treatment chemistry is still insufficiently understood by scientists and specific water quality outcomes depend on the particular chemical interactions found in each water treatment and distribution system.
And now add fluoride
In addition to disinfection chemicals, other additives are commonly mixed with the finished drinking water before it leaves the water treatment plant. Of them, fluoride is possibly the most known. Two thirds of the U.S. municipal water supply is artificially fluoridated in an effort to prevent tooth decay. But fluoridation additives in tap water are not the same form of fluoride as found in toothpaste. Typically, water is fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid (FSA) or its salt, sodium fluosilicate, collectively referred to as fluorosilicates. In contrast, fluoride in toothpaste is usually in form of simple sodium fluoride salt, NaF.
Here comes a second unpleasant "surprise" for those in lead-piped locations: fluorosilicates have a unique affinity for lead. In fact, lead fluorosilicate is one of the most water-soluble forms of lead. In fact, fluorosilicic acid has been used as a solvent for lead and other heavy metals in metallurgy. In industrial applications, chemical engineers rely on this acid to remove surface lead from leaded-brass machine parts.
Research shows what happens when we mix it all up
What happens when fluorosilicates in water pass through lead-containing pipes and metal fixtures? Not surprisingly, the fluorosilicates extract high levels of soluble lead from leaded-brass metal parts (researchers from the Environmental Quality Institute of the University of North Carolina-Asheville performed this actual experiment).
In research published in the scientific journal Neurotoxicology, researchers found that the mixture of the two chemicals: disinfectant (whether chlorine or chloramine) with fluorosilicic acid has a drastically increased potency, leaching amazingly high quantities of lead.
Where does this lead go? Into our drinking water and right on into our bodies, where they wreak havoc by poisoning our heart, kidneys and blood, causing irreversible neurological damage and impairing reproductive function.
North Carolina researchers concluded that the supposedly innocuous - and purportedly beneficial - quantities of fluoride added to drinking water may, in fact, precipitate a cascade of serious health problems, especially when chloramines and lead pipes are added into the mix.
Do we even need fluoride in tap water?
The mixture of chloramine and fluorosilicates in drinking water causes extensive leaching of lead. We cannot dispense with water disinfection - everybody acknowledges this. Thus, chlorine and chloramine are probably here to stay for some time. On the other hand, fluoride, or, specifically, water fluoridation with fluorosilicates, is quite dispensable.
But wait - isn't fluoride the miracle chemical that improves dental health?
Well, yes and no. Much of what is publicized today in caries prevention programs worldwide is derived from the theories generated in the 1950s and '60s, when water fluoridation was actively promoted. As we now know, the main benefits of fluoride for dental health are derived from surface application on the teeth, not from ingestion.
In fact, ingestion of fluoride causes dental fluorosis, a range of adverse health effects that includes mottling, pitting, and weakening of the teeth. These risks are especially significant for infants and young children. In the U.S. and worldwide, about 30 percent of children who drink fluoridated water experience dental fluorosis. In 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) issued an "Interim Guidance on Fluoride Intake for Infants and Young Children." ADA recommended that in areas where fluoride is added to tap water, parents should consider using fluoride-free bottled water to reconstitute concentrated or powdered infant formula to avoid excess fluoride.
According to the latest research, the anti-caries activity of fluoride is due to topical effects, which supports the value of fluoride-containing toothpaste to dental health. There is clear evidence that fluoride dental products significantly reduce the incidence of cavities. In contrast, a substantial and growing body of peer-reviewed science suggests that ingesting fluoride in tap water does not provide any additional dental benefits other than those offered by fluoride toothpaste and may present serious health risks.
To learn more about fluoride health effects, read the recent report by EWG.
The message: Don't assess chemicals in isolation
The lesson here is straightforward: it is completely unscientific to simply toss any chemical into the drinking water on the premises that this chemical might provide some benefits. The real question is: what would be the effect of this chemical given what else is going on with the water system? In case of fluoridation and chloramines, what emerges at the end of the pipe (our faucets!) is a potentially highly hazardous mixture of fluorosilicates, lead, and residual levels of disinfectants.
To protect the health of my family today, I can buy a water filter to remove heavy metals and disinfection byproducts from my drinking water with a simple pitcher filter. But to protect the health of the entire nation, we really need to consider if our current methods of water treatment can withstand scientific scrutiny, or whether they should be re-assessed so as to provide safe, healthy tap water to all Americans.
EWG heads to Congress: Thanks for your help
A huge thanks to EWG fans for supplying the bottled water labels we needed to complete our report on bottled water labeling - which we ranked brand by brand. People-powered research at its finest.
EWG researchers Jane Houlihan and Nneka Leiba have a message for you - from their taxi en route to testify in a Congressional hearing about the lack of bottled water regulations.
Is bottled water safe? Who knows!?
By Lisa Frack
As you might imagine, I read labels before I buy pretty much anything. But when they don't tell me a thing, why bother? Take, for example, bottled water.
Labels disclose very little. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Our new research into 200 popular brands of bottled water shows that less than 2 percent disclose the water's source, how the water has been purified and what chemical pollutants each bottle of water may contain. Just 2 of the 188 individual brands EWG analyzed disclosed these three very basic - and arguably essential - facts about their water. You can easily find your brand with our searchable (and embeddable) widget.
Some brands are better than others
Somewhat surprisingly, mainstream brands such as Sam's Club and Walgreen's scored relatively high marks, while waters marketed as elite, including Perrier, S. Pellegrino and the Whole Foods store brand, flunked because they provided almost no meaningful information for consumers. Ahhhh, marketing.
Speaking of marketing...
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the non-profit consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch explains the industry's marketing scam:
The Bottled water industry's strategy has been to market bottled water as the safe and clean alternative to tap water. This myth has been used to trick consumers into paying thousands times more for a product that is the same or even more polluted than the water available from our faucets.Tap water in the United States undergoes rigorous testing for contaminants--as often as 480 times a month, far more than the once-a-week test for bottled water.
Why the glaring lack of disclosure?
When EWG's Jane Houlihan testified in Congress yesterday, she reported that bottled water companies enjoy a regulatory holiday under the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which give beverage corporations complete latitude to choose what, if any, information about their water they divulge to customers.
In contrast, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- the federal agency that oversees the nation's municipal water utilities -- requires all 52,000 community tap water suppliers nationwide to produce an annual water quality report: The utilities' reports detail water source and pollutant testing results for customers, as required under the Safe Drinking Water Act. An estimated 58 percent of these reports also describe water treatment methods. Houlihan notes:
Many people assume bottled water is healthier and safer to drink than ordinary tap water. But some companies have lured consumers away from the tap with claims of health and purity that aren't backed by public data. The ugly truth is that under lax federal law, consumers know very little about the quality of bottled water on which they spend billions every year.
You can hear it for yourself on the Today Show:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
PS - Thanks a million to our fans who provided us with the bottled water labels - we couldn't have done it without you.
Because pesticides on your food aren't bad enough
By Amy Rosenthal
Worried about your cantaloupe catching fire?
You might not have to anymore! Your fruits and veggies may be doused in Deca, a flame retardant chemical and known neurotoxin.
How could a flame retardant get on my apples?
The food industry uses plastic pallets made with the toxic chemical Deca to store certain fruits and vegetables. These pallets may go through a process called "hydrocooling," where they're submerged or water is sprayed over them to keep the produce fresh. As the water is reused, Deca leaching from the pallets can build up, eventually leaving residue on the food itself.
(Fun fact: two of the fruits likely to be hydrocooled - apples and peaches - are the two with the most pesticide residues, according to EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides. How's that for your daily serving of chemicals?)
What are the risks of Deca?
Deca is a member of the family of flame retardants known as PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers). PBDEs, which accumulate in the blood and tissue of people and wildlife, have been associated with disruptions in brain development and hormone systems. Two other types of PBDEs have been pulled from the market due to health dangers, and 10 state legislatures have proposed bans on Deca.
Is anyone checking that my food is toxic-free?
The FDA has said that pallets made with Deca are "not authorized" for hydrocooling and that food with Deca residue would be considered "adulterated." Last week, EWG Senior Vice President Richard Wiles sent a letter to the FDA Commissioner urging her to investigate to see what's actually happening. No one knows for sure what these food companies are up to, but as Richard writes on EWG's Kid-Safe blog, "It's the FDA's job to find out."
New Doubts About Roundup
By Elaine Shannon
As the East Coast monsoon season slogs on, there's carnage in the garden. The dandelions and plantains are elbowing the grass aside, and the morning glory vines are garrotting the daylilies. Over at Strosnider's Hardware, that bottle of Roundup is looking pretty fetching.
Mine is not an original thought. Glyphosate, the active chemical in Roundup and many other broadleaf weedkillers, is one of the most popular and widely used herbicides in the U.S. Americans use about 100 million pounds of glyphosate annually, to kill weeds in fields of "Roundup-ready" soybeans and corn, on lawns, along highway rights-of-way, around oil tanks and on lawns. For decades, the U.S. State Department has financed the use of Glyphosate to kill hardy coca plants in the Andes.
The U.S. government has treated the Roundup and other Glyphosate-based herbicides as relatively safe. "Glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to soil, with little potential for leaching to ground water," the Environmental Protection Agency says on its website. "Microbes in the soil readily and completely degrade it even under low temperature conditions. It tends to adhere to sediments when released to water. Glyphosate does not tend to accumulate in aquatic life."
But a recent report in Environmental Health News raises new questions about Roundup's safety. EHN highlights a new study by University of Caen scientists Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Séralini that shows that Roundup kills human cells, even when diluted "far below agricultural recommendations and [at an amount that] corresponds to low levels of residues in food or feed."
There's a twist: the culprit in the Caen study is not Glyphosate but so-called inert ingredients. "Astonishingly," the study says, "the supposed inert product POEA (polyethoxylated tallowamine) is the most potent one."
Benachour and Séralini, who is also an outspoken critic of genetically modified food crops, conclude that mixing Glyphosate with POEA, a detergent that helps Glyphosate penetrate a plant's skin, creates a more poisonous product than its component parts.
"This work clearly confirms that the adjuvants [ingredients that enhance a weed-killer's effects] in Roundup formulations are not inert," the scientists write. Gylphosate-based herbicides now on the market , they say, "could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R[oundup] formulation-treated crops. "
This assertion is sure to stir debate and calls for much more research. I'm for both.
Meantime, I'm learning to see chickweed, clover, purslane and such as a nice mottled patchwork. And in the case of dandelions, lunch.
Intersex fish on Colbert Nation
On July 1st Nicholas Kristof wrote an opinion piece in The New York Times on endocrine disruptors: It's Time to Learn from Frogs.
If you missed it, or prefer to get your science on Colbert Nation where Kristof appeared to discuss his piece, check out the show for yourself. Word to the wise: Colbert's humorous suggestion that intersex fish are caused by what Colbert calls "lady pee" is (surprise!) not true.
We recommend you read Kristof's NYT piece, his follow-up blog post, or our Enviroblog post on endocrine disruption to get the real story. But we're sure glad this important public health issue is getting some prime time.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Nicholas Kristof | ||||
| ||||
Find your sunscreen in EWG's 2009 report
This week my family is vacationing, like many American families, and we're doing our best to play outside - a lot. Which, of course, means we're in the sun. And since we're from Oregon, our skin isn't exactly used to the sun come July.
So I opened the medicine cabinet to see what sunscreens we have lying around from last year. Hoping they were the safe and effective kind. And one was. But many weren't. How did I know? EWG's sunscreen report, of course. The 2009 version is here!! And this year, it includes lip balms and face moisturizers, as well as the usual "beach" sunscreens.
The good news is that products are improving. For example, 19 percent fewer sunscreens contains oxybenzone, an active ingredient that disrupts the hormone system.
The bad news is that there are still only a few safe and effective brands that I'd use on my family: Of the 1,572 sunscreens and other sun-blocking products that we researched, 3 of 5 either don't protect skin from sun damage or contain hazardous chemicals -- or both. Yowza. Better check yours.
What you'll find in the report
There's a lot of information in our report to help you enjoy the sun safely this summer, pick safe and effective products, and understand the science behind sunscreens. Some highlights:
- 9 safety tips for enjoying the sun safely
- Best "beach" and "sport" sunscreens
- Best sun-protective lip balms
- Best moisturizers
Be sure to check our comprehensive FAQ
You'll find complete, understandable answers to 19 questions about sunscreen, like:
- How high of an SPF should I use?
- Which sunscreens are best for children?
- What's the matter with sprays and powder?
- Doesn't the government ensure that sunscreens protect us?
Got a blog? Get the widget.
This year we created a sunscreen search widget for your blog so your readers can easily research sunscreen safety - right from your site.
Is there too much fluoride in your dog food? Read EWG's new report
By Lisa Frack
You're probably familiar with the longstanding and often heated debate over the addition of fluoride to public water supplies. And while EWG does have an opinion on that, last week we focused on fluoride in dog food in a new report based on independent tests of 10 brands.
EWG's finding: High levels of fluoride in dog food
EWG found fluoride above healthy levels in 8 national brands of dog food marketed for both puppies and adults. The amount of fluoride in the dog food was up to 2.5 times higher than what the EPA has deemed a safe amount in drinking water.
Where is the fluoride coming from?
Some of this extra fluoride comes from the fluoridated water used to manufacture dog food. Most, however, is from the "bone meal" and various meat byproducts that are added to dog food - anything from "chicken byproduct meal" to "beef and bone meal."
These are basically ground bones, cooked with steam, dried, and mashed to make a cheap dog food filler. Since bones store fluoride, any product that includes bone meal is likely to be high in fluoride, too.
Why is excessive fluoride a problem?
Combined fluoride exposure from both food and water can easily range into unsafe territory. Routine exposure, like eating the same food every day, can predispose dogs to a variety of health problems: weakened bones, hormonal and behavior problems, and even bone cancer.
What can you do for your dog?
Check the ingredient list before you buy dog food. Look for and demand pet foods that do not include bone meal.
Read the full EWG report on fluoride in dog food.
[Thanks to MShades & Flickr CC for the pic]