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
The greatest advertising trick of all time
EWG heads to L.A. this week to ban BPA: Can you be there?
Dr. Steingraber says: Embryos need safe food
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
Californians say: Make our kids BPA-free
Over 100 California moms rallied in Sacramento on August 26th to send a message to their state Assembly:
See for yourself how many Californians want the Toxics-Free Babies & Toddlers Act to pass:
Click here to view these pictures larger
EWG worked with many excellent partners to make this a successful event - Senator Fran Pavley, the Breast Cancer Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, renowned pediatrician and author Dr. Greene, actress and environmental advocate Amy Smart, Commonweal, Black Women for Wellness, Moms Rising, the Consumers' Union, NRDC, the Center for Environmental Health, and the CHANGE coalition.
Live in California but couldn't join us yesterday?
We're sorry we missed you, but you can still join us virtually! Send an email right now to your state Assembly member - it's easy, it's quick, but it matters. Call it a virtual rally.
Healthy Home Tip 3: Avoid fire retardants
Are you trying to reduce your family's exposure to flame retardants?
It's a good idea since they're associated with long-term health effects - especially in children whose developing bodies are more sensitive to chemical exposures. Plus, they're all over your house.
We'd like to believe our government is effectively protecting us from toxic chemicals that are increasingly linked to health problems and found in many common household items, but it's not.
We think you deserve better. So we created a Healthy Home Tip Series to make it easier to safeguard your family's health from the poorly studied toxic chemicals in use today.
Tip 3: Learn to minimize your exposure to fire retardants at home.
Our Healthy Home Tip makes it easy for you to identify fire retardants in your home and take some simple steps to reduce your family's exposure to them. You'll learn:
- Why you should minimize your family's exposure.
- What household products contain fire retardants.
- How you can reduce your family's in-home exposure.
Get the guide. Our 1-page guide to PBDEs sums it up well.
Tell your friends about our Healthy Home Tips. They, too, will appreciate being informed when wondering how to minimize unnecessary exposure to fire retardants.
This tip is part of our Healthy Home Tips Series. You can find our first two tips and sign up to get the rest in your inbox right here.
Talk to you in a month when we discuss our next Healthy Home Tip: How to pick plastics carefully.
East L.A. says no more BPA
1,000 BPA-free baby bottles landed in east Los Angeles last week.
Why?
For a toxic baby bottle swap at the St. John's Well Family & Child Center - thanks to a very generous donation from local company Green to Grow. Parents swapped their own toxic baby bottles for safer BPA and phthalate-free bottles - you can see pictures from the event on our Facebook page.
And that's not all.
We also heard from some impressive speakers who support the CA Toxics-Free Babies and Toddlers Act, a bill that would ban BPA from food and drink containers meant for children. Among them was Dr. Harvey Karp, world-renowned pediatrician and author of The Happiest Baby on the Block and CA state senator Fran Pavley (pictured, above), who is sponsoring this bill and working hard to see it pass.
Senator Pavley blogged about the bill and her efforts to pass it here, reminding us that this is a David v. Goliath battle for children's health:
The powerful chemical industry has mounted an all out assault against my bill to protect our children. Highly paid lobbyists for popular formula companies are trying to kill SB 797 by telling my colleagues that alternative products aren't available and a ban on BPA would cause a formula shortage. Yet, at the same time these companies are marketing a variety of formula and food containers to parents as "BPA free."
Live in California? Get involved in our campaign to pass SB 797 on our Facebook Cause, and if you're near Sacramento, join us this Wednesday 8/26 for a rally and lobby day at the state capitol.
Peach & Pesticide Pie: a summer favorite?
By Amy Rosenthal
Late summer produce harvest season is in full swing. Nothing should stand between you and all the peaches, berries, and tomatoes you can eat.
But when you're buying fruit for pies and corn to cook on the cob, don't forget about that old organic vs. conventional question.
Peaches top the list
Peaches are number one on my list of favorite fruit, but unfortunately EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides lists them as the "dirtiest" kind of produce. Researchers with the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that a single peach sample might test positive for as many as 9 different pesticides. Nearly all peaches examined had some kind of pesticide residue, including six pesticide compounds not approved for use in the United States.
A few other summer staples - nectarines, strawberries and cherries - are also on the Dirty Dozen list.
So what's a fruit lover to do?
- Buy organic if you can. Yes, those organic peaches are more expensive per pound, but especially if you're pregnant or feeding them to kids, they're a worthwhile investment. Exposure to toxic chemicals is especially risky for smaller, still-developing bodies.
- Minimize your risk other ways. Sweet corn, watermelon and tomatoes are all on EWG's "Clean 15" list, meaning they have the lowest levels of pesticide residue. When budgeting your produce dollars, you can feel better about buying the conventionally-raised versions.
- Take a trip to the farmers market. Buying local doesn't necessarily mean "pesticide free," but it does give you the chance to talk to the farmer and find out what kind of growing methods he or she uses. Small farms may not always be certified organic by the USDA, but often they use no or only small amounts of synthetic chemicals.
What about blueberries?
You may have noticed that blueberries haven't been ranked by EWG, even on our full list of 47 types of produce. That's because the USDA program from which we take our raw data has only released one year's testing results for blueberries. That's just not enough data for us to analyze.
We hope we'll be able to add blueberries to the list sometime soon. In the meantime, EWG always recommends buying organic if you can (whether it's produce or other foods we haven't ranked, like milk and meat).
Want more EWG tips on what to eat? Check out #2 in our Healthy Home Tips Series - "Go organic and eat fresh foods."
The greatest advertising trick of all time
We've studied bottled water a lot.
You've probably seen our recent report on inadequate labeling (and our search tool for identifying better-labeled brands), and you might even have heard our Congressional testimony on the industry's insufficient regulations. But have you seen the documentary Tapped?
It's worth a look. The filmmakers describe it as "an unflinching examination of the big business of bottled water."
What's your bottled water plan? Do you drink it? Have you moved on to reusable containers? We're big fans of Klean Kanteen's stainless steel reusable water bottles. Try one, you just might like it.
EWG heads to L.A. this week to ban BPA: Can you be there?
We're working hard in California to ban BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups and other food containers meant for kids.
We've made great strides toward a new law by seeing the bill pass the state senate and key state Assembly committees. In the next few weeks, we're increasing our efforts as the bill heads for a full Assembly vote and, if they approve it, on to the governor's desk.
We're close. But not there yet. Industry is still very busy opposing this bill. So if you live in L.A., can you join us to send a strong message that Californians want their legislators to ban BPA? Here's the deal:
Be there! Join us at the L.A. Toxic Baby Bottle Swap and BPA press conference on August 19 at 10am. The event will be held at the St. John's Well Family and Child Center in Los Angeles (get address & map when you RSVP, below).
What for? To show decision-makers that Los Angeles parents want their state Assembly members to ban BPA in children's food and drink packaging. Industry is telling the Assembly not to ban it, so shouldn't you tell them what you think?
Why now? The California state Assembly will decide as soon as late August whether to ban BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups and other feeding containers meant for children. Constituents must speak up NOW to be heard. This vote is the last step before the governor's desk.
Get a free BPA-free baby bottle. The first 1,000 parents who bring in an old baby bottle can swap it for a new, BPA-free bottle (thanks to local company Green to Grow).
Hear a great speaker! Harvey Karp, world-renowned pediatrician and author of The Happiest Baby on the Block, will join us to rally for a BPA ban.
RSVP. Click here for details and to RSVP. Lisa Frack, EWG Online Organizer, looks forward to meeting you.
Can't be there? We need you anyway! Tell your Assembly member today to vote YES on the Toxics-Free Babies and Toddlers Act. Click here to send a strong message.
It's time to make this happen, don't you think? We do.
Tell Del Monte: No more BPA!
Several months ago, EWG helped break news of a secret meeting convened at a fancy private club in Washington, where lobbyists from the chemical industry and food companies hatched a plot to mislead consumers about the risks of bisphenol-A (BPA), a toxic chemical used in many food containers.
EWG's online community was outraged. We urged you to call two of the companies represented by name in the memo to denounce this deceptive campaign: Coke and Del Monte.
You did, and one company, Coca-Cola, responded.
As for the other company? No word yet from Del Monte on the food and chemical lobby's anti-consumer campaign. Help us keep the pressure on Del Monte by calling now to demand no more BPA in its products.
Coke Disavows Industry "Fear Tactics"
In mid-July, four Coca-Cola executives traveled from Atlanta to EWG's Washington headquarters to discuss the BPA issue in a two-hour meeting. They came to discuss issues EWG President Ken Cook had raised in a June 10 letter to Muhtar Kent, Chairman and CEO of The Coca-Cola Company.
They reiterated what Rhona Applebaum, the company's Vice President and Chief Scientific and Regulatory Officer, had written in a letter to Ken a few weeks earlier:
"The Coca-Cola company wants you to understand that it absolutely disavows any use of 'fear tactics' or any misleading marketing efforts regarding BPA, and would not support any effort by others to do so. The Company believes that consumers should be informed accurately to allow them to make knowledgeable choices."
While the Coca-Cola executives made clear that they differ with EWG on the science of BPA and have concluded based on available evidence that the material is safe as used in packaging for its products, they are interested in hearing more about our views about emerging research on BPA and other chemicals used in packaging. Coca-Cola has not found a substitute for BPA that meets its packaging needs, but will continue to assess alternatives -- as we're urging it to do.
We agreed to continue our conversation with the company on a range of issues beyond BPA, including science and policy matters pertaining to packaging ingredients, bottled water, and ambitious efforts underway within the company to reduce its energy use, environmental impacts, and carbon footprint.
We feel the discussion was robust and candid, and we welcome Coca-Cola's principled stand against consumer deception regarding BPA. We look forward to further discussions.
No more fear tactics, please
As you may recall, this internal memo from the secret Industry meeting suggested the companies use "fear tactics," like falsely warning new parents, "Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?" The Industry representatives discussed "focusing on the impact of BPA bans on minorities (Hispanic and African American) and poor."
And then there was this brainstorm: recruit as "the 'holy grail' spokesperson a 'pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA'" -- a chemical many scientists consider toxic in utero to developing babies.
Finally, the lobbyists recommended "befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process," singling out for attack pending legislation EWG is sponsoring in California that would restrict BPA in sippy cups and infant formula containers.
We're fighting back. Help us turn up the heat on Del Monte.
Keep the pressure on Del Monte to stand up against these outrageous industry tactics and get BPA out of Del Monte products. Call now to demand an end to unethical marketing tactics and to the use of BPA in Del Monte's products.
Together, we are holding companies accountable and making our voices heard.
[Thanks to Flickr and iateapie for the canned peaches pic]
Dr. Steingraber says: Embryos need safe food
We've talked before about the critical connection between toxics and pregnancy - it's an important topic given the potential impacts of chemicals on the developing fetus.
And what with the brouhaha last week about the (lack of!) benefits of organic food, it's timely to talk about the connection between organics and pregnancy. Esteemed scientist Dr. Sandra Steingraber is an expert worth listening to:
Did you eat more organic food when pregnant? It can be more expensive and in some places hard to find, so check our Shopper's Guide to Pesticides to find less contaminated conventional fruits and veggies. We suggest that you buy organic when it counts the most if you can't buy it all the time.
BPA: Can consumer revolt trump K Street?
By Elaine Shannon
Don't underestimate the power of a consumer revolt.
No hearings. No votes. No PAC money. No lawyers. (Yes!) No lobbying. Advertising -- Facebook and Twitter, virtual and viral. And free.
When it comes to cost, you can't beat zero.
Effective? Hey, big companies can stand to lose political allies. But not customers.
That's why Massachusetts' strictly voluntary approach to reducing human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA), a plastic toughener that also happens to be a synthetic estrogen, may pack more punch than you might expect. On Monday, the state Department of Public Health issued a warning to parents and caretakers to avoid BPA-based polycarbonate baby bottles and infant formula packaged in cans lined with epoxy resin, another material whose key component is BPA.
Publicity moves marketplace
The Massachusetts advisory lacks the force of laws enacted earlier this year by Minnesota and Connecticut legislators, who have banned BPA in baby bottles and other containers used by young children. The California legislature is considering similar legislation.
Even so, health warnings can spur consumer resistance that can change the marketplace faster than laws and regulations.
It's already happening in the case of BPA. More than a year ago, big retailers like Walmart and Toys-R-Us pulled BPA-based baby bottles from their shelves. Nalgene and Camelbak sports bottle makers ditched polycarbonate like a bad blind date. By March of this year, baby bottle manufacturers voluntarily agreed to stop making bottles with BPA plastic.
Canned food industry resists retooling
The Massachusetts advisory goes further than legislative bans by targeting not only baby bottles and sippy cup but also canned food consumed by adults and children alike. Massachusetts public health officials have cautioned pregnant and breastfeeding women to limit their canned food consumption on grounds that BPA from food cans can cross the umbilical cord and reach the fetus and can also make its way into breast milk.
The food processing industry is dead set against retooling to eliminate epoxy can linings. "There is no readily available, suitable alternative to BPA-based can coatings that meets the essential safety and performance requirements for the broadest spectrum of foods now packaged in metal and glass containers," the North American Metal Packaging Alliance (NAMPA) said in a recent statement.
Actually, in 1998, major Japanese canners voluntarily switched to non-BPA can linings because of a consumer revolt sparked by high BPA urine levels among teens and young adults. Overworked students had been tossing back buckets of canned tea and coffee beverages, kept hot for days in vending machines. BPA-based plastics are unstable to begin with, and they leach more of the chemical into food or drink when they're heated, washed with strong detergent or subjected to acidic foods like coffee or tomatoes. Japanese researchers reported in 2003 that Japanese students' BPA urine levels had dropped "significantly" since canning methods changed.
U.S. and Western European food processors ignored the late-90's BPA flap, with the notable exception of small Eden Foods, which adopted alterative linings for its canned beans. (Eden still hasn't found a good non-BPA can lining for products with tomatoes.)
Unsafe at any level?
The Massachusetts action comes at a time when debate is intensifying over whether any amount of BPA or any other endocrine-disrupting chemicals can be considered "safe."
As we've reported in Enviroblog, several recent research studies have underscored the hazards of fetal and early life exposure to BPA. The chemical has been shown to disrupt the endocrine system, causing marked, sometimes permanent, changes in the brain, neurological and reproductive systems of laboratory animals. Researchers have also linked BPA exposure to diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular problems.
Because of these findings, in June, in its first scientific statement ever, the Endocrine Society, numbering 14,000 scientific and medical experts in 100 nations, termed endocrine-disrupting environmental pollutants a "significant concern to public health" and called for tighter federal regulations to minimize their contamination of food and the environment. "Even infinitesimally low levels of exposure--indeed, any level of exposure at all--may cause endocrine or reproductive abnormalities," the society said, "particularly if exposure occurs during a critical developmental window. Surprisingly, low doses may even exert more potent effects than higher doses."
FDA action imminent
The federal Food and Drug Administration has so far declined to regulate BPA leaching into canned food, including infant formula, and other food contact items, including baby bottles. But soon after President Obama took office, senior FDA appointees said that they were giving BPA in food a fast track review. The Boston Globe reported yesterday that the agency is aiming to report on that review early as August 17.
The FDA's decision could affact the California vote and, as well, U.S. Senate consideration of a House-passed bill offered by Rep. Edward Markey, D-MA, to require FDA to determine by the end of this year whether BPA in food presents "a reasonable certainty of no harm for infants, young children and pregnant women." If the agency can't offer that assurance, it must take steps to contain BPA contamination of the food supply.
Canners' dilemma
In Sacramento and in Washington, the stakes are huge. That guarantees fangs-and-claws industry lobbying -- unless and until the consumer revolt against BPA looms large enough to change the canner's calculations. In this economy, who can afford major customer losses?
EWG's Healthy Home Tip 2: Eat organic, fresh foods
Most people prefer their foods free of pesticides and toxic chemicals, for a whole host of (pretty) obvious reasons. I know I do.
The government isn't doing enough
Pesticides and toxic chemicals are increasingly linked to serious health problems - especially for our children, whose developing bodies are more vulnerable to chemical exposures. We'd like to believe that our government is policing the safety of our food and the containers it comes in, but it's not.
So what can YOU do to protect your family?
Our advice is to eat organic, fresh foods to limit your family's exposure to:
- Pesticides. How? Buy organic or low-pesticide fruits and veggies.
- BPA and PFCs, two common toxic chemicals often used in food containers. How? By avoiding food containers that contaminate.
- Bovine growth hormones. How? By choosing more natural meat and dairy products.
Get the why's and how's of our recommendations here.
More about EWG's Healthy Home Tips
In May 2009 we launched our Healthy Home Tips series. It's based on a simple but powerful 1-page guide from EWG researchers on how to improve the environmental health of your home.
Have you signed up yet to get it via email? If not, hop on our children's health and toxics e-list so you can get the next 9 tips right in your inbox.
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.
Talk to you in a month when we discuss our next Healthy Home Tip: Avoiding fire retardants.
Sunscreen series: You've found the perfect sunscreen, now what?
By Lisa Frack with Dave Andrews, EWG Senior Scientist
By this point in the summer you've probably thoroughly researched and hunted down just the sunscreen you want. If you haven't, quick, it's already August! Read our sunscreen report and use our search widget to find a safe, effective choice for your family.
Whichever sunscreen you choose, don't blow it and get burned now by applying too little. A thin layer of sunscreen just won't protect you. Why not? Because the protection promised on the label is based on a certain thickness on the skin, and if you're skimping (we know, those tubes add up), then you're not going to get the protection you want - or paid for.
How will you know if you're wearing enough?
Since achieving the recommended thickness of 2 mg/cm^2 (yeah, right) isn't something you can easily estimate, let's talk in terms we can all understand: if you haven't yet bought a 2nd or 3rd bottle of sunscreen yet this summer, you're probably under applying.
Most Americans, even us EWG staffers, don't apply enough sunscreen. In fact, a study of 124 students found that the median thickness of applied sunscreen (yes, they test this stuff) was only 20% of the thickness used for testing a product's UV protection. If you're going to the trouble of picking the safest sunscreens, you should also use enough to benefit from the protection they offer.
Apply generously so it works
If you're now thinking that you can just buy SPF 60 and get SPF 30 protection because you're underapplying by about 1/2, think again. It's not quite that simple. A study of 20 volunteers found that the SPF actually varies exponentially with thickness. So in our example, if you apply half the recommended amount of an SPF 50 sunscreen you might only be getting SPF 7 protection. Not so effective. Especially since The American Cancer Society recommends at least SPF 15.
Higher SPFs will give you more protection, but once you reach SPF 30, there isn't a huge difference between products with higher SPF values. A SPF 50 product, for example, only blocks about 1.3% more UVB radiation than a SPF 30 product. More important than seeking out ultra-high SPF products is simply that you apply your sunscreen generously -- most people put on only a quarter to two-thirds enough sunscreen to actually reach the product's SPF rating.
What SPF really means
SPF, or Sun Protection Factor, is a measurement of how well a sunscreen will protect skin from UVB (not UVA) rays, the kind of radiation that causes sunburn. For example, if your skin would normally burn after 10 minutes in the sun, wearing an SPF 15 sunscreen would theoretically allow you to stay in the sun for 150 minutes (10 x 15) without burning. This is a rough estimate, though, and your own skin, the type of activity you do in the sun (i.e. one involving water or sweat), and the intensity of sunlight may give you more or less safety.
Measuring it out to apply enough
So when you're standing in your bathing suit, holding that new safe, effective bottle of sunscreen, we suggest you think about it this way: 1 shot glass of sunscreen should give you an adequate layer to cover your body. We can break it down into individual body parts by thinking about bottle caps as a standard unit of measure. Why not? You'll need:
- ½ cap for your face and neck
- 1 cap for each arm
- 2 caps for each leg
- 2 caps for you back
- 2 caps for your torso front
Most sunscreen tubes are 3-5 ounces and the large ones are 8. While the shot glass and bottle cap methods of measuring sunscreen make sense to most of us, the simplest method is to just make sure that you're going through tubes (and tubes) of sunscreen when you're in the sun a lot. For just one person it should be easy to use a tube in just two trips to the beach.
Learn more next week. Next Monday, August 10th we tackle UVA rays and how to protect yourself from them. And we invite you to join our sunscreen live chat Wednesday, August 12th @ 2 PM eastern. Bring your burning questions for EWG senior analyst Sonya Lunder. Stay tuned to Enviroblog for details.