ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Cell Phone Radiation Series - Part 4: What phones emit, bodies absorb
Toxic Waters: Hear it for yourself
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Public Health Assn Calls For Asbestos Ban
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Toxins in our Kids' Foods: Where is the FDA?
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Fluoride in Your Water: How much is too much?
Borax: Not the Green Alternative It's Cracked Up to Be
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
Monthly Archive
Learn to create a green nursery on Giggle.com - with EWG's Ken Cook
Jesse Johnson, CEO and co-founder of Q-Collection and Q-Collection Junior posted an interview with EWG president and co-founder Ken Cook on his experiences creating a green, non-toxic nursery for his son, Cal.
The 2-part interview is available on his Giggle blog.
Thanks to Flickr CC & cckaiser for the sweet baby pic.
Climate Change and Health: An M.D. Weighs In
Special to Enviroblog by Dr. Anila Jacob
In a new report for Worldwatch Institute, Dr. Samuel Myers outlines the impacts of global environmental change on human health in compelling detail, from the increases in certain infectious diseases to food and water scarcity among vulnerable populations. Humans are changing the environment, both locally and globally, in unprecedented ways and the consequences of these changes are already being felt in many communities across the planet.
Call to action for wealthier nations
The health impacts of these environmental changes are especially severe for the poorest people on our planet; this point is especially poignant, given the fact that they contribute the least to these changes. One of Dr. Myers' main points in this report is that those of us who live in richer nations have a moral obligation to assist those in resource poor areas to adjust to global environmental changes that further worsen the divide between the rich and poor. At the same time, we must work diligently to decrease our sizable contribution to environmental degradation. In essence, this report is a call to action for definitive and committed action on the part of governments and individuals from wealthier nations.
Not just the environment -- it's our health, too
As I read this, I was struck by how unaware most Americans are about the public health implications of global environmental issues such as climate change and biodiversity loss. For too long, these issues have been viewed only as environmental issues when they are really public health issues as well.
While acknowledging the serious threat that global warming poses to wildlife such as polar bears, we can engage more of the public if we also increase awareness about the risks to people. For example, we should start to talk about global warming in the context of lung disease -- as temperatures get warmer, higher levels of ground level ozone and air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide form, leading to increased exacerbations of chronic lung diseases including asthma and emphysema. Chronic lung diseases currently affect 30 million Americans, including nearly 10% of children; engaging even a small proportion of this population in the fight against climate change can be very powerful.
We all must collaborate for action
If we are to tackle global environmental change in a meaningful way, we must involve and recruit as many people as possible to address these challenges. To do this, we have to increase awareness about the full nature of the threats posed by environmental degradation.
Discussing environmental issues in the context of public health will allow us to engage diverse groups of people, including physicians, public health advocates, parents, and health-affected communities who may not currently be engaged on environmental issues. This is the only way in which we can affect the dramatic actions necessary to address global environmental changes with the commitment and urgency they require.
Thanks Flickr and davidgsteadman for the photo!
Not in my cosmetics: The Series
By Leeann Brown with Travis Mitchell
If you love EWG's Skin Deep database, then this series is for you. If you've never even heard of our Skin Deep database, this series is also for you. And for pretty much anyone else on the planet who uses toothpaste, shampoo, diaper cream, lipstick, cologne, shaving cream, nail polish and basically any other "personal care product" you can think of.
We're kicking off the series with a True-False Quiz because, well, so few people know how bad it really is in the cosmetics aisles. How wildly unregulated. So if you get them all wrong, you're not alone. But you do need help. Ready?
QUESTION 1: Ingredients in personal care products are required to be proven safe for use before being sold in the US.
FALSE! "Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with the exception of color additives." - Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Nearly 80 percent of the 10,500 ingredients used in personal care products have not been evaluated for safety by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, the industry's own public research organization, the FDA or any publicly accountable institution.
QUESTION 2. If you use a product without having a noticeable adverse reaction, it's safe.
FALSE! As you can tell from the first question, we really don't know. What is known is that common ingredients in personal care products have been linked to various concerns, such as reproductive issues, cancers and allergies. We also know that some of these ingredients can accumulate in our bodies. For example, phthalates, a group of common plasticizer, have been found in breast cancer tissue.
QUESTION 3. Avoiding a few key toxic ingredients will allow you to reduce your toxic exposure.
TRUE! While you can't shop your way around chemical exposures completely, you can avoid key cosmetic ingredient offenders, like fragrance and triclosan. You'll be doing yourself and the environment a huge favor. Hint - sign off one ingredient at a time. It's a lot more manageable, and allows you to focus your attention on one area while shopping, instead of examining every 15-letter word on the label.
QUESTION 4. Products labeled as having "natural" and "organic" ingredients are always safer than conventional ones.
FALSE! Just as ingredients aren't required to be tested for safety, there is no recognized standard for organic personal care products, either. A "natural" ingredient is not automatically safe. These ingredients can still be biologically active, and thus, have a strong effect on the human body, e.g. poison ivy.
Your best bet is to go with companies that fully disclose formulations, many of which proudly advertise certain missing toxic ingredients.
QUESTION 5. Personal care products can make their way inside your body.
TRUE! Whether a chemical is soaked in through the skin, or an aerosol spray is inhaled or suds wash down the drain and back into the drinking water supply - they can easily end up in your body. The musk xylene, which is commonly found in fragrances (and paint thinners!) has been found in human fat (link: http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/whythismatters.php).
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) lists the skin as the "most common path of toxic substance exposure." No wonder, as it is the body's largest organ and has impressive absorption abilities. Medicinal dermal patches are an example of how reliable of an exposure route it really is. No need to swallow, inhale or inject - just apply to a small area and the skin will do the rest.
Stay tuned for future installments of Not in my cosmetics: The Series. Got a question you hope we include? Stop hoping and tell us - in the comments, please!
Being in the game is one thing. Changing it is another.
By Leeann Brown
Changing a baby's diaper...it can be more of a public service than anything else. I'll never forget when I did it on a non-stop flight from Newark, NJ to Japan with two young boys.
Through the turbulence and the inevitable tears, I just kept thinking to myself how thankful the passengers on the plane would be to have fresh air for the rest of the flight.
Ken voted Ultimate Green Game Changer
Changing today's environmental scene... that's a public service, too. And it's also what EWG President and co-founder Ken Cook was named by Huffington Post as doing better than anyone else.
After weeks of voting, readers of the consistently top-rated blog named Ken "The Ultimate Green Game Changer" for harnessing new media to reshape federal environmental policy and public awareness.
The title accurately summarizes our goal at EWG when it comes to toxics reform: we're changing legislation to be based on science, not assumptions. Our research team generates report after report, each filled with unique, bulletproof analyses that go directly to the Hill and consumers, leaving nothing to question.
Using new media, before it was new media
To do this effectively, we take full advantage of new media - and have been for years. We shared our cell phone radiation report with thousands through our searchable widget. Skin Deep, our cosmetic safety database, gives people the information that manufacturers don't quite cover. And we have volumes of easy-to-read consumer tip sheets to make non-toxic living simple.
THANK YOU for being one of the 1.7 million to vote. We could never do what we do without your generous support and partnership.
And yes, although changing the green game isn't always easy or clean, someone's gotta do it. And we're glad Ken is continually stepping up to the plate.
He kinda looks like Clark Kent, too
Affectionately called (by Arianna Huffington and staffers alike) "The Clark Kent of environmental activists," Ken bravely takes on industry, legislation and anything (or anyone) else that stands in the way of keeping this planet and its inhabitants safe.
Thanks, Ken, for changing the game. It needs it.
PS - The competition was stiff:
- Isabella Rosellini,
- Kitchen Gardens International's Roger Doiron,
- The Story of Stuff's Annie Leonard,
- 350.org's Bill McKibben,
- Treehugger's Graham Hill,
- Climate Counts' Gary Hirshberg,
- David De Rothschild,
- Carrot Mob's Brent Schulkin, and
- Avoiding Mass Extinctions Engine's Gavin Starks.
Game changers one and all.
Cell Phone Radiation Series - Part 4: What phones emit, bodies absorb
Research is not yet settled on exactly how dangerous cell phone radiation is to your health. But we at Environmental Working Group have seen enough studies with enough troubling results that we think it's worth your while to reduce your exposure to cell phone radiation.
When we talked a few weeks ago about insufficient government cell phone regulations, we discussed "SAR" values and the legal limits the government has set for the amount of radiation a phone can emit. But SAR values aren't always easy to pin down - so today we're going to look closely at what they are and how they can vary by phone.
What does SAR mean, anyway?
"SAR" stands for "specific absorption rate" - it's a measure of how much radiation is absorbed by your body, given in Watts per kilogram (W/kg). Scientists test for SAR values using models of the human body filled with viscous fluid designed to mimic human tissue. The phone is placed next to the mold, and while the phone transmits a signal, a probe inside the human model measures the absorbed energy levels. The phone's SAR value is designated as the highest amount of radiation detected during these tests.
What determines a phone's emission level?
A phone's SAR value is largely determined by the design of its inner hardware and antenna. But, since the SAR measures how much radiation is absorbed by your body (heartening, huh?), the value is determined by both a) the amount of radiation emitted by the phone, and b) what body part is doing the absorbing (yes, some absorb radiation more than others).
SAR values for an individual phone can vary, based on several factors:
- Network & frequency
Most phones sold today can operate on several networks (e.g. 2G v. 3G) and at different frequencies (which band of the network the phone is using to send and receive signals). The same phone can emit different levels of radiation depending on which network and which frequency it's being used on at any given time. - Where you're using it
Phones emit radiation when they're transmitting signals from your handset to a base station (cell tower), so the harder a phone has to work to send a signal, the more radiation it will emit. As a result, when you're using your phone far from a base station (say, in a rural area) or if there are physical obstacles in the way, the SAR value would be higher. - How you're using it
A phone also uses more power to transmit a voice signal, so texting emits less radiation than talking. - Where you're holding it
Originally, SAR measurements focused primarily on values when held at the head. But over time, cell phone use has changed - now we're carrying phones in our pockets and often leaving them there while talking on a headset or not using them.This means less radiation to the brain (that's good) but more to the lower torso. SAR values vary based on the type of body tissue absorbing the radiation, and research has shown that skin and muscles absorb more radiation than fat and bones. This raises concern about exposures at the waist, particularly to reproductive organs that don't have a protective layer of bone (like a skull provides the brain) shielding them from cell phone radiation
Also, as you'd instinctively assume, the farther away the phone is from you, the less radiation you'll absorb from it. Holding the phone 10 inches away can reduce radiation exposure by a factor of 400. (Another reason texting and a headset are good ideas - you'd be yelling to get heard while holding the phone that far away.)
SAR testing not perfect
Scientists acknowledge that SAR testing has significant precision problems, and current research is lacking in many ways. For instance, we don't know much about SAR values when phones are in "data mode" (you know you love those iphone apps), when they're held at various orientations (say, flipped around in your pocket) or how SAR values change for people of different ages and body types.
Children may be especially at risk, because their tissue conducts more (it has more ions than that of adults). Also, their thinner skulls don't provide as much of a radiation shield - one recent study showed that a child's head could absorb twice the amount of radiation as an adult's. As a result, kids using high-emitting, perfectly legal cell phones could be exposed to radiation over the legal limit.
You can make it better
More research is needed, but the U.S. currently lags behind Europe when it comes to knowing what's going on with cell phones (surprise!). Tell the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to update their cell phone regulations (which they haven't done since their introduction in the mid-1990's) by sending them an email using EWG's easy form.
And in the meantime, since SAR values vary so much, you can make choices to reduce your exposure. Use EWG's 8 tips to reduce your cell phone radiation exposure - they'll make good sense now that you understand the "why" behind them all.
Stay tuned for more on cell phone radiation in coming weeks -- including finding a phone that has low SAR values to start with.
Thanks to Flickr and Cyrillicus for the photo!
Toxic Waters: Hear it for yourself
Back in September we wrote here about a West Virginia family with really, really toxic tap water. We learned about the Hall-Massey family's tragic situation in the New York Times' excellent investigative series about the pervasive water pollution allowed by too many Clean Water Act violations that too often go unpunished.
It was an important series on an important issue that adds value to the clean water debate - even for people who are well aware of the problem.
Which is why we're sharing this video conversation with NYT reporter Charles Duhigg, who authored the report, and Democracy Now hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez. If you don't have the 20 minutes now, you'll want to make it later.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
By Lisa Frack
Not so long ago, many of us were happily - and possibly a little smugly - sipping water from our reusable aluminum water bottles. Including my kids (such cute designs, right?).
Until, that is, we learned that Sigg and Gaiam bottles weren't exactly the BPA-free solution we had spent all that money on.
Naturally we rushed to dump them, exchange them, find something safer (and preferably cheaper!). And we heard the understandable question that rang throughout consumerland:
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
At EWG we know (and knew) that all reusable aluminum water bottles are lined - because no-one likes to drink straight from aluminum. It just doesn't taste right. In fact, we even suggested that people go with stainless steel instead to avoid the plastic liner - which we suspected might contain BPA.
Why?
Because that plastic liner happens to be an epoxy resin liner, whose "key building block," according to the American Chemistry Council, is (you guessed it) BPA. And stainless steel doesn't need one; unscrew that Klean Kanteen and what do you see inside? More stainless steel.
See for yourself how the bottles are made
Check out this excellent "how it's made" video - it'll take you all the way from aluminum "puck" to epoxy resin liner (kids welcome, it's educational). Courtesy of Sigg (they should know).
Now you know.
For the many people who aren't immersed in the science of chemicals and human health, as we are, it simply didn't cross their minds that their metal water bottle was also plastic.
Just as it still hasn't crossed many people's minds that their metal food cans are lined with plastic (yes, there's BPA in that, too). Because we're busy. We just want to eat the food and drink the water, already.
[Thanks to Flickr CC & EthanPDX for the perfect pic]
Public Health Assn Calls For Asbestos Ban
By Elaine Shannon
People think asbestos, a known carcinogen and cause of lung disease, has been banned - and it has, in about 40 countries.
But not here in the United States, where, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, asbestos imports increased between 2007 and 2008 by nearly nine percent, to 1,880 tons. It is still being used in consumer products such as joint compounds and some construction materials. Asbestos can also be found in brakes and clutches of older vehicles, older buildings and as a contaminant in some vermiculite.
On Nov. 11, 12,000 members of the American Public Health Association (APHA), meeting in Philadelphia, passed a resolution urging Congress to ban "manufacture, sale, export or import of asbestos-containing products."
The measure, coordinated with the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, which represents victims of asbestos-related disease, calls for other measures to minimize work and public exposure to asbestos, as when asbestos seams are unearthed during road and building construction or aged buildings are renovated or demolished. As well, it urges the U.S. to join with other nations in a global ban on asbestos mining, and manufacturing, and exports of products with asbestos.
"Any fiber of asbestos is potentially harmful to health," said Celeste Monforton, DrPH, MPH, a George Washington University professor who, as chair of the APHA Occupational Health & Safety Section, helped move the asbestos resolution through the APHA assembly. "We don't need another generation or two of victims because this stuff is still out there."
Monforton points out that many people who are now being diagnosed with asbestos-related disease have never worked in asbestos-handling industries. Some were exposed to asbestos fibers as children, because their fathers worked in heavy industry, construction or as vehicle mechanics and brought asbestos home on their work clothes.
It's crucial, she says, that people be protected from asbestos exposed during highway construction, digging for new housing developments and in sand, gravel and vermiculite pits.
Environmental Working Group has published a number of research reports analyzing current asbestos hazards. Among them:
- Asbestos Hotspots - List of locations where asbestos-contaminated vermiculite was shipped by W.R. Grace Company, later
- A Slow Death In Texas - Disclosed rising numbers of asbestos deaths in Texas
- Asbestos - Think Again - An overview of the national toll of asbestos-related disease
- DisGraceful -- W.R. Grace documents showing that workers in at least 14 W.R. Grace insulation factories were exposed to asbestos dust.
- EWG Letter in Support of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007
Healthy Home Tip 6: (Still) skipping the non-stick
Even though I'm tempted by some of the new, post-Teflon "non-stick" cookware, I resist. They're just too new to know for sure if they're any safer. And there's a history in this country of replacing bad chemicals with different bad chemicals.
No thanks, not in my kitchen.
In my kitchen, it's guilty until proven innocent. And the cookware I know is "innocent" is (y-a-w-n) the same stuff I've been using - and EWG has been recommending - for years: cast iron, stainless steel, and oven-safe glass.
How boring is that?
But how great that a few boring, cheap, available choices are the answer to environmentally healthy cooking?!
Still have some non-stick around the house?
It's not practical to replace every non-stick pot, pan, and cookie sheet at once (especially these days). If you're still cooking on non-stick surfaces, follow these tips for safer cooking:
- Never preheat nonstick cookware at high heat -- empty pans can rapidly reach high temperatures. Heat at the lowest temperature possible to cook your food safely.
- Don't put nonstick cookware in an oven hotter than 500 degrees.
- Use an exhaust fan over the stove.
- Keep pet birds out of the kitchen -- the fumes from an overheated pan can kill a bird in seconds. Learn more here.
- Skip the self-cleaning function on your oven. It cleans by heating to high temperatures, which can release toxic fumes from non-stick interior oven parts.
- Choose a safer alternative (cast iron, stainless steel, oven-safe glass) when buying new cookware.
What's the problem with non-stick pans, anyway?
Non-stick surfaces are aluminum pans coated with a synthetic called polytetrafluoroetheylene (PTFE), also known as Teflon, a DuPont brand trademark. Learn more about Teflon and its perfluorinated chemical "family" (PFC's) in our chemical dictionary.
Toxic fumes from the Teflon chemical are released from pots and pans at high temperatures, potentially killing pet birds and causing people to exhibit flu-like symptoms (called "Teflon Flu" or, as scientists describe it, "Polymer fume fever").
You're exposed to PFCs in other ways, too
We've talked before about the many ways we're exposed to PFC's, so while skipping the non-stick cookware is pretty simple, we recommend that you limit your other exposures, too. Food wrappers are one common source - minus the PFC's greasy food would leak right through those glossy wrappers. Get our 1-page guide to PFC's and start avoiding them today.
This is tip 6 in EWG's Healthy Home Tips series. Read the first 5 and sign up for the rest.
School cleaning supplies: Plenty toxic but very fixable
By Lisa Frack
Baking soda, vinegar and plain soap are my cleaning supplies at home - plus a little elbow grease. I don't use conventional cleaners for a reason: I don't know what's in them (very weak labeling laws) and I'm pretty certain they're not good for my family. But for about 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, my kids aren't at home. They're at school. And what, exactly, do they clean with there?
Beats me.
But it shouldn't, because EWG tests revealed 100's of chemicals in common school cleaning products - most of which have never been assessed for safety and others that are linked to asthma and cancer. Not exactly ideal for young learners - or the teachers and school staff who are also exposed.
EWG product tests revealed 100's of unhealthy air contaminants
Because cleaning product labels are so under-regulated, product testing is the only way to really know what's in them. So test we did. In our tests and ingredient list analysis we identified:
- 6 chemicals known to cause asthma.
- 11 chemicals that are known, probable, or possible human carcinogens.
- 283 chemicals on which there is almost no scientific data, according to a review of the scientific literature.
We found air fresheners, graffiti removers, and floor finishes to be especially polluting products. You can see a full list of the chemical we detected in the report.
What's so bad about chemicals in school cleaning products?
It goes without saying that healthy indoor air is essential for any classroom. Yet 1 in 5 public schools in the U.S. have unsatisfactory indoor air quality, causing asthma and other health problems in students, teachers, custodians, and staff.
Chemicals in many conventional cleaning supplies used in California schools (where we identified commonly-used products for testing) have been linked to asthma, cancer, reproductive toxicity, hormone disruption, and neurotoxicity. After cleaning, chemical residues have been measured in air, on surfaces, in dust - and some of these chemicals have been detected in people's blood and urine, a clear indication of exposure. Read the full discussion of health effects.
Green-certified cleaners are a better (but not perfect) bet
The certified green cleaners we had tested released less than one-sixth the total air pollution emitted by conventional products. And there's more good news:
- They don't contain ingredients known to cause asthma,
- The soaps don't contain anti-bacterial ingredients,
- They're effective,
- They meet standards that address health and safety concerns for workers,
- They don't contain chemicals of concern common in traditional cleaning products, and
- They don't have to cost more.
All that said, most green cleaning products could be a little greener; some that we tested emit substances that could pose a risk to children's health, indicating that the certification process is not airtight and needs to be continually upgraded. (Are you there, certifiers?).
Regardless, they are still very much worth a switch. Our recommendation? Green Seal
Work with your school to use greener products and practices
Greening our schools' cleaning routine (or at the very least asking what it IS) is now high on my list. If it's on yours, too, check out our tools for parents to help your kids' schools green their cleaning. You'll find:
- 8 steps to work effectively with your school
- A customizable letter you can use to start the conversation, and
- A fact sheet to help educate school administrators about the benefits of green cleaning.
Clean greener at home, too
Some of the products we had tested are also commonly used for home cleaning, so we put together our top tips for safer home cleaning, too. While you begin the process of working with your school to clean greener, you can make some simple changes at home - where you're in charge.
[Thanks to Flickr CC & Robert S. Donovan for the colorful cleaning closet]
Corn. Corn. And yes, more corn.
In case you missed the movie King Corn (if you did you should see it, and not just because EWG's Founding President Ken Cook is in it), take 2 minutes and 17 seconds to get the gist of our country's corn craziness.
As you'll soon see, the stuff is everywhere. you. turn. Then look in the mirror.
And if you want to know WHY, this might help.
NPR Uncovers Natural Gas's Dirty Secrets
Drilling for natural gas is a dirty business, as Enviroblog readers know.
Dusty Horwitt, Environmental Working Group's Senior Counsel, has worked tirelessly to document the environmental depredations of a drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing.
Earlier this week, National Public Radio correspondent John Burnett covered yet other possible health dangers of natural gas production. The Barnett Shale gas deposit in Northern Texas is now the site of some 1,300 gas compression stations, Burnett reported.
Eleven compressors surround the town of Dish, population around 200. Burnett says that Texas environmental regulators have detected elevated levels of benzene, a known human carcinogen, near the compressors and that constant low-frequency rumbling plagues residents and their livestock.
The story quoted people who described unexplained health problems such as migraines and ruptured ear drums and mysterious neurological illnesses in horses.
As the U.S. presses for energy independence, the natural gas debate is sure to escalate.
In the meantime, public opposition is causing some drillers to rethink their plans to drill in sensitive and populous areas.
Cell Phone Radiation Series - Part 3: Who's protecting you?
The science may not yet be decided on the effects of cell phone radiation on human health, but recent research is unsettling enough that Environmental Working Group (and government safety agencies around the world) recommends reducing your exposure where you can.
This blog series breaks down EWG's recent report on cell phone radiation - so far we've talked about the science of cell phone radiation and simple steps to limit your exposure.
By now you may be wondering where the government is in all this - shouldn't they be making sure that products on the market are safe for everyone? Read on to learn about current US cell phone standards, how they stack up (not well) and what you can do to make them stronger.
How the government regulates cell phone radiation
Mobile phones are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which established rules on how much radiation cell phones can legally emit back in 1996 (did you have a cell phone 13 years ago?). These limits are based on specific absorption rate (SAR) values, which measure the rate at which energy is absorbed by your body's tissue.
Phone manufacturers use plastic models of the head to test how much radiation their phones emit and then submit the data to either the FCC or an FCC-approved certifier for authorization.
The permissible amount of radiation depends on the part of the body:
- Head: up to 1.6 W/kg
- Whole body: up to 0.08 W/kg
- Hands, wrists, feet, and ankles: up to 4 W/kg
Federal rules aren't strong enough - and have never been updated
Public agencies set many kinds of safety standards for public health; we have rules for the maximum levels of contaminants in tap water, pesticide residues on food, etc. Officials begin by assuming a certain level of pollutants/residue/radiation is safe and then reduce that level to create a margin of safety. By setting a maximum allowed amount lower than what the research indicates is safe, regulations account for uncertainty about how contaminants might affect humans and for the extra vulnerability of certain groups, such as children.
The FCC based its cell phone regulations on suggestions made in 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), an industry body. These dated standards rely on data from animal studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s that assume a SAR value of 4 W/kg as the highest permissible exposure level before adverse health effects may begin to take place.
17 years later, we see a few problems with these assumptions:
- There's no margin of safety
Generally a margin of safety is between 50 and 100 times lower than the point at which health problems might occur. But for cell phone radiation exposures to the head, the standard for cell phones allows a SAR value up to 1.6 W/kg - a margin of safety of only 2.5 times. And for exposures to hands, wrists, feet and ankles, cell phones can legally have a SAR value of 4 W/kg - no margin of safety.
Because of their thinner skulls, SAR values can be twice as high for children as for adults - and though younger and younger kids are using cell phones, current standards do not account for children's extra risk.
- The assumed "safe" SAR level may be too high
- They don't consider long-term exposure
The growing body of research on cell phone radiation indicates that even 4 W/kg may be too high to be considered a safe amount of exposure - more and more studies show biological effects at SAR levels far below.
The studies on which the 4 W/kg threshold is based only focused on short-term exposure to radiation. Recent research shows long-term cell phone use associated with a higher risk of health effects, so the current standard may not adequately take into account the potential effects of a lifetime of cell phone talking, especially for those who begin at a young age.
The US lags behind
Government agencies of the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, Israel, Finland and the European Parliament have all recommended limiting cell phone exposure, particularly for children. The French government is even considering legislation to restrict advertising of cell phones to children under 14 and to require all cell phones be sold with accompanying headsets.
The strongest recent statement by a US agency comes from an FDA Office of Women's Health publication saying "more studies on cell phone radiation are needed" and "people who use cell phones need to be told of any bad effects." So much for proactively protecting public health.
What should our government be doing?
It's time for the FCC to bring its regulations into the 21st century by taking all of the most recent research into account to create a standard that is protective for all Americans, especially the youngest and most vulnerable.
A recent Capitol Hill hearing on cell phone radiation, at which EWG testified, shows some renewed interest on the part of Congress in funding more cell phone research. But your government officials need to hear from you: use EWG's easy form to send an email telling the FCC and FDA to modernize cell phone safety standards.
In the meantime, take steps to reduce your exposure to radiation by following EWG's 8 simple steps to reduce cell phone radiation exposure. And come back for the next installment in our cell phone series: finding a low-radiation phone.
Toxic chemicals and you: In search of 'safe'
140,321,493 searches have been requested on EWG's Skin Deep cosmetics safety database since 2004 - and counting.
That's a lot of searches, by a lot of people seeking safer personal care products. Seeking products that don't contain toxic chemicals that are increasingly linked to serious adverse heath effects.
And Skin Deep isn't the only such tool. In September, our friends at The Ecology Center in Michigan released another great search tool, Healthy Stuff, based on tests on 5,000 consumer products. And it's popular, too.
Then there's EWG's recent cell phone radiation database, our Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce, Z Recommends, The Soft Landing, Safe Mama, and many, many others.
So what gives? Why are so many people seeking safer products? Oh right. It's because they don't know what's safe anymore.
They don't trust their government to protect them because until very recently it has done so very little. And they don't trust industry to be honest with them.
Why not?
Because government is not sufficiently regulating chemicals or product safety and the companies are greenwashing.
As may of us are now saying, parents shouldn't have to be toxicologists to protect their kids' health - one of our most important jobs. Dr. Harvey Karp, a well-known Los Angeles-based pediatrician, said it well at a Los Angeles rally to ban BPA in August:
...your job is to do other really important things like cook dinner, clean the house, raise your children, give them a good education. And while you're sleeping at night, you hope the government is doing its job to regulate the dangers that your family is exposed to.
The good news is we're doing more than hope at EWG. We're having the tough - but critical - conversations, working with Congress, adding important, policy-changing research to the debate, and involving constituents - like you.
And me.
Because I, too, am a parent who would rather be doing the real job of parenting instead of researching kid-safe water bottles and baby bottles and cookware and sleepwear and soap and diaper cream and toothpaste and you get the picture that it's time to stop searching and start demanding change.
