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
Rachel Carson: The woman behind the book
Listen up: EWG's Jane Houlihan talks BPA on FOX News
On BPA: Dear Madam Commissioner
Cell Phone Radiation Blog Series - All In One Place
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
Carnival of the Green #212
212 weeks ago the Carnival of the Green began over a pint of beer in London. Now it bounces from green blog to green blog, week after week, around the world. From EcoJoe's last week right here to EWG's Enviroblog.
At EWG, we dish out a lot of (very useful, practical, science-based!) advice on how to live with fewer toxics, so it comes naturally to present this week's Carnival posts as suggestions on different ways to live green - from a host of green bloggers 'round the globe.
You can choose from one of these 14 green living ideas today (more, of course, if you're feeling gung-ho):
1. Dave suggests: Be polite when sharing your environmental zeal. No fair being scary.
An aggressive note from a neighbor having to do with the weekly trash, a dead bear, and getting sent back to the east coast. [Enviroblog: Let's hear it for the neighbors!]
2. Jess suggests: Don't drag them kicking and screaming to greenness.
Studies indicate that one of the most effective ways to change behavior is to change the default option of any given choice. On Changing Behavior explores how this aspect of behavioral psychology can be a tool for building a more sustainable world. [Enviroblog: Anything to make it easier!]
3. Beth suggests: Skip the plastic Valentine's madness.
Help! The shelves of Walgreen's are spilling over with fake plastic Valentine's gifts, and I just can't decide with one to buy! How will my sweetie know how much I care if I don't spend money on cheap plastic crap for him? [Enviroblog: Excellent array of red & pink plastic goodies, Beth]
4. Erin suggests: Cook some vegetarian chili for meatless Monday.
The kitchen is usually my domain, and I have a hard time giving up control. But my non-vegetarian husband and I have had an agreement since the early days of our marriage that if he wants to eat meat for dinner, he gets to cook it himself. [Enviroblog: Conquering climate change in the kitchen ain't a bad idea at all]
5. Annette suggests: Use your dusty phone books for something.
Something crafty. Until the phone company stops sending us phone books that hit the shelf and never leave, get creative. [Enviroblog: The coffee table is a personal fave]
6. Sally suggests: Improve youngster's eyesight with natural daylight.
Nearsightedness has increased 66% in the last 30 years. New research shows that children who spend more time outdoors are less likely to develop nearsightedness. So, using natural daylight to illuminate classrooms may not only save energy & money and reduce our carbon footprint, but could also improve our children's vision. [Enviroblog: Guess the basement preschool is out]
7. Jessica suggests: Wear green, not white, to your wedding.
The first thing when considering a green wedding is the number of guests. Only invite those who are closest and mean the most to you. The more guests you invite, the more that will travel, consume food and waste materials. [Enviroblog: Elope, anyone?]
8. Renee suggests: Understand and use mushroom compost.
Mushroom compost is actually the compost that mushroom growers make in which to grow mushrooms. What you buy is the by-product of this growing process after the mushrooms are harvested. [Enviroblog: Thinking this is different than me tossing mushroom stems in my backyard compost]
9. Tania suggests: Use cloth diapers. They're good lookin' these days.
Gone are the flat white prefolds, pins and plastic pants of the baby boomer generation. In are creations that are easy to use, come in a variety of styles, colors and prints, which appeal on a whole new level. Who knew you could dress your baby's bottom in pink and purple leopard print diaper? [Enviroblog: Indeed.]
10. June suggests: Lower your utility bill with new appliances.
We've recently found out how successful our plan was to replace a couple of ailing appliances that we inherited from the former owners of our home. Some couple of decades old, one appliance was our standard white fridge and the other was our groaning washer. [Enviroblog: The ol' spend $ to save $]
11. Case suggests: Pick furniture made from reclaimed wood.
The green movement has taken over the furniture industry. Most people are surprised to learn that green furniture can be made of wood. Sure, there is the recycled material made from bottles and cans. For those who love the look of real wood, there are two options: reclaimed or sustainable wood. [Enviroblog: Real treehugging!]
12. Marie suggests: Hit the streets for the environment (the student way)!
My school had the opportunity to ask questions with David Suzuki on a skype interview. A brief summary of his thoughts are included, and a call to action this Earth Day, the 40th anniversary of the first. Can we get millions of people on the street again? [Enviroblog: Will it help?]
13. The Smarter Wallet suggests: Get that hybrid car, even if gas prices are down.
Two important trends: One, Detroit and other manufacturers are finally getting the message that less is better, and two, American consumers are decidedly moving in greater numbers to smaller, more efficient cars and trucks as their desire to save money on gas remains a strong priority.
14. Alex says: Question Monsanto - and Forbes. Clearly, the only criterion Forbes magazine uses when determining which U.S. corporation wins its yearly "Company of the Year" title must be profit. That's the only way to explain how a company as notorious as Monsanto could possibly get the nod for 2009 from the mag, which proclaims itself "The Capitalist Tool." [Enviroblog: Yes, this is from EWG's very own Ag Mag]
You'll find next week's Carnival on The Fun Times Guide. Check it out.
Cosmetics Safety Series - Part 3: Why it's Time for Personal Care Products to Go on Sale
This classic line refers, of course, to the lengths to which we go for "beauty." As a second-grader, having sore arms after 35 minutes of setting curlers was a steep bounty for the temporary effect. Today it's clear that there are bigger stakes - our health and that of our children and our environment - and these stakes are just too high.We need safer personal care products. Here's why:
They contain toxic chemicals that affect our health.
- Phthalates are most commonly used for softening plastics. When it comes to their use in personal care products, they are a regular ingredient in fragrance and moisturizing beads. A 2008 report by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics brought the good news that companies are using less phthalates. However, until they're officially banned - they'll remain an ingredient of top concern due to their association with hormone disruption.
- Parabens are preservatives found in products with higher water content (think shampoo, conditioner, and lotion). They have also been found in breast cancer tumors, as they are another notorious hormone disruptor. Play it safe, and skip products using ingredients ending in - "paraben."
- Heavy metals - We took lead out of house paint over 30 years ago, so why is it still in lipstick? The FDA found lead in 100% of lipstick samples they tested. Arsenic, mercury and zinc are other heavy metals known to be in body care products. While some of these, such as zinc, are necessary in small amounts for the body, higher doses can lead to a variety of health effects. Lead and mercury are both known neurotoxins.Lets not forget that we have found all of these chemicals in people through biomonitoring studies, so not only are they in our products but they are in our bodies too.
- Immediate reactions - Allergies, contact dermatitis, asthma, migraines... they are all common reactions to ingredients in personal care products. Remember when a bank was evacuated in Ft. Worth, TX last summer because of someone's perfume?
- Long-term consequences - What can be more frightening is what we don't see happen immediately after using these products. Cancer, endocrine disruption, and nervous system damage are some of the reported health effects of exposure to the ingredients in cosmetics products. This recent New York Time's article on skin lighteners is a good example.
- Unstudied risks of unstudied ingredients - Recall our conversation a few weeks ago about the ingredient data gap? Until we know the effects of these ingredients AND the effects of combining these ingredients, day in and day out, we're still playing a game of chemical roulette with our personal care products
This is part of our "Not in My Cosmetics" series. The first two posts are here and here.
[Thanks to Flickr CC and Orin Zebest for the photo "Staring At It."]
On BPA: How Risky? How Much Concern? When to Act?
Special to Enviroblog by Elizabeth Grossman, who writes about environmental and science issues from Portland, Oregon and is author, most recently of Chasing Molecules.
On January 22, in a substantial shift in policy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced it has "some concern" about the health effects of bishphenol A (BPA), particularly on infants and children. While not currently advocating regulation, the FDA is proposing steps that could lead to restrictions.
"We need to know more," said FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg during a press conference. But "as a precaution," the FDA has issued recommendations for reducing exposure.
This contrasts markedly with the FDA's 2008 assessment that declared of BPA use safe in consumer products, including for infants and children. It also aligns FDA's views with those of the National Toxicology Program and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Bisphenol A is the chemical building block of polycarbonate plastics. In use since the 1950s, polycarbonates go into countless consumer products, including baby bottles, sippy cups, food containers, dishware, appliances, electronics, shatterproof lenses, and sports gear. BPA also makes the epoxy resins that line most food and beverage cans, and jar lids. BPA has numerous additional applications, including dental sealants. It is used so widely that scientists consider exposure ubiquitous and continuous.
"We know that trace amounts of BPA can be found in these [food] containers," said William Corr, Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services. "Recent reports of subtle effects of low doses of BPA on lab animals has raised concerns," said Corr, "that we need to take a closer look at."
It's well documented that as these plastics age, are heated, or are used with acidic or alkali liquids - from certain vegetables, fruits or detergents, for example - BPA can leach out of finished products. Biomonitoring studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control has found BPA in over 90% of Americans tested. Studies published in 2009 found BPA in newborns' umbilical cord blood and in 75% of the infants being cared for in a hospital's neonatal unit.
Concern arises because BPA is known to be an endocrine disrupting chemical. In numerous animal studies BPA has been shown to interfere with hormones that regulate reproduction, development, metabolism, and behavior.
"There are critical periods of development when exposure to BPA may lead to certain health effects, including behavioral effects, diabetes, reproductive disorders, development of certain kinds of cancers, asthma, cardiovascular disease, and effects that can go from one generation to the next," explained Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Although hundreds of published studies now document such effects, they remain controversial from a regulatory perspective in part because low-dose effects challenge traditional dose-equals-poison tenets of toxicology. Birnbaum and Corr cited the need for more research to determine the human health effects of BPA. To this end the NIEHS recently announced $30 million to fund new BPA studies.
In the FDA's announcement, Deputy Commissioner Josh Sharfstein said the agency would like to move BPA into a new regulatory framework that would allow the agency to respond quickly if it feels more research or regulation is required. "We would like to have a more robust framework for regulating BPA if and when necessary," said FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.
In response, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the trade association representing bisphenol A manufacturers, noted the lack of definitive proof of BPA's harm to human health. "While ACC recognizes that HHS and FDA are attempting to address public confusion about BPA we are disappointed that some of the recommendations are likely to worry consumers and are not well-founded," said the ACC.
THE FDA announcement came on a busy week for BPA news. A new study released on January 13th confirmed findings of a previous Journal of the American Medical Association paper showing an association between bisphenol A exposure and cardiovascular disease. Analyzing data from the CDC's biomonitoring studies, researchers in the U.K. found that individuals with the highest BPA exposure had a 40 to 50% higher reported incidence of heart disease.
While this study does not prove BPA can cause heart disease, explains co-author Tamara Galloway, professor of ecotoxicology at of the University of Exeter, it shows that coincidence of exposure and cardiovascular disease is not "a statistical blip." Galloway and other researchers point out that the study only examines a "snapshot" and more information is needed to produce a comprehensive picture. But, says Galloway, "It adds a lot of realism" to earlier findings and underscores the need for further research.
Despite its limitations this study does begin to suggest that BPA may be a "systemic toxicant" - one that can adversely affect a broad range of vital body systems, says Bruce Lanphear professor of children's health at Simon Fraser University.
When a pattern of toxicity begins to emerge, says Lanphear, "We have two options as a society. We can wait until we're swamped by the evidence to decide if we should allow continued use or we can act without waiting for crises."
Such decisions are now before state legislators in Washington and Oregon considering bills that would restrict the use of BPA in children's products. Connecticut, Maine, Chicago and Suffolk County, New York have adopted such legislation. Many other states have introduced comparable bills, and Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has introduced federal legislation that would restrict BPA in all food containers.
In hearings held in Olympia and Salem on January 11 and 13th, ACC representative Steve Hentges, told legislators that BPA "is not a risk to human health, including infants and children" and questioned the need for legislative action "given intense ongoing federal regulatory agency review."
At the Oregon hearing, North American Metal Packaging Alliance representative William Hoyle, described BPA epoxy resins as vital to food safety, stressing that viable, reliable alternatives are unavailable. Some alternatives do exist, however, and are being used by U.S. and Japanese manufacturers.
On Friday the FDA announced it would actively support research and development of BPA alternatives. "We will facilitate the development of alternatives, particularly for infant formula and food can liners," said Commissioner Hamburg.
Meanwhile, manufacturers are not waiting for regulation. The six baby bottle manufacturers, representing most of the U.S. market are already phasing out their BPA-based products. Meanwhile, major retailers, including Wal-Mart and Target, are offering increasing numbers of alternatives.
For now, it's largely up to consumers to decide whether or not they feel comfortable using BPA products. The FDA does not recommend families change what or how they feed their babies, but it does recommend reducing BPA exposure by using alternative baby bottles.
The FDA's January 15 BPA recommendations are open to public comment for 60 days. Timing was not specified but the FDA does plan to update its formal 2008 assessment. A "chemical action plan" on BPA is also expected from the EPA.
New study links low-level lead exposures to kidney damage in kids
When I was a kid, there was lead in paint and gasoline (which could explain a lot...). Thankfully, both uses were stopped in 1978 and 1996, respectively. As a result, blood lead levels (the way human contamination is measured) have dropped dramatically, and American kids today are far less likely to be exposed to the toxic metal.
But old paint lasts - and is a real problem in dilapidated, pre-1978 housing where dust is contaminated, old paint chips find their way into baby and toddler mouths, and rehab work must be done v-e-r-y carefully. There are other sources of personal lead pollution, including glazed pottery, artificial turf (!), and some tap water pipes (you can - and should - get your water tested).
As a result of these ongoing exposures, (primarily low-income) kids still get lead in their bodies. And even at low levels, a new peer-reviewed study in the Archives of Internal Medicine found kidney damage in teenagers that they warn could lead to kidney disease later in life.
High-level lead exposure is a known risk for kidney disease. This study's authors sought to better understand the effects of low-level exposures, and found evidence that kids with blood lead levels (aka "BLLs") as low as 2.9 micrograms - 7.1 below the federal "safe" limit - showed signs of damaged, slower-functioning kidneys. As the report authors concluded,
This finding contributes to the increasing epidemiologic evidence indicating an adverse effect of low-level environmental lead exposure.
As we've been saying here at EWG for years: low doses matter.
Take steps to reduce children's exposures
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has some simple but important steps for preventing exposure to lead. If you have children in the house or work with them, preventing their exposure to lead is a very important step to promote their environmental health.
[Thanks to Flickr CC & Abby Lanes for the chipping paint]
Rachel Carson: The woman behind the book
By Lisa Frack
Known, of course, for her movement-launching 1962 book, Silent Spring, Rachel Carson understood the important relationship between nature and chemicals. She raised her voice to inform others and protect the environment long before it was popular.
Carson's biographer, Linda Lear, describes her courageous role questioning the norms of her day:
Disturbed by the profligate use of synthetic chemical pesticides after World War II, Carson reluctantly changed her focus in order to warn the public about the long term effects of misusing pesticides. In Silent Spring (1962) she challenged the practices of agricultural scientists and the government, and called for a change in the way humankind viewed the natural world.Carson was attacked by the chemical industry and some in government as an alarmist, but courageously spoke out to remind us that we are a vulnerable part of the natural world subject to the same damage as the rest of the ecosystem. Testifying before Congress in 1963, Carson called for new policies to protect human health and the environment. Rachel Carson died in 1964 after a long battle against breast cancer. Her witness for the beauty and integrity of life continues to inspire new generations to protect the living world and all its creatures.
A Sense of Wonder: The documentary
In their 2008 documentary, A Sense of Wonder, Kauilani Lee and Bullfrog Films offer us a chance to remember (or, for some of us, to experience for the first time) what was going on with our country's environment and the quickly-expanding use of synthetic chemicals when Ms. Carson was in the thick of it, recognizing what others failed to see and courageously speaking out.
Since she put pen to paper about DDT, a lot has happened, hasn't it?
[Thanks to Wikipedia for the historical book image]
Listen up: EWG's Jane Houlihan talks BPA on FOX News
Since the U.S. Food & Drug Administration expressed "some concern" about BPA last week ('bout time), more and more people are wondering whether they should be concerned about it, how they're exposed, and how to avoid it?
Of course, you can check our Tips to Avoid BPA here on Enviroblog, but why not sit back, relax, and hear it straight from EWG's Director of Research, Jane Houlihan? You'll get the picture in a mere 4 minutes:
On BPA: Dear Madam Commissioner
On January 14, 2010, EWG President Ken Cook sent this letter to the FDA Commissioner, making it clear that we believe the FDA needs to act - and act now- to reduce the human health burden of BPA. It's just too high. He wrote:
Dear Madam Commissioner,
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to issue its final decision on whether bisphenol A (BPA), an industrial chemical and synthetic estrogen, should be used in food packaging. As even the chemical industry has acknowledged, BPA leaches into foods and beverages from polycarbonate plastic containers and epoxy-based metal food can linings.
As authoritative studies by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have demonstrated, nearly all Americans test positive for traces of BPA. Environmental Working Group's most recent study of cord blood found BPA in 9 of 10 samples taken from children born in 2007 and 2008.
Dozens of animal studies suggest that very low doses of BPA disrupt the endocrine system, undermine normal neurological and reproductive development and trigger a variety of chronic and serious disorders such as cancer, diminished brain function and intellectual capacity, asthma, obesity and diabetes.
Important new research demonstrates that BPA harms not only laboratory animals but also humans. It is significant and troubling that physical changes are being detected even at the very low levels to which people are routinely exposed because of BPA contamination in food and other products.
A British study published January 13 adds to this growing body of science by reporting that Americans with high concentrations of BPA in their urine were more likely to report having heart disease or diabetes than people with lower BPA measurements.
Tens of millions of children undergoing crucial windows of development are being exposed daily to this dangerous chemical via plastic baby bottles and sippy cups, canned infant formula and popular foods such as canned soup. Ubiquitous BPA contamination of our food is believed to have a subtle but lasting impact on Americans' health.
We cannot quantify the cost to our society, in terms of medical bills, lost productivity and troubled lives. But we are sure of this: the price, whatever it is, is too high, and it is unnecessary.
Other federal agencies have singled out BPA as a major focus of research and potential regulation. In December, the National Institutes for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) launched a $14 million research initiative in hopes of determining the human health risk of BPA. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified BPA as a possible human health threat and priority for risk assessment.
Yet the FDA has remained silent. How much more does the FDA need to know to be convinced it must protect the national food supply from further contamination? We urge you to act now to prohibit the use of BPA in food and food containers.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Cook
President, Environmental Working Group
Copies: The Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA
Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director, NIEHS
Cell Phone Radiation Blog Series - All In One Place
Last September, EWG released a Cell Phone Radiation Science Review and a first-of-its-kind database showing the radiation levels of thousands of cell phones. The response was huge - not surprising, given how increasingly attached we are to our phones.
The report is chock-full of information, but we know that not everyone has time to sit down and read it all, so we created a cell phone radiation series here on Enviroblog to break it down into more manageable chunks. Here it is, all in one place for easy perusing:
- Part 1: The Science - The basic facts on what cell phone radiation is and what current research says about its effects on your health
- Part 2: 8 Ways to Reduce Your Exposure - We're not telling you to give up your cell phone (like you would). Instead, use these easy tips on how to reduce the amount of radiation coming from your phone.
- Part 3: Who's Protecting You? - Shouldn't products on the market be safe? Learn what the government currently is doing to regulate cell phones, and what they should be doing.
- Part 4: What Phones Emit, Bodies Absorb - The specific absorption rate, or SAR value, measures how much radiation your body absorbs. We break down the factors that influence SAR (how you use the phone, where you use the phone, what kind of phone you have), so you know how to minimize what goes into your body.
- Part 5: Buy smart - One way to reduce your exposure to radiation is by using a phone that has low SAR values to start with. Here's how to find the radiation level of your current phone or one that you're considering buying.
Stay tuned in coming weeks for an update to EWG's cell phone database - we're adding new phones to keep it current. (Hop on our email list to be sure to get the latest news.)
Rubber Ducky: You're so not the one
Special to Enviroblog by Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie, Co-Authors, Slow Death by Rubber Duck: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things
The first question we usually get asked about our book, Slow Death by Rubber Duck: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things, is: "What's up with the unusual title? A rubber duck? Dangerous?"
As any EWG fan will know, the answer to this is, unfortunately, yes.
Perversely, most rubber ducks these days aren't made of rubber at all. They're vinyl -- a plastic that's full of potent hormone-disrupting chemicals called phthalates. Whenever a child handles or chews the soft and squishy toy, the chemical is absorbed and begins wrecking havoc.
The rubber duck, that most beloved of household icons, perfectly symbolizes the new and surprising kind of pollution that threatens our health and environment. Pollution like:
- Stain repellent coatings on sofas and rugs,
- Bisphenol A in containers in the kitchen, and
- Triclosan in anti-bacterial soap (among others).
Our homes are full of presumably innocuous items that are turning out to be significant sources of hormone-disrupting pollutants. And our kids are the most at risk.
As advocates working on this issue, we wanted to experience these chemicals firsthand and to investigate their properties in a (very!) new way. To research our book, Slow Death by Rubber Duck, we decided to experiment on ourselves. Over a four-day period, we ingested and inhaled a host of things that surround us all every day, all of which are suspected of being toxic and posing long-term health risks to humans. By revealing the pollution load in our bodies before and after the experiment -- and the results in most cases are downright frightening -- we tell the inside story of seven common substances.
After achieving bestseller status in Canada, Slow Death by Rubber Duck has just been released in the US. The advance reviews are great. The Washington Post had this to say (read the full review):
Slow Death by Rubber Duck is hard-hitting in a way that turns your stomach and yet also instills hope for a future in which consumers make safer, more informed choices and push their governments to impose tougher regulations on the chemicals all around us.
Slow Death By Rubber Duck empowers readers with ideas for protecting themselves and their families and changing things for the better. If you're concerned about the level of toxins in your body and want to understand the hidden threats already in your home, you should read this book. You'll never look at a rubber duck the same way again.
Grab a copy on EWG's Amazon page (they get a percent of proceeds) or at your local bookstore. And please follow our US book tour herel. It includes a stop in DC with EWG President, Ken Cook on January 20th @ 6:30 PM at Busboys and Poets.
We hope to meet you soon. Thanks for your support! Together, we're making a difference.
Epigenetics hits the mainstream
Back in February, 2009 EWG's Olga Naidenko wrote an excellent piece here on Enviroblog about epigenetics and environmental chemical exposures. She began the post with the heart of the matter:
Prenatal exposures to environmental pollutants may lead to chronic diseases later in life.
She went on to succinctly explain how:
Toxic effects of environmental pollution on human health are well recognized. Yet, for a long time conventional wisdom held that a child developing in the womb is sufficiently protected and insulated by the placenta from harmful pollutants outside.This expectation no longer holds - we know now that the developing fetus is exposed to hundreds of industrial pollutants that find their way from the mother's body across the placenta, into the umbilical cord blood and then into the growing body of the child, as demonstrated by the ground-breaking research conducted by EWG in 2005 and 2009.
This week, epigenetics hit the mainstream by making the cover of TIME magazine with an article titled "Why genes aren't destiny."
If you're one of those people who prefers to watch and listen over reading, NOVA has a great video explaining epigenetics, too.
Something for everyone on epigenetics, one of TIME's Top 10 Scientific Discoveries of 2009.
Cosmetics Safety Series - Part 2: Mind the (data) gap
By Travis Mitchell, EWG Press Intern
Now that that you've taken our cosmetics safety quiz (you have, right?), you're ready to hear about THE DATA GAP. It's like this:
We think consumers deserve to know that the products and ingredients they use every day have been tested for safety.
Unfortunately, a lack of industry regulation has left customers in the dark about the safety of many of their personal care products.
Consider this: out of the 10,500 (!) unique ingredients found in our cosmetics, about 20 percent have been tested or analyzed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In fact, the FDA has no authority or systematic process to review most cosmetic ingredients. This "data gap," as we call it, is a serious concern for consumers. Given that the average adult uses about 126 different chemicals a day in personal care products alone, it's important to recognize that the missing information and unknown implications of these ingredients mean potential health risks for consumers.
Thankfully, EWG's Skin Deep database picks up where industry and government leave off.
Along with assigning a hazard score (from 1 to 10) to each of the 53,000 (and growing) products and roughly 9,000 ingredients, EWG's product database also includes another number: the percent of ingredients for which there is no safety data, aka "the data gap." The higher this percentage, the less is known about the ingredients. While we can't fill this data gap, EWG can highlight the known facts, empowering consumers to make better choices with known hazard information.
Keep in mind that EWG doesn't consider the "data gap" when assigning the hazard levels of personal care products in Skin Deep. In fact, the two scores are separate from one another. So assessing a product based on hazard score alone doesn't give you a complete picture.
It's also important to realize that just because an ingredient is labeled as "natural" doesn't mean it's been tested for health effects. Ingredients such as pine, rosemary and sage are examples of ingredients with a Skin Deep rating of zero - with no safety data available.
So the next time you're using Skin Deep to find safer products, take a look at the amount of information available - and not available - on each ingredient and choose products with lower hazards scores and lower data gaps. That way you're making decisions based on data, not data gaps.
This is part of our "Not in My Cosmetics" series. You can catch the 1st one right here.
Extinguishing Deca: A toxic flame retardant may flicker out
By Lisa Frack
"This is the beginning of the end for brominated flame retardants."
So said Richard Wiles, EWG senior VP for policy, upon learning last week that the major manufacturers of decaBDE have agreed to stop making it.
Who agreed to what, with whom and when?
Late on December 17th, three large chemical companies and officials of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a deal to voluntarily phase out the toxic flame retardant Decabromodiphenyl ether (Deca), which is heavily used in consumer electronics, furniture, textiles and plastic shipping pallets.
The voluntary agreement with bromine industry giants Chemtura, Albemarle and ICL Industrial Products would end production, importation and use of Deca in all consumer products by December 2012. A full ban would take effect one year later.
A voluntary agreement isn't enough
The joint announcement came just two days after legislation to force a phase-out of Deca was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine). The Decabromine Elimination and Control Act of 200 (H.R. 4394) would ban Deca in all products, including those designed for children, by the end of 2013. In a statement issued on December 17th, Rep. Pingree said,
I am encouraged by this [industry-EPA] eleventh hour agreement, and if it is followed it will achieve my primary goal with this legislation--getting Deca out of our environment. The chemical industry hasn't always lived up to voluntary agreements. This bill will make sure they do.
EWG Senior Scientist Sonya Lunder had a similar take on the need for Congressional action, despite the agreement:
Deca is a potent neurotoxin and suspected carcinogen that puts children at risk. It needs to be banned. We applaud the Deca phase-out deal. It's an important step forward, but as a voluntary agreement, it does little to ensure that the substitutes for Deca are safe.Rep. Pingree's bill will give this phase-out the force of law and it will ensure that substitutes for Deca are safe. Until congress takes action to reform the federal toxic chemical law, it will take actions like this against individual chemicals to protect public health.
Why is deca a health concern?
EWG tests in show that Deca accumulates in people and their homes, and that children have the greatest exposures to the chemical. This is especially concerning because single-day exposures to Deca cause permanent changes learning, memory and behavior in newborn mice. In our 2008 report on PBDEs in toddlers and their mothers, we explain the risks associated with Deca exposure:
Like other PBDEs, Deca upsets the developing brain and reproductive system. But recent studies indicate that it also impacts the reproductive system, possibly at even lower exposure levels.In addition to its direct toxicity there are serious concerns that Deca breaks down in the environment to form PBDEs with fewer bromines, which are more persistent and bioaccumulative in people.
In the meantime, we recommend that you follow EWG's Healthy Home Tip 3 on how to avoid fire retardants to reduce your family's exposure to PBDEs.
Best of Enviroblog 2009: Top 10 posts
As the saying goes, another one bites the dust. Another year, that is.
But before we leave 2009 behind for good - which many of us would happily do - let's take a quick look back at the 10 most popular Enviroblog posts of the year. It's a (web)log, after all, of what's newsworthy in toxics, a chronicle of what was on our minds, and yours.
- Thank you for buying our toxic plastic. It's 1960. Embattled tobacco industry reps, accused by the Federal Trade Commission and health groups of hawking products that kill people, retreat to a sumptuous hideaway and devise a campaign to salvage cigarettes by, among other things, targeting women.
- EWG's Tips for parents: The series. We're excited to tell you about our new Healthy Home Tips for Parents email series! EWG's scientists and public health researchers created a list of the most important steps you can take at home to promote your family's environmental health.
- So what products CAN we use? Every time a report is released that reveals toxics in our consumer products, it's only natural to wonder what you can buy once you've learned what you can't. In last week's Toxic Tub report, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics cautioned us that 61% of the kids' bath products they tested contained both formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane - both probable carcinogens. Guess I know what not to buy.
- Infant formula: How to choose it & use it. Earlier this month, we daylighted a CDC report that showed perchlorate contamination in infant formula. Not surprisingly, we received quite a few questions about formula that week, so we put these recomendations together to supplement our perchlorate report FAQ.
- EWG's Tips to Avoid BPA Exposure. EWG is working hard to pass laws that limit or ban the dangerous chemical bisphenol-A (BPA). But until they pass, we think you should have the latest info on sources of exposure and our tips to avoid them on your own. Because before the personal becomes political it's, well, still personal.
- It's practically summer. Quick, grab the safe sunscreen. Every year about this time we get a note from our preschool asking parents to either sign off on the school's sunscreen application regimen (their brand) or to bring your own. We've always brought our own because I was not at all keen on the brand the school used. Not sure who got the last laugh when I learned last year that my "this one's safer" brand was, ahem, loaded with oxybenzone. How did I know? EWG's Cosmetics Database, of course. And for the curious, oxybenzone is on our list of ingredients to avoid.
- Eden Foods: A BPA-Free Pioneer. 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."
- Chloramine + Lead Pipes + Fluoride = Contaminated tap water. 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.
- Bisphenol-A: What are the sources of exposure? A year ago, scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analyzed the data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and discovered that bisphenol-A (BPA) contaminates the bodies of 93% of Americans tested; women had higher BPA levels than men, and children and adolescents carried more BPA in their bodies compared to adults. Two key uncertainties were highlighted in the CDC study: what are all the sources for BPA exposure and how long this chemical would persist in the bodies of people of different ages.
- Pollution portrait of a state reveals over 6,100 violations. Yesterday, Environmental Health News featured an excellent investigation by Tony Bartelme of The Post and Courier newspaper in Charleston, South Carolina. Bartelme reported that the state of South Carolina has collected about $55 million in fines since 1991 for over 6, 100 violations of state pollution laws. Imagine how much money would have come in if environmental laws were actually good?
This was so fun, we did it last year, too. Happy reminiscing.
[Thanks to Flickr CC & Optical Illusion for the candles]