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
4 steps to drinking safer water
3,163 ingredients hide behind the word "fragrance"
The new crop of eco-films: Which should you see?
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
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
CNN's Sanjay Gupta, MD on federal chemicals policy
EWG has long known the Toxic Substances Control Act (aka "TSCA") needs to be overhauled. Most Enviroblog readers likely do, too - because we talk about it a lot.
But the notion that the nation's federal chemicals policy is toothless and ineffective isn't likely dinner table talk across America - yet.
Thanks to Dr. Sanjay Gupta's discussion of the problem on CNN earlier this week, it might be soon. Watch this 4-minute segment to get the basics on why TSCA should be reformed - now:
If 4 minutes isn't enough for you, be sure to catch Dr. Gupta's hour-long special on the subject, Toxic Town USA. It debuts on CNN April 24th (Earth Day) @ 8 PM eastern.
Pesticides: Testing, Kids, Regulation and You
It's hardly news that pesticides can be dangerous and are very worth avoiding - both for your health and the environment.
But when your friends and family ask why you bother, having a solid grasp of the reasons to avoid them is always handy:
Pesticides and your health: What's the problem?
As acknowledged by the U.S. and international government agencies, different pesticides have been linked with a variety of toxic effects, including:
- Nervous system effects
- Carcinogenic effects
- Hormone system effects
- Skin, eye and lung irritation
Pesticides are unique among the chemicals we release into the environment; they have inherent toxicity because they are designed to kill living organisms: insects, plants, and fungi that are considered "pests." Because they are toxic by design, many pesticides pose health risks to people, risks that have been acknowledged by independent research scientists and physicians across the world.
The majority of the U.S. population has detectable concentrations of multiple pesticide residues in their bodies, as detected in biomonitoring studies by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The ubiquitous pesticide exposures are further compounded by exposure to hundreds of industrial chemicals that contaminate human bodies and are even found in the developing fetus.
The full health effects of exposure to these mixtures of chemicals are not yet known; true public health protection would require a consideration of cumulative risks of exposure to multiple toxic chemicals at a time.
Children are especially at risk
Protecting our families' health from chemical exposures can start with minimizing children's exposure to pesticides. It is now well established that pesticides pose a risk to vital organ systems that continue to grow and mature from conception throughout infancy and childhood. Exposure to pesticides and other toxic chemicals during critical periods of development can have lasting adverse effects both in early development and later in life.
The metabolism, physiology, and biochemistry of a fetus, infant or child are fundamentally different from those of adults; a young, organism is often less able to metabolize and inactivate toxic chemicals and can be much more vulnerable to the harmful effects of pesticides. The nervous system, brain, reproductive organs and endocrine (hormone) system can be permanently, if subtly, damaged by exposure to toxic substances in-utero or throughout early childhood that, at the same level, cause no measurable harm to adults.
The developing brain and endocrine system are very sensitive, and low doses at a susceptible moment of development can cause more of an effect than high doses. It is especially important to reduce pesticide exposures of babies and young children so as to minimize these risks.
"Lack of data" does not equal safety
Even in the face of a growing body of evidence, pesticide manufacturers continue to defend their products, claiming that the amounts of pesticides on produce are not sufficient to elicit safety concerns. Yet, such statements are often made in the absence of actual data, since most safety tests done for regulatory agencies are not designed to discover whether low dose exposures to mixtures of pesticides and other toxic chemicals are safe, particularly during critical periods of development.
In general, the government demands, and companies conduct, high-dose studies designed to find gross, obvious toxic effects. In the absence of the appropriate tests at lower doses, pesticide and chemical manufacturers claim safety since the full effects of exposure to these mixtures of chemicals have not been conclusively demonstrated (or even studied).
Doesn't the government regulate these chemicals?
When consumers realize the magnitude of the health threat posed by pesticides, they naturally wonder: Doesn't the government regulate these toxic chemicals? The answer is that, unfortunately for human and environmental health, government action has been far too slow. It is important to remember that the government said that highly toxic pesticides like DDT, chlordane, dursban and others were safe right up to the day the EPA banned them. And considering that we are talking about toxic chemicals whose effects on children's health may be irreversible, no delay is justifiable.
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 was designed to require protection of infants and children from pesticides. This law produced several notable achievements and fundamentally improved the health standards in pesticide law by requiring explicit protection of infants and children. But a lot remains to be done, especially in protecting human health from pesticide mixtures and chemicals that have endocrine disrupting properties. Not surprisingly, pesticide makers and agribusiness groups have been fighting strict application of the statute, particularly provisions that require an extra 10-fold level of protection for infants and children.
What can I do to reduce my risk?
Addressing the risks of pesticide exposure first and foremost requires information, which is frequently made unavailable to the general public by the government agencies. To counteract this trend for secrecy, EWG believes that:
- People have a right to know what's in their food, so they can choose foods with less pesticides.
- The government can and should take steps to dramatically reduce the number and amount of toxic chemicals, including pesticides, in the food supply.
Each of us can opt for food safety today by choosing to purchase produce low in pesticides and by buying organically-raised fruits and vegetables as frequently as possible. With this first step we can protect our families' health and preserve our own future and the future of the environment from the harmful effects of pesticides.
Get EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce to identify which fruits and veggies are low and high in pesticide residues and take it to the store with you today. Choose a wallet guide or iPhone app, whichever works for you.
Not-so-smart phones are high in radiation: What about yours?
Among the flood of new smart phones, the Motorola Droid, Blackberry Bold, and Google Nexus One rate high marks from tech reviewers for performance and features. But the reviews and ads don't mention that these phones also emit relatively high levels of radiation, compared to federal safety standards.
How can you tell your phone's radiation level?
Not by looking at your phone, that's for sure. But EWG's new consumer guide - and newly introduced state legislation - aim to protect consumers' right to know:
- In mid-February, EWG released our latest guide to cell phone radiation levels, focusing on the newest, most highly touted smart phones to hit the market in recent months. (For example, the radiation level of Apple's newest iPhone ranks in the middle of the pack.)
- The consumer guide's update coincides with introduction by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) of legislation, sponsored by EWG, requiring cell phones and wireless headsets sold in California to disclose the amount of radiation they emit to the head and to the body on the box and at the point of sale.
Legislation is pending in California, Maine & San Francisco
Unlike legislation pending in Maine, which would require a safety warning to be placed on all cell phones, the CA bill only calls for disclosure of the phone's radiation level. In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom has introduced legislation similar to Leno's, requiring retailers to list each phone's radiation level anywhere the price and other features are listed.
This information is currently not required to be disclosed to the public in any fashion, is not displayed at the point of sale, and is only available (other than in EWG's guide) through a tedious and complicated search of a Federal Communications Commission database.
The California bill's sponsor, state senator Mark Leno, says consumers have a right to know:
"As the use of cell phones has increased exponentially across the globe, so have concerns about the safety of cell phone radiation.While more research still needs to be done on the risks of long-term cell phone use for both adults and children, consumers have a right to know how much radiation their cell phones emit."
The science, other countries, and kids
Recent scientific studies have found links between heavy cell phone use and brain and salivary gland tumors. Health agencies in six nations, including the United Kingdom and Germany, have issued warnings to limit cell phone use - particularly by children, whose softer, thinner skulls are less able to shield the brain from radiation.
EWG's senior vice president for research, Jane Houlihan, thinks American consumers should have the information they need to make informed purchases:
"A number of health agencies around the world advise people to reduce exposures to cell phone radiation, driven by recent studies raising questions about the safety of this radiation, particularly for children.That's why it's essential for consumers to have radiation output information before they purchase phones for themselves and their families."
Scientists have found that children's brains absorb twice as much cell phone radiation as those of adults.
"The first cell phones were marketed to adults," said Renee Sharp, director of EWG's California office. "But today, children are just as likely to own a cell phone as a video game, baseball or bicycle."
Talk safer - Get the guide
In addition to our updated searchable database of phones, EWG's cell phone radiation guide offers practical safety tips for reducing your exposure to cell phone radiation, including using a safe handset, texting instead of talking, and using the phone only in an area with good reception.
US Senate Investigates Chemicals in People
In the past few weeks, EWG staff testified five times to support strong chemical policies at the state and federal levels: in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and the US Senate.
For an overview (and video) of the February 4th US Senate hearing where EWG President Ken Cook testified about the importance of human biomonitoring and the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act, head over to our Kid-Safe policy blog.
4 steps to drinking safer water
Here at EWG we talk a lot about water, because we think it should be safe to drink. We recently researched three water issues:
- Bottled water (skip it),
- Our water supply (don't frack it), and
- Tap water (filter it).
To help you drink safer water at home and on the go, we rolled up all this drinking water information and guidance in one place.
You can learn to drink safer water in 4 easy steps from our Healthy Home Tip:
- Identify the contaminants in your home tap water (use our searchable database),
- Find a filter that works (use our online guide),
- Skip the bottled water (it's expensive and the quality is not clear), and
- Choose safer reusable water bottles (they're out there!).
Get -- and share -- EWG's 1-page Safe Drinking Water Guide. It'll do your body good.
LEARN MORE about our Healthy Home Tip series and sign up to get the monthly tips in your inbox.
3,163 ingredients hide behind the word "fragrance"
By Lisa Frack with Becky Sutton
Enviroblog readers all know that "fragrance" is a term that the cosmetics, cleaning and candle industries use on ingredient lists that discloses only that there are unnamed chemicals in the product.
Which is not so helpful for avid label-readers (like me) who want and deserve full information when choosing products. Unless you use it as a red flag of what not to buy, that is. Then - and only then - is it helpful.
It's pretty big news that, after years of intentional mystery, the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) decided to publish an alphabetical list of ingredients that its members reportedly use to make consumer products.
Why'd they do it?
Simple: consumers want more transparency (yes, you're being heard!). And while this isn't exactly the kind of transparency we had in mind, or that helps consumers make informed decisions about their health, it's a step. (And it's a decent PR move for IFRA, right?)
A long list with some bad actors
A long list of chemicals that you can't pronounce is not in itself toxic - even if it looks it. But an analysis of these 3,163 chemicals in EWG's Cosmetics Database shows that there is reason for concern.
In fact, 1 in 20 earned a "high" hazard score (7-10 of 10), and a full 1 in 6 rated at least a "moderate" hazard score (3-10 of 10). 25 of them scored a 10, the highest score:
25 chemicals scored a "10" in Skin Deep
Aniline
BHA
Cyclohexanone
Dibutyl phthalate
Diethylhexyl phthalate
Hydroquinone
MIBK
Nano titanium dioxide
Nano zinc oxide (20-60nm)
Octoxynol-6
Octoxynol-7
Octoxynol-11
Octoxynol-12
Octoxynol-13
Octoxynol-16
Octoxynol-20
Octoxynol-25
Octoxynol-30
Octoxynol-33
Octoxynol-40
Octoxynol-70
PEG-3 Sorbitan oleate
PEG-6 Sorbitan oleate
Resorcinol
Styrene
Some chemicals on the list are very troubling
Of the 3,163 chemicals listed, several stand out as particularly toxic: phthalates, octoxynols and nonoxynols. Phthalates are potent hormone disruptors linked to reproductive system birth defects in baby boys. Octoxynols and nonoxynols break down into persistent hormone disruptors, as well.
What kind of products contain these chemicals?
All kinds. To name several: facial cleanser, after shave, astringents, hair color, cleaning products, and acne treatment.
The best way to reduce your exposure to fragrance chemicals
While this new information adds to our knowledge about fragrance chemicals, it doesn't change our longstanding advice for choosing safer cosmetics: read the label, skip the fragrance, and look up your products in EWG's Cosmetics Database.
[Thanks to Flickr CC & Annieo76 for the lovely array of perfumes]
The new crop of eco-films: Which should you see?
With green being the new black, there are more than a few environmental documentaries to choose from when popping that (not-in-the-microwave) popcorn.
To help you navigate the choices, EWG's very own Don Carr, press secretary and hard-hitting ag policy blogger, offers guidance on which to see. He screened them himself at this year's Sundance Film Festival to boil it down for us on Grist (trailers included). On my list are the ones Don highlights as "well-crafted, compelling films that address crucial environmental themes not yet in the public consciousness."
So find the film(s) for you and turn on the stove to start popping corn the old-fashioned way.
About that movie popcorn...
If you're ready to learn more and reduce your exposure to the perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) that line popcorn and other fast-food wrappers (among other things), get EWG's Guide to PFCs.