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
The 8-minute Story of Bottled Water: Watch it, then stop drinking it
Can EWG staff live a week without canned food? Can you?
I don't like the smell of this...
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
CNN on cell phone safety
When we released our cell phone radiation report in Fall 2009, we heightened a national conversation about the issue. Our consumer database is helping people choose lower-radiation phones and our 8 tips for using phones more safely are helping us stay connected with less radiation.
CNN's 5-minute segment is an excellent overview of the problem, and an indication that people are paying more attention to this important health issue. Watch it for yourself, then start talking safer.
How to get more fruits and veggies into school cafeterias
By Kari Hamserschlag, EWG Senior Analyst
**UPDATE** Since this piece was originally written on March 24th, the Senate Ag Committee approved Senator Lincoln's (D-AK) Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which would cut $2.8 billion from a key agricultural conservation program to pay for improvements in school lunch (among other things). These programs help farmers and ranchers implement practices that deliver critical benefits like healthy soil, reduced chemical use, less pesticide and fertilizer runoff in our water, cleaner air and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
EWG strongly supports increased funding for school lunch. In fact, we support a bigger increase than the $4.5 billion proposed by Senator Lincoln. We completely reject the idea, however, that we should rob money from conservation and clean water to pay for it. Instead, we believe that we should pay for an even bigger increase in school lunch funding by making relatively small cuts in commodity programs that indirectly subsidize unhealthy foods at a big expense to our environment and public health. See EWG'S Ag Mag for details.
First Lady Michelle Obama's noble fight against childhood obesity cannot be won unless members of Congress act boldly this spring and vote to give school lunches the healthy makeover that our kids deserve and desperately need.
Reauthorized every 4-5 years, the Child Nutrition Act supports a range of child nutrition programs, including school lunches and breakfasts, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (better known as WIC), summer meals programs and afterschool snacks and meals.
Cheap is the name of the game
Unfortunately, the reality in too many schools is that the menu too often consists of such things as tater tots, French fries, hot dogs, pizza, and chicken nuggets -- foods that do not inspire visions of health and wellness. And they certainly do not help the First Lady meet her goals for combating child obesity.
But they are cheap.
And cheap is the name of the game, given that schools typically spend just one dollar per meal on their food purchases (not including labor and overhead costs).
And they're cheap because....
Not only are these unhealthy foods inexpensive, they are provided in abundance as "entitlements" by USDA's Commodity Food Program, which purchases and distributes millions of dollars worth of pork, beef and other high-fat, high-cholesterol, and highly processed meat and dairy products to school lunch and other nutrition programs.
In 2008, the USDA spent 43% of its Child Nutrition food procurement "entitlement" budget on meat and poultry products, while just 23% went to fruits and vegetables. And of these, most are canned and frozen: Only 22% were fresh--In other words, just 5% of the total commodity entitlement budget went to fresh fruits and vegetables.
So let's talk about exactly how to change that
If this country is going to improve kids' health and turn the obesity epidemic around, it must start by serving more healthful meals in schools, where more than 30 million kids develop eating habits that will last a lifetime. That means scaling back high-fat, high- cholesterol foods linked to type 2 diabetes, obesity and heart disease and increasing consumption of higher fiber and nutrient-rich fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes.
How do we get more fruits and vegetables into school cafeterias?
- Congress must provide enough money to buy healthier foods. Schools must be able to afford nutritious meals. As part of his commitment to eliminate childhood hunger by 2015, President Obama proposed a $1 billion per year increase in these programs in his 2011 budget. This is a good start, but a few cents more per meal is not nearly enough to meet the need for healthier, more nutritious food for the 30 million kids who eat school lunches.
- Require healthy foods. Congress should tie increased funding for school meals directly to guidelines proposed by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). These will ensure that schools provide more servings of fresh fruit, vegetables and whole grains. Otherwise there will be no guarantee that the increased reimbursement will actually pay for healthier food.
- Prevent subsidies from indirectly supporting unhealthy foods. A recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that federally subsidized meal programs are often underwriting the expenses of unhealthy food items that are available on a la carte menus and in vending machines. Better yet, Congress should keep schools from serving unhealthy foods altogether by increasing federal nutrition standards for all foods served in schools, including from vending machines.
- Support a robust farm-to-school program. This month (March), Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) introduced the Farm to School Improvement Act that would provide $10 million a year in mandatory funds under the Child Nutrition Act for grants to help schools buy healthy, fresh products directly from local farmers.
Farm-to-school programs are win, win, win, win
Farm-to-school programs are a huge win-win for kids, farmers, teachers, parents and the community. Kids get to experience the joys of eating fresh, tasty fruits and vegetables and develop healthy eating habits that will pay health and wellness dividends far into in the future. Farm-to-school programs also give children a greater appreciation of where their food comes from.
Farmers also benefit. By cutting out middlemen and selling directly to schools, they can earn a higher return and keep more money in the local economy. While most farmers earn just 20 cents of every food dollar America spends, a farm-to-school farmer might earn as much as 60 to 70 cents of that procurement dollar.
Invest now (yes, now), save later.
Amidst the current frenzy for fiscal restraint, we should tell Congress that we don't want them to rein in spending on child nutrition programs, especially when increased funding is clearly linked to better nutrition and healthier food. Investing NOW in these programs will save billions of dollars down the road in avoided health care costs from diet-related diseases that are seeded early in the lives of our children.
Asbestos: Not Gone, Not Forgotten
By Linda Reinstein, President/CEO and Co-founder, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
Deadly asbestos fiberAsbestos is probably the most infamous carcinogenic material ever used. It has been responsible for the deaths of an untold number of people going as far back as 100 AD, when contemporary reports tell of Greek and Roman slaves falling ill after weaving cloth made from the substance.
Many Americans believe the mineral has been banned or restricted in the United States, but that is not the case. Manufacturers import significant amounts for use in a wide range of products, such as concrete and floor tiles. Domestic use increased from 3.8 million pounds in 2007 to 4.1 million pounds in 2008, with 76 percent used in roofing materials, including shingles.
Asbestos was the first substance the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attempted to ban in 1989 under the Toxics Substances Control Act. However, EPA's decision was overturned two years later in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. While Congress remains committed to banning asbestos, the U.S. has been unable to join more than 50 countries that have successfully banned asbestos.
EWG has estimated that asbestos is currently responsible for approximately 10,000 deaths a year in the United States alone, with more people dying from related diseases annually than from skin cancer or from fires, drowning and Hodgkin's disease combined. The World Health Organization, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Surgeon General all agree that "there is no safe level of asbestos exposure."
In April, more than 20 of the world's preeminent experts, including physicians, scientists and victim advocates, will gather in Chicago for the 6th Annual International Asbestos Awareness Conference to "provide the most advanced medical, occupational and environmental information available about asbestos-related disease to individuals throughout the world," according the conference's mission statement. "Presentations will include preventing exposure, identifying occupational and non-occupational exposure, public health and environmental aspects, early warning symptoms and trauma."
If you're unable to attend the conference and are interested in learning more about asbestos and what you and your family can do to prevent or reduce your exposure to it, visit the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization's website.
Could be hard to avoid these 7 cleaning ingredients, but you should try
By Lisa Frack with EWG Senior Scientist Rebecca Sutton
A few weeks ago I stood in the cleaning aisle wondering what to get. Since I'm a die-hard label reader, I grabbed some containers and turned them around so I could assess the ingredients.
On one, there was no ingredient list - at all. On another, I could see what exactly 1.2% of the ingredients were. The other 98.8% were listed as "other ingredients." So much for informing the consumer.
Why so incomplete? Because currently the government only requires manufacturers to list a very few ingredients on product labels - mainly pesticides - which is, of course, only part of the environmental health story when it comes to the chemicals in your cleaning products.
So what's an eco-healthy shopper supposed to do when the label tells you so little? And no, "safe for your family and your pets when used as directed" doesn't qualify as useful information.
Ingredients just got a little easier to find
Not surprisingly, manufacturers of cleaning supplies are increasingly aware of us label readers. And business being business, they don't want to lose us - even if they have to show me a full ingredient list. Which is exactly what they plan to do - sorta.
Starting in January, 2010, industry groups began making more ingredient information available to consumers - but not in the aisle (where it counts). They're calling it the Consumer Product Ingredient Communication Initiative. It covers four product categories: air fresheners, automotive care, household cleaners, and floor polishes.
What it means to you
If you want a full ingredient list for a specific product, you can get it online or on the phone. An improvement to be sure. What you still can't do is make an informed decision while shopping (unless you've got a smart phone and are prepared to spend some time hunting info down while standing in the aisle).
Once you know what's inside, skip these 7 ingredients
While having an ingredient list somewhere is surely better than not having one at all, interpreting it is a different story. Which is why EWG Senior Scientist Rebecca Sutton put together this list of top ingredients of concern - so you can avoid them (good luck pronouncing them):
- 2-butoxyethanol (or ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) and other glycol ethers. 2-butoxyethanol is a widely-used cleaning solvent that: causes anemia by damaging red blood cells, creates air pollution that exceeds workplace limits, is linked to impaired fertility and reproductive and developmental toxicity, and (just to really make the case) EPA considers it a possible human carcinogen.
- Alkylphenol ethoxylates. These detergent-like chemicals break down into alkylphenols, potent hormone disruptors widely detected in people and the environment. The E.U. and Canada have banned them in cleaning supplies. The U.S. (surprise!) has not. Some common ones are: nonyl- and octylphenol ethoxylates, or non- and octoxynols.
- Dye. Companies often hide chemical information behind this word; when it's this unknown, it's safer to skip it altogether.
- Ethanolamines. These pH-stabilizers can cause otherwise healthy people to develop asthma. Some studies show that certain ethanolamines are carcinogenic or neurotoxic. Common ones to look out for are: mono-, di-, and tri-ethanolamine.
- Fragrance. These mystery mixtures can contain hundreds of untested chemicals, including toxic ingredients like phthalates and synthetic musks - both hormone disruptors. Fragrances are also among the top five allergens in the world.
- Pine or citrus oil. You may associate these smells with clean, but we recommend you don't use cleaning supplies that contain them on smoggy or high ozone days, when compounds in the oils can react with ozone in the air to form carcinogenic formaldehyde.
- Quaternary ammonium compounds (aka "quats"). These common antibacterial cleaning ingredients can cause otherwise healthy people to develop asthma. Overuse of quats may lead to development of bacteria resistant to these and other germ-killing chemicals. Look out for these: alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (ADBAC), benzalkonium chloride, and didecyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride.
Vague terms like "preservative" or "surfactant" don't really tell you what chemicals are in your cleaning supplies. This new "communication initiative" specifically allows fragrances, dyes, and preservatives to be identified by their functional names - in other words, the ingredient list will say just that: dyes, fragrances, and preservatives. Not thinking that qualifies as transparency - you?
What about the "greener" products, do they list ingredients?
We expect better labeling from safer products, and many deliver (and have for a while). A standout is Seventh Generation - they emphasize transparency and share full ingredient lists on their products (bless them) and their web site (complete with explanations for those of us who scratch their head when they see words like protease and oleic acid).
There oughta be a law...
US Representative Steve Israel (D-NY) and US Senator Al Franken (D-MN) are working on that. Last year they introduced bills in Congress that EWG supports - both called the Household Product Labeling Act - to require makers of household cleaners and other products to disclose their ingredients on the labels - a big step further than this voluntary industry campaign.
Rep. Israel describes it well in this short video.
[Thanks to Flickr CC & Manny Wallace for the wall of cleaners]
Kids' Food a Fly Won't Touch
By Alex Formuzis, EWG Communications Director
A Denver grandmother of eight, who happens to be a trained nutritionist, decided to see for herself just how effective the preservatives used in large segments of the U.S. food system actually are.
She left an untouched McDonald's Happy Meal on a shelf in her kitchen for 12 months and has just released photos of the result. As some might expect, the year-old meal of beef, bun and French fries looks hardly different a year after it was first purchased. Hollywood note: Those of you looking to dial back the years may want look into this a little more.
Even the flies didn't want it
The most revealing and somewhat scary part of this experiment was that she said the left-out food didn't attract a single fly or any other insect over the entire year. Flies swarm almost anything with an odor. They turn out in droves to hover over a dog pile but apparently had no interest in the kids' meal.
"I had the windows open many times, but flies and other insects just ignored the Happy Meal," said Joann Burso. "What does that tell you, if they can't be bothered with it?" She conceded to the website Mail Online that the arid climate where she lives in Colorado might have something to do with the Happy Meal's long "shelf life," but still...
A closer look inside that Happy Meal
So, what exactly is in the preservatives that make the Happy Meal the Dean Clark of fast food? Let's take a look.
The bun:
High fructose corn syrup - of course.
Sugar
Soybean oil
Calcium sulphate
Calcium carbonate
Wheat gluten
Ammonium sulphate
Ammonium chloride
Dough conditioners (whatever those are)
Stearoyl lactylate
Datem (again, no idea)
Ascorbic acid
Stearoyl lactylate
Azodicarbonamide
Mono- and diglycerides (not even going to try)
Ethoxylated monoglycerides
Monocalcium phosphate
Enzymes
Guar gum
Calcium peroxide
Calcium propionate and sodium propionate
Soy lecithin
The fries:
Hydrogenated soybean oil
Natural beef flavor (Don't ask)
Citric acid
Dextrose
Sodium acid pyrophosphate (to maintain color)
Dimethylpolysiloxane (added as an anti-foaming agent)
The "beef":
Supposedly 100 percent beef. Of course, it's undoubtedly not grass-fed beef, so much of it is actually corn. Almost half the corn grown in the United States goes to feeding cows and chickens.
I don't know about you, but I think I'll grab something with fewer than 29 ingredients for lunch today.
[Thanks to Flickr CC & Xurble for the smilin' meal]
The 8-minute Story of Bottled Water: Watch it, then stop drinking it
You've seen The Story of Stuff, right? That short and sweet video explanation of our "consumption problem" and what we can do about it? Well Annie Leonard and the gang at Free Range Studios (plus a few great partners, including EWG!) have done it again. This time about our bottled water problem.
We've taken a close look at bottled water quality (not so good) and labeling (not so informative), and can safely say: don't buy the stuff. Find out why in 8 informative minutes:
Interested in drinking safer water?
Grab a reusable water bottle and get started withEWG's Safe Drinking Water Guide.pdf.
Can EWG staff live a week without canned food? Can you?
In 2007 we tested canned food for BPA because the can linings contain the chemical, and we suspected it might leach into the food. And, as we all know now, it does.
Since there are no government safety standards limiting the amount of BPA in canned food, avoiding canned food where possible seems like a pretty good idea, doesn't it? Especially if you've got young kids, whose smaller, developing bodies are more susceptible to toxic exposures.
A dose of our own medicine
Since discovering high levels of BPA - a synthetic estrogen - in over half of 97 cans of name-brand fruit, vegetables, soda, and other commonly eaten canned goods in 2007, we've suggested that people find alternatives to canned food to reduce their exposure to BPA.
But is that easier said than done? Is that really a practical recommendation?
We think it is, but just to be sure, 4 EWG staffers decided to put ourselves to the test.
Tips from the experts on eating without "the can"
Since my pantry does in fact contain more than a few cans (beans, tomatoes, artichoke hearts, and lentil soup, to name a few), I called in the experts for tips on how to survive the week.
Kari Hamerschlagg, EWG Senior Analyst and organics expert and Alexandra Zissu, author of The Conscious Kitchen, offered these 8 tips for eating without canned food:
- Have fresh fruits and veggies on hand. With fresh veggies in the 'crisper,' it's easy to cook something fresh, even at the last minute. Consider a farm-to-door delivery if it's available near you (often called Community Supported Agriculture, or CSA)
- Choose frozen fruits and vegetables - handily stored in your freezer - when fresh isn't an option. Flash frozen veggies are just as quick as canned, but safer.
- Go with dried beans. Pre-cooked canned beans are mighty convenient, but cooking dried is cheaper and pretty simple, with a little forethought. If you're eternally time-pressed (that's me), consider a pressure cooker. They cook fast, use less energy, and are available in stainless steel. Another trick: freeze them once cooked so they're there when you'd otherwise reach for that can. (Yes, you can get beans in a BPA-free can; but this is way cheaper).
- Cook ahead when there's time - and freeze some. Many of us reach for the cans when it's 5 minutes till dinner and we've just walked in the door. Cooking ahead (Sunday afternoon?) prevents those last-minute dinner panics.
- Have recipes on hand that don't call for canned foods. It's all about readiness and convenience for many of us, so if you have recipes that work for your family and don't call for canned foods, skipping the cans will be that much easier.
- Make soup from scratch - it's super easy, whatever the season. Ready-made soup is one of those typically canned foods, and it can be tempting to "prepare" an entire meal by dumping the contents of a can into a pan and heating it. Canned lentil soup, for example, is a mainstay at our house for quick kid dinners. But if you make a little extra and freeze it, home-made soup can be just as convenient.
- Find the same foods in safer containers. Foods that typically come in cans can sometimes be found in other, safer containers - glass, for example. (I just bought tomato paste in a glass jar last week, something I've traditionally found in a can). When we choose safer alternatives, we send signals to manufacturers and retailers about what we want. Price and availability, of course, may be factors.
- Have a baby? Choose powdered infant formula - not liquid. Liquid formulas have higher levels of BPA, so powdered is a better bet. If your pediatrician recommends liquid formula, choose the types sold in plastic containers and avoid ready-to-eat. Learn more about choosing & using infant formula.
Check back next week to see how we do. One thing I know will be a challenge: eating out and traveling (with kids! in the car!) - both of which are on my calendar.
How do YOU avoid canned foods?
I don't like the smell of this...
By Alex Formuzis, EWG Director of Communications
Driving the ladies wild just became more expensive. 
Conopco Inc. d/b/a Unilever, the company that makes the popular male body spray AXE, has been fined more than $1 million by California for releasing volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, every time a young man sprays himself down before hitting the club or heading off to school.
I remember it was Drakkar Noir and Obsession for Men back in my day; too bad neither did a thing for me. Could it have been my liberal applications of both that had the girls running flat out in the opposite direction? Who knows?
Fast-forward from the cologne-fueled mid-80's to today. Millions of young men now keep a bottle of AXE body spray in their rooms, lockers or glove boxes. That's where I kept mine. Again, maybe part of my problem.
You propel your A-X-E with W-H-A-T?
A can of AXE uses volatile organic compounds (aka VOCs) as propellants. In fact, VOCs are used in most spray products, including hair spray and paint. VOCs force the substance from the can into the air and onto whatever surface it's meant to coat. In the case of AXE, that's the body.
VOCs, which are significant contributors to low-level air pollution, can be naturally occurring or synthetic. They are numerous and varied; i.e., they're everywhere. For that reason, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates VOCs in water, air and land. The agency also regulates certain VOCs in household products.
The California story
The use of VOCs at low levels is sanctioned in California. But if a product emits the pollutant above the legal limit, the state Air Resources Board (ARB) will fine the manufacturer. The board's Enforcement Chief, James Ryden, sums it up like this:
"Consumer products, because of their pervasive use, contribute a growing portion of VOC emissions throughout California. Therefore, it's important that every can and bottle of product be compliant with ARB's standards."
Learn more about...
- ...the fine levied against the maker of AXE on Environment News Service.
- ...teen boys using AXE and other fragrance products in this January NY Times article, Masculinity in a Spray Can.
An App for everything, except radiation levels
By Bill Walker, Senior Advisor to EWG
Curious about how much radiation is coming from your iPhone? Sorry, there's no app for that.
What if the phone ITSELF measured radiation exposure?
An Israeli tech startup called Tawkon has developed a mobile application that estimates the level of radiation emitted from cell phones, which a growing body of research - though not definitive - suggests may be a health risk, especially for children. But when Tawkon submitted it for approval as an iPhone app, Apple turned it down.
Tawkon's co-founder told The Washington Post that Apple praised the app's interface but has rejected it because "supplying information about radiation levels . . . could cause user confusion." Environmental Working Group, which recently published a guide to cell phone radiation , says Apple's reasoning is backward.
"Providing consumers information about radiation levels will clear up confusion," says Renee Sharp, EWG's California director. "As it is now, most consumers don't know that radiation levels vary from phone to phone or depending on how and where you're using the phone - information we think they have a right to know.
People like to talk about Apple's app approval process
"Apple's made billions of dollars on making information available at your fingertips, and now they're afraid to let iPhone users learn about radiation? That's not 'insanely great,' just insane."
Tech bloggers were quick to call Apple on its retreat from transparency, with GoingCellular.com writing that Tawkon "is a tool, not an alarmist, panic-inducing threat. To treat it as such [will] make people wonder why Apple doesn't want iPhone users to know about the radiation they're subjecting themselves to."
Get a low-radiation phone and follow EWG's 8 safety tips
EWG's user-friendly interactive cell phone radiation guide (featured this week in TIME ) covers more than 1,000 phones now on the market. According to data from the Federal Communications Commission, radiation levels from the iPhone 3G S rank in the middle of the pack among the newest, most highly rated smart phones.
But the FCC data is hard to find. That's why EWG is backing legislation proposed in California and the City of San Francisco to require disclosure of cell phones' radiation level at the point of sale, so that consumers can make a more informed choice. Unlike legislation under consideration in Maine, which calls for warning labels on cellphones, the California bills would simply require disclosure of radiation levels.
The skinny on cell phone radiation
Cell phones emit radiofrequency radiation when sending and receiving voice and text messages. Scientists around the world are conducting studies to address the outstanding questions on human health effects of radiofrequency radiation. Although the jury is still out, recent studies suggest increased risk for brain tumors among people who have used cell phones for 10 years or longer.
Tawkon, which will still be marketed for other smart phones, seems particularly useful, because if used before a call it estimates the amount of radiation based on distance from an antenna and other factors.
EWG recommends that users avoid calling from spots with poor reception, which increases the radiation output. Other safety tips include using a safe headset, holding the phone away from your head and body, and texting rather than talking.
Thanks to Flickr CC & Tony Buser for the iPhone.
Help EWG do bottled water research - and win a prize!
Last year we took a close look at 100s of bottled water labels to see how good (or bad) manufacturers are at sharing important information with consumers - like my mother, who buys it by the box (me = biting tongue; gotta pick your battles, right?).
When you buy water to drink (crazy as that even sounds), you should know where it comes from, how it's purified and what's left in it. But too often, bottled water labels have more silly (and misleading) sales lingo than useful information that you might want to make an informed decision about the water you drink.
Which is exactly why we like to look closely at bottled water labels.
Send us your labels so we can continue our research
EWG wants to see if bottled water companies have improved since we looked at them in 2009, or if they're still conveniently skipping the facts with dreamy phrases like "purified by equatorial winds," "pure as the driven snow," and (get this one) "resonates with the energy and frequency of well-being." Ha!
But first, we need some labels. And that's where you come in.
Here's how to get involved:
- The next time you buy a bottle of water in the U.S. (there are those times when you just might "have" to), choose a non-sparkling, unflavored water bottled in glass or clear plastic.
- Carefully remove the entire label from the bottle. We need all the information from the label, so if necessary, cut the plastic around the label to get it all off.
- Write down:
* Name and location of the store where you purchased the water
* Date you purchased the water
* Your name, email and mailing address - Let us know you're sending us labels - it'll help us plan. Click here to send a note to EWG researchers.
- Mail your labels and other information to:
Environmental Working Group
Attn: Nneka Leiba
1436 U St. NW, Suite 100
Washington, DC 20009
What bottled water labels aren't telling you
In 2009 we examined 100's of bottled water labels, thanks to terrific participation from fans who collected and sent them our way. We found that only 2 of 188 bottled waters surveyed make public 3 basic facts about their products routinely disclosed by municipal water utilities: the water's source, purification methods, and chemical pollutants remaining after treatment.
The reason: bottled water companies enjoy a regulatory holiday under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which grants them complete latitude to decide what, if any, information about their water is divulged to customers.
Prizes for all and a Klean Kanteen for sending the most
Whoever sends the most labels (duplicates not counting) by Friday, April 30th will win a stainless steel water bottle with the EWG logo and a jumbo-sized, reusable grocery tote printed with EWG's pollution solutions tips. Plus, everyone who participates will get a Shopper's Guide to Pesticides magnet!
Thank you, Administrator Jackson
By Nils Bruzelius, EWG Executive Editor
That's why a broad array of organizations that care about people's health came together this week to thank Administrator Lisa P. Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for her principled and vigorous efforts to advance comprehensive reform of our broken system for regulating hazardous chemicals.
In a letter dated March 10, they wrote to her:
"We welcome the core principles you announced on September 29, 2009 in San Francisco that outlined the Obama Administration's plan to overhaul the nation's chemical regulatory program and give EPA greater authority to protect the public.Our organizations and supporters applaud the Administration's intention to transform our country's chemical regulatory system and decision to make TSCA reform a top priority."
The letter's signers, who represent millions of members and supporters, have been urging members of Congress in hearings and through personal contact to introduce and take prompt action on a bill to correct the well-known failings of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.
Environmental Working Group, which led the effort to recognize Administrator Jackson's initiative and commitment to reform, has long advocated for a thorough rewriting of the outdated law. In particular, EWG is urging adoption of a risk-based approach that gives priority to controlling all substances known to contaminate human bodies, particularly those chemicals detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn infants - the most vulnerable members of society.
So thank you, Lisa Jackson. We'll help in every way we can.
The full text of the letter and list of signers follows.
* * *
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dear Administrator Jackson:
We, the undersigned organizations, sincerely thank you for your announced commitment to reforming the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Collectively, our groups represent millions of members, supporters and activists.
As you are aware, studies examining umbilical cord blood show American infants are being born with hundreds of industrial chemicals, pesticides and other pollutants already in their bodies. Some of these chemicals have been linked to a variety of adverse health effects including asthma, allergies, childhood cancer, obesity, infertility, birth defects and neurological disorders. These children are living proof that the current law is failing our country's most vulnerable.
In January 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified TSCA as a government program in urgent need of reform and placed it on its "High Risk" list. The GAO report recommended the EPA be given more authority to obtain information critical to assessing the risks chemicals pose to human health and found:
- TSCA's regulatory structure impedes EPA's efforts to control toxic chemicals.
- EPA lacks sufficient data on potential health and environment risks of toxic chemicals. Under current law, chemicals are considered safe until proven otherwise.
Recognizing the consequences of this regulatory failure, government leaders, health professionals, children's health experts, environmental, consumer advocacy groups and faith-based organizations are supporting congressional efforts to reform TSCA.
We welcome the core principles you announced on September 29, 2009 in San Francisco that outlined the Obama Administration's plan to overhaul the nation's chemical regulatory program and give EPA greater authority to protect the public.
Our organizations and supporters applaud the Administration's intention to transform our country's chemical regulatory system and decision to make TSCA reform a top priority.
We appreciate and look forward to your continued leadership as we embark on passing historic legislation aimed at providing greater protection for all Americans in the near future and for generations to come.
Respectfully,
Allergy Kids
American Academy of Environmental Medicine
Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
Autism One
Autism Society of Illinois
Autism Society of Western New York
Breast Cancer Network of Western New York
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future Citizens for Environmental Justice
Community Against Pollution
Deep South Center for Environmental Justice
Deirdre Imus Environmental Center for Pediatric Oncology
Developmental Delay Resources
Environmental Working Group
First Signs, Inc.
Iowa Breast Cancer Edu-Action
National Autism Association
Oregon Environmental Council
Plains Justice
Schafer Autism Report
The Rachel Carson Homestead Association
The United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation
US Autism & Asperger Association
Blue Vinyl: Good movie. Bad plastic.
As you might imagine, I've seen my share of movies about toxic chemicals. There are a bunch, many of them excellent.
This one struck me because of the director's personal inspiration to track down the source of her parent's shiny new (practical, affordable, durable) vinyl siding. I love how she just won't stop short of convincing them it's not as simple as they think (been there?).
She had a hunch that vinyl had a dark side and, not surprising to me or Enviroblog readers, it does.
Find out about PVC for yourself by following co-director Judith Helfand's investigative globe trot to understand the real (not-so-simple) source of her parents' blue vinyl.
EPA should start where chemical contamination begins: In utero
By Alex Formuzis, EWG Director of Communications
A comprehensive plan to reform the nation's primary law responsible for regulating the use of industrial chemicals is about to be introduced in Congress.
The question of which substances the federal government should target first was part of the discussion at a hearing before the US House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection last week.
PBTs are bad, but they're hardly alone
Committee members and witnesses focused their attention on a certain group of chemicals commonly called persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances, or PBTs.
These are among the most notorious and dangerous chemicals ever put into commerce, which include DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the Teflon chemicals perfluorooctanyl sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluoroctanoic acid (PFOA), brominated flame retardants, lead and mercury compounds and dioxins.
But PBTs are just some of the 83,000 chemicals used as ingredients in virtually everything available for purchase. Other notable contaminants the public is exposed to in mass include the plastics chemical bisphenol A (BPA), the rocket fuel component perchlorate and phthalates; a chemical with such a wide reach it's used in everything from food wrappers, makeup, toys, cleaning products and upholstery.
Why is in utero exposure so very important?
How on earth is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supposed to decide which chemicals it should review first to decide if they pose a risk to people?
Here's a thought: EPA should start where human contamination begins. In utero.
We now know chemicals cross the placenta and become a collection of additives in the blood that pumps through the rapidly developing fetus at the precise time the brain and nervous systems are beginning to build. EWG has documented in utero chemical contamination through a series of lab tests that found hundreds of industrial pollutants, including but not limited to PBTs in the blood of babies in the womb.
Cord blood contamination should be the guiding principle for the EPA when it establishes a list of chemicals that will come under scrutiny first. If a synthetic chemical, PBT or otherwise, turns up in babies it must be thoroughly examined for potential risks to human health. If it fails to stand up to a rigorous scientific prosecution then it should be banned.
Read EWG's letter to the US Representative Bobby Rush
Please read the written comments my colleagues Richard Wiles and Jane Houlihan provided to the Chairman of the House subcommittee, Representive Bobby L. Rush.
Can bottled water be funny? Watch this....
We all know bottled water is "the pits" (remember Erma Bombeck?), but we don't all say it like Derek. Listen up and be ready to laugh as Derek Forgie goes "inside the bottle."
Want to learn more? Check out EWG's safe drinking water resources:
- Bottled water quality investigation: 10 Major Brands, 38 Pollutants
- Bottled Water Scorecard: Is your bottled water worth it?
- EWG's Guide to Safe Drinking Water.pdf
Then take the leap - and say good-bye to bottled water, as often as you possibly can.
Put toxics on Congress' "to-do" list
Ever wonder if you can really, truly make a difference in an effort for national policy reform? I mean, it's a big country, right?
YES. YES. YES.
And when we speak together, we're even more effective.
Tell Congress to put toxics on its "to do" list NOW
Join 55,000 other concerned Americans who have already signed this historic petition.
Let's make it crystal clear that you want an effective national chemicals policy that protects human health, especially our children who are most affected by toxic chemicals. We know you're frustrated by the current system. So let's change it.
Numbers talk: 75,000 signatures is our goal
We want to deliver this petition to key lawmakers on Capitol Hill with 75,000 signatures - including yours - to show them how BIG and PASSIONATE this kid-safe movement has become. Can you help us reach our goal in the next two weeks? It's easy to sign and share - and extremely important to our success.
The time is right now
There is a political window of opportunity to move the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act forward in 2010, but in the current political climate, windows close quickly and unpredictably. If we don't give it our absolute all NOW, when the political momentum is there, we may lose this chance.
Sign it, share it
This issue is far too important to let Congress do nothing. We need your help - by signing and sharing the petition - to get the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act on the Congressional "to-do" list. Preferably at the top.
Revenge of the toxic dust bunnies
Dust bunnies aren't just the visible reminder than we've (once again) waited far too long to clean house. They can also be allergenic and they contain toxic chemicals.
Now that's a more compelling reason to clean than impressing the guests.
Why is your household dust toxic?
Every home has a little dust -- and its own unique "dust load," based on a variety of factors like where you live, what you cook, if you smoke, the climate, and how many people -- and animals -- live there.
Ordinary house dust is a complex mixture of generally yucky stuff -- pet dander, fungal spores, tiny particles, soil tracked in on your feet, carpet fibers, human hair and skin, you name it. It's also a place where harmful chemicals are found. One recent study by the Silent Spring Institute identified 66 endocrine-disrupting compounds in household dust tests, including flame retardants, home-use pesticides, and phthalates.
The chemicals in your dust originate from both inside and outside your house:
- Products inside your house "shed" chemicals over time -- furniture, electronics, shoes, plastics, fabrics and food, among other things.
- Outdoor pollutants enter on your shoes and through open and cracked windows and doors.
Once inside, the contaminants in indoor dust degrade more slowly (if at all) than they would outside in the environment where moisture and sunlight typically break them down.
One type of toxic chemical commonly found in household dust is chemical flame retardants (aka PBDEs). As highly flammable synthetic materials have replaced less-combustible natural materials, PBDEs have been added to thousands of everyday products, including computers, TVs and furniture -- among many others. EWG conducted tests in 2004 that revealed the surprising degree to which flame retardant chemicals escape from consumer products and settle in household dust (from degrading foam or the plastics in electronic items).
How can toxic dust affect your family?
When you're exposed to certain toxic chemicals -- even at very low doses -- your health can be adversely affected. Dust is simply another way for the toxic chemicals in your house to reach your body.
Young children are of special concern because their developing bodies are more vulnerable to toxic exposures, and they ingest or inhale more dust than adults since they -- and their toys -- spend lots of time on or very near the floor. They also put dusty hands and toys in their mouths often. Scientists once thought children got lead poisoning by literally chewing on windowsills. We've since learned that it's actually caused by their normal play behaviors because contaminants like lead stick around in house dust.
In the case of fire retardants, which are commonly found in household dust, scientists have found that exposure to minute doses of toxic PBDEs at critical points in a child's development can damage reproductive systems and cause deficits in motor skills, learning, memory and hearing, as well as changes in behavior. Read EWG's 2004 report about toxic fire retardants in household dust.
A note about allergies. Dust is a well-known allergen -- with or without the toxic chemicals. If you're allergic to dust, there are preventive steps you can take to reduce your contact with it. The Mayo Clinic has a list of lifestyle and home remedies.
How can you remove dust safely and effectively?
Careful cleaning is a simple way to get rid of toxic dust. Here's how:
- Vacuum frequently and use a vacuum fitted with a HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filter. These vacuums are more efficient at trapping small particles and will likely remove contaminants and other allergens from your home that a regular vacuum would recirculate into the air. Change the filter to keep it working well, and don't forget to vacuum the stuffed furniture (get under those couch cushions)!
- Wet mop uncarpeted floors frequently to prevent dust from accumulating (dry mopping can kick up dust that simply resettles). Buy wooden furniture or furniture filled with down, wool, polyester, or cotton as these are unlikely to contain added fire retardant chemicals.
- Wipe furniture with a wet or microfiber cloth. Microfiber cloths work well because their smaller fibers cling to the particles. If you don't have a microfiber cloth, wet a cotton cloth -- it grabs and holds the dust better than a dry one. Skip synthetic sprays and wipes when you dust -- they only add unwanted chemicals.
- Caulk and seal cracks and crevices to prevent dust from accumulating in hard-to-reach places.
- Equip your forced-air heating or cooling system with high-quality filters and change them frequently to keep them working well.
- Keep electronic equipment dust-free by damp dusting it frequently; this is a common source of chemical fire retardants in dust.
- Pay special attention to places where little kids crawl, sit and play. They live closest to our floors and as a result tend to be more exposed to those toxic dust bunnies.
- If you're dust sensitive, consider asking someone else to do the dusty cleaning.
Create dust that's less toxic in the first place
You can reduce the amount of toxic chemicals that wind up in your household dust by bringing fewer toxic chemicals into the house in the first place. We suggest that you:
- Leave your shoes at the door and use a natural doormat. Shoes are a common way we bring outdoor pollutants inside.
- Inspect foam products made between 1970 and 2005 -- they're likely to contain PBDEs. Replace anything with a ripped cover or foam that is misshapen and breaking down. If you can't replace these items, try to keep the covers intact and clean them more frequently. Some examples of household foam products are: stuffed/upholstered furniture, nursing pillows, padded high-chair seats, portable crib mattresses, baby changing pads, and chair cushions.
- Choose home electronics without PBDEs. There are manufacturers who no longer use them in some products -- ask before you buy and support companies that have publicly committed to going PBDE-free, like: Acer, Apple, Eizo Nanao, LG Electronics, Lenovo, Matsushita, Microsoft, Nokia, Phillips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony-Ericsson, and Toshiba.
- Stick to products made with natural fibers that are naturally fire resistant and may contain fewer chemicals -- like wood furniture, cotton, down and wool.
- Clean up quickly and thoroughly when you finish a home improvement project, since these can involve dust (from sanding or drilling) and toxic products (like lead, PCBs and fire retardants).
- Consider a high efficiency "HEPA-filter" air cleaner, which may also reduce contaminants that become dust in your house.
LEARN MORE about our Healthy Home Tip series and sign up to get the monthly tips in your inbox.
Ever checked your house for chemicals?
If you've ever wondered what's toxic in your house, you'll want to watch this home walk-through with Jane Houlihan, EWG's Senior Vice-President for Research. She joins Jennifer Folsom, mom to 3 young boys, on an informational walk through the Folsom's Alexandria, Virginia home.
Houlihan identifies toxic chemicals in three key rooms: the kitchen, bathroom, and laundry room. Grab a pad and paper so you're ready to take notes!
If this short TV segment wasn't enough for you (it wasn't for me), check out the full 16-minute video of the toxic home walk-through - it's worth it.
