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
Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper
School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!
Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars
Why do blowouts take so long to fix?
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.
« Can bottled water be funny? Watch this.... | Main | Blue Vinyl: Good movie. Bad plastic. »
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.
Wow, as someone whose only contribution to society is language (I am an editor and writer), might I suggest that while this idea seems entirely reasonable when you read the details, it sounds absolutely frightening in headlines.
Generally speaking, the percentage of the people who would agree that we need better chemical regulation are also the ones who would most aggressively prevent a government's access to a woman's body.
I know, because I read the article that we're only talking about testing cord blood, but not everyone reads carefully. Might I suggest that if the environmental movement is going to move forward it stops putting government agencies and "in utero" in the same sentence.
Also, in general, the environmental movement's problem is they still let science drive the language. If this headline read, "help the government help your babies with a simple test" it would get so much more attention.