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
Dr. Weil on EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce
Something stinks: Secrecy and health hazards courtesy of the fragrance industry
Daniel Goleman: Access to info will make all the difference
Preventing Cancer: 9 Practical Tips for Consumers
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
Alton Brown, Food Network Celeb, asks What's For Lunch
You may know him as Food Network's top culinary scientist or the commentator on the hit show Iron Chef, but Alton Brown is first and foremost a dad. That means he's concerned about his daughter's health - and given his day job, particularly what she's eating.
Brown recently spoke at a panel hosted by the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, an organization in Georgia working hard to get healthier food to more kids.
In this clip, he gives a TV star-worthy talk on visiting his daughter's school, where he spoke with kids about what they like to eat, what they should eat, and what's for lunch.
To hear what he has to say about his field trip, click the image below and choose the "Penny introduces Alton Brown" segment.
(EWG shout-out to John Bare, Blank Family Foundation VP, for bringing this cool talk to the attention of our prez, Ken Cook.)
Summer's here: What are you doing to protect your skin?
Bad news, though, that so few sunscreens rate well. Thinking it's going to be the year of the hat and shirted beach play - along with a little planning to take cover from the sun's most potent mid-day rays.
You see, EWG's 4th annual Sunscreen Guide gives low marks to the current crop of sunscreen products, with (thankfully) a few notable exceptions. EWG researchers recommend only 39, or 8 percent, of 500 beach and sport sunscreens on the market this season.
Why so few recommendations?
In all, EWG researchers assessed 1,400 sunscreen products, including beach and sports lotions, sprays and creams, moisturizers, make-up and lip balms. The 39 top beach and sports products that earned EWG's "green" rating all contain the minerals zinc or titanium. EWG researchers were unable find any non-mineral sunscreens that scored better than "yellow."
There are several reasons EWG recommends so few sunscreens this year. A surge in exaggerated SPF (Sun Protection Factor) claims (50+ SPFs) and recent developments in understanding the possible hazards of some sunscreen ingredients, in particular, new government data linking a form of vitamin A used in sunscreens to accelerated growth of skin tumors and lesions.
EWG has again flagged products with oxybenzone, a hormone-disrupting compound that penetrates the skin and enters the bloodstream. Biomonitoring surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have detected oxybenzone in the bodies of 97 percent of Americans tested.
Industry's lackluster performance and the federal Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) failure to issue regulations for sunscreens lead EWG to warn consumers not to depend on any sunscreen for primary protection from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. Hats, clothing and shade are still the most reliable sun protection available.
What's wrong with high SPF??
Products with high SPF ratings sell a false sense of security because most people using them stay out in the sun longer, still get burned (which increases risk of skin cancer) and subject their skin to large amounts of UVA radiation, the type of sunlight that does not burn but is believed responsible for considerable skin damage and cancer. High SPF products, which protect against sunburn, often provide very little protection against UVA radiation.
Also, most people don't get the high SPF they pay for: people apply about a quarter of the recommended amount. In everyday practice, a product labeled SPF 100 really performs like SPF 3.2, an SPF 30 rating equates to a 2.3 and an SPF 15 translates to 2. EWG Senior VP for Research Jane Houlihan likens it to snake oil sales:
"Many sunscreens available in the U.S. may be the equivalent of modern-day snake oil, plying customers with claims of broad-spectrum protection but not providing it, while exposing people to potentially hazardous chemicals that can penetrate the skin into the body.When only 8 percent of sunscreens rate high for safety and efficacy, it's clear that consumers concerned about protecting themselves and their families are left with few good options."
And now, a new concern: Vitamin A
This year, new concerns are being raised about a vitamin A compound called retinyl palmitate, found in 41 percent of sunscreens. The FDA is investigating whether this chemical, when applied to skin that is then exposed to sunlight, may accelerate skin damage and elevate skin cancer risk.
FDA data suggest that vitamin A may be photo- carcinogenic, meaning that in the presence of the sun's ultraviolet rays, the compound and skin undergo complex biochemical changes resulting in cancer. The evidence against vitamin A is not conclusive, but as long as it is suspect, EWG recommends that consumers choose vitamin A-free sunscreens.
The FDA is taking t-o-o long to protect us
Some blame falls on the FDA, which has yet to finalize regulations for sunscreens promised since 1978. FDA officials estimate that the regulations may be issued next October - but even then, they are expected to give manufacturers at least a year, and possibly longer, to comply with the new rules. That means the first federally regulated sunscreens won't go on store shelves before the summer of 2012. Houlihan gives some startling context:
"Both world wars, the creation of Medicare and the planning and execution of the moon landing combined took less time to achieve than FDA's promised sunscreen regulations.Meanwhile, more than one million cases of skin cancer are diagnosed in the U.S. every year. This could be the poster child for government inaction."
Protect yourself this summer. Here's how:
- Download our 1-page sun safety tip sheet, and
- Search our database to find the best sunscreen for your family - when you can't cover up or take the best cover - in the shade.
On Pesticides: Canadian Bylaws and American Lawn Flags
By Sandra Steingraber, Ph. D., Ecologist, author, cancer survivor, and internationally recognized expert on the environmental links to cancer and reproductive health
The smell of lawn chemicals is as dependable a harbinger of spring as robins and lilacs. Not in big parts of Canada, where many municipalities and provinces have opted to abolish the cosmetic use of pesticides on the grounds that the links between pesticide exposure and childhood cancer are too troubling to ignore. So, how come we're still using them?
DDT is now so universally used that in most minds the product takes on the harmless aspect of the familiar. ~ Rachel Carson, Silent Spring
Harmless aspect of the familiar was the phrase that leaped into my mind when I watched a scantily clad woman - the day was hot and sunny - lie down in a green sward of grass in front of the Women's Center on the campus of DePauw University in Indiana. Next to her waved a small yellow flag that warned passers-by to keep off the grass as it had just been sprayed with pesticides.
I guess the word irony might also have applied. On the other side of the flag, a card table was piled high with copies of my book, Living Downstream, which, among other topics, discusses the dangers of lawn chemicals. The books were for sale. I was positioned up on the porch, encouraged by my faculty host to chat with students, drink punch, and sign books as part of an informal reception before my all-campus Earth Day lecture.
Yes, I intervened. The reclining woman seemed bewildered by my concern for her, pointing out that the yellow flags are so ubiquitous that no one notices them. She reluctantly promised to shower and launder her clothes before attending the evening's lecture.
No flags wave from the lawns in many parts of Canada. Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island - and many cities across the rest of the nation - have expressly outlawed the cosmetic use of pesticides. Within these provinces and municipalities, the use of synthetic pesticides to improve the appearance of lawns and, in some places, gardens is now illegal.
Indeed, Earth Day 2009 - one year ago - was the deadline for hardware and garden stores across Ontario to remove approximately 250 chemical bug and weed killers from their shelves. Beginning on that ceremonial day, as part of a commitment to decrease toxic exposures to chemicals linked to cancer, residents of Ontario could no longer use pesticides on lawns and gardens, and stores could not sell them.
And just how are the organically managed lawns of Canada faring? During my last visit to Toronto, I can't say I noticed any barren, grub-infested yards or playgrounds abandoned to thistles - my grandfather the farmer called them Canada thistles for a reason, right? - and I'm happy to report that all the French-style gardens still looked lovely.
What I did notice is that the legislation outlawing lawn chemicals has become familiar enough to Torontonians to merit an offhand mention in the complimentary magazine in my hotel room. This lushly illustrated guidebook not only trumpeted the city's best restaurants and hottest nightclubs, it also welcomed visitors with the following reassurance:
All green spaces are pesticide-free. In 2004, Toronto became the largest municipality in the world to ban cosmetic use of lawn and garden pesticides. The Sierra Club of Canada reports a clear link between pesticide use and breast cancer; many other studies have shown the dangers to children from chemical exposure to pesticides.
That is precisely the worrisome body of evidence that I review in Living Downstream. When I speak about leukemia and lawn chemicals here in the United States, people in my audiences sometimes tell me that the subject matter is too depressing for them to even contemplate. But in parts of Canada, doing something about it is a selling point for tourism.
The Canadian and U.S. governments have the same scientific evidence available to them - indeed much of the data on children's exposure to pesticides and its possible contribution to pediatric brain tumors were generated on this side of the border. So why have so many jurisdictions in one nation chosen, as a response to that data, abolition of cosmetic pesticides while jurisdictions in the other rely on dinky yellow flags?
In Canada, the ban on nonessential uses of pesticides began with old-fashioned citizen activism in the small village of Hudson in Quebec. (This story is documented in the documentary film A Chemical Reaction.) Upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, that city's ban was replicated in other communities. Such bans are supported by the Canadian Cancer Society (a counterpart of our American Cancer Society) and by the Ontario College of Family Physicians. Research partially funded by the OCFP concluded, in 2007, that the weight of the evidence indicates a "positive relationship between exposure to pesticides and the development of some cancers, particularly in children ... The authors of the research recommend that exposures to all pesticides be reduced."
Benefit of the doubt goes to children, not to chemicals.
By contrast, federal agencies, mainstream cancer charities, and physicians' organizations south of the border have been more circumspect about the role of involuntary exposures to inherently toxic substances in creating health threats. Why the demurral? Is it because the impulse in the United States is to treat public health threats as issues of personal choice? Thus, lawn flags instead of bylaws?
I don't know the answer here. Let's ask. The mothers of children with leukemia can go first. (A 2009 study found higher levels of household pesticides in urine samples collected from children with leukemia and from their mothers than in the urine of mother-child pairs living in households unaffected by leukemia. Not all of the mothers of these child cancer patients used pesticides themselves. In fact, most did not.)
When it's my turn, I'd like to pose the following query to the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Medical Association: I spent a lot of time this spring walking by yellow flags planted in the green lawns of college campuses, on my way to Earth Day lectures. When I pointed the flags out to my student escorts, most of them just shrugged. Meanwhile, to the north, 77 percent of Canadians already benefit from pesticide bans, Environment Minister Sterling Belliveau introduced a bill last week to ban the sale and use of nonessential pesticides for lawn care in Nova Scotia, and momentum grows for a province-wide ban on lawn chemicals in British Columbia. Why can't we do things like this?
Sandra Steingraber is the author of Living Downstream, newly published in second edition by Merloyd Lawrence Books/Da Capo Press to coincide with the release of the documentary film adaptation. This essay is one in a weekly series by Sandra exploring how the environment is within us.
More organophosphates please, Mom!
People may know that organic produce is a better bet - for our heath and the environment, yet only about 2% of U.S. food sales are organic. Yes, a paltry 2 percent.
Since pesticides are (literally) designed to kill, and eating fruits and veggies with residues is one way we're all exposed, it makes good sense to eat organic whenever possible and, when it's not, to use EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides, which tells you which fruits and veggies have the most (the dirty dozen) and the least (the clean 15) pesticide residues.
In this 4-minute clip from The Today Show, MSNBC's chief medical editor, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, explains a recent study in the journal Pediatrics linking kids' pesticide exposures to behavioral problems:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Dr. Weil on EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce
Dr. Andrew Weil, renowned medical expert on natural health and wellness, tells why and how he uses the Dirty Dozen and Clean 15 lists from EWG's Shoppers Guide to Pesticides. As he says,
"We should all be taking action to minimize our exposure to pesticides, including residues of pesticides on foods we eat."
Download EWG's Shopper's Guide and learn more about pesticides and how to reduce your exposure on EWG's Food News site.
Something stinks: Secrecy and health hazards courtesy of the fragrance industry
Millions of American consumers participate every day as unwitting human lab rats in one of the biggest experiments ever conducted (or, more appropriately, perpetrated) on the human race. For many, their entrance into the "lab" starts in their 'tweens and continues through high school and on into adulthood. Of course, I'm talking about those who wear perfumes, cologne or the ever-popular "body sprays."
A word about fragrance labels
In 1973 Congress passed the federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, and attached it to the workload of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The law, which required companies to list cosmetics ingredients on the product labels, conveniently left off fragrance. Since then, the vague word "fragrance" is all you'll find on the label, leaving it to you to guess what toxic brew they mean. If there's anything to be grateful for in this, it's that it's a recognizable word that, which vague, is easily avoided by label readers (which we should all be).
A whole lot of secret, untested chemicals in the fragrance aisle
A new study from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and Environmental Working Group revealed 38 secret chemicals in 17 name brand fragrance products, topped by American Eagle Seventy Seven with 24, Chanel Coco with 18, and Britney Spears Curious and Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio with 17.
The average fragrance product tested contained 14 secret chemicals not listed on the label. Among them are chemicals associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety in personal care products. This complex mix of clandestine compounds in popular colognes and perfumes makes it impossible for consumers to make informed decisions about the products they consider buying.
Who knows what about fragrance anyway?
The short answer is: No-one really knows much, because most secret chemicals revealed in fragrance testing have not been assessed for safety. The federal government, which is in charge of cosmetics safety, is equally uninformed.
The longer answer is: A review of government records shows that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not assessed the vast majority of these secret fragrance chemicals for safety when used in spray-on personal care products such as fragrances. Nor have most been evaluated by the safety review panel of the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) or any other publicly accountable institution.
Fragrance secrecy is legal due to a giant loophole in the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1973, which requires companies to list cosmetics ingredients on the product labels but explicitly exempts fragrance. By taking advantage of this loophole, the cosmetics industry has kept the public in the dark about the 3,100 ingredients in fragrance, even those that present potential health risks or build up in people's bodies.
Get the full story in the new report
Download it or read it online. Here's what you'll read about inside:
- Allergic sensitivity to fragrances: A growing health concern
- Hormone-disrupting chemicals in fragrance
- Secret chemicals, hidden health risks
- The self-policing fragrance industry
- The need for full disclosure and stronger regulations
- The health risks of secret chemicals in fragrance
Then speak up for safer fragrances!
People have a right to know which chemicals they are being exposed to. They have a right to expect government to protect people, especially vulnerable populations, from hazardous chemicals. Agreed?
So we're asking Jennifer Lopez, Britney Spears, Halle Berry and Miley Cyrus - whose fragrance products we tested - to stand up for our health and urge their fragrance manufacturers to remove chemicals linked to cancer, reproductive harm and allergies from their fragrances. Please read and sign on to this letter, then spread the word!
You deserve it. We all do, right?
Daniel Goleman: Access to info will make all the difference
Well-known author and psychologist Daniel Goleman suggests that if we consumers have more easily-accessible information about the products we buy, we'll be better prepared to make choices that consider ecological, social and health impacts. Perfect examples: EWG's Skin Deep database and our Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce.
And while it might not actually sound fun to sort through all that information at the check-out stand (hard enough with paper v. plastic, organic v. conventional, right?), it's better to have the info than to operate with information asymmetry, as Goleman calls it, where even if we want to make the "right" choice (and many of us do), we simply can't.
The good news, as he sees it, is that when we have and use this information, the market does in fact shift. Especially if we tell people what we're doing, which of course amplifies the message. Yup, Facebook & Twitter to the rescue.
Goleman recently penned four blogs for EWG, including an essential explanation of why low-dose chemical exposures matter, a good hard look at the "butter" in movie popcorn, and an analysis of what's in your shampoo. Yes, your shampoo.
- What Toxicology Won't Measure - and What To Do.
I've got some bad news. Toxicology seems to have a blind spot when it comes to the stew of chemicals we breathe, drink or otherwise absorb over the course of life.
Currently federal standards for determining toxicity are based on whether single exposures to a specific chemical cause a given medical problem. But growing bodies of medical evidence suggest that the cumulative tiny doses of chemicals we encounter over our lifetime can add up to disease.
- What We Don't Know About the Chemicals Around Us.
Consider a box of microwaveable, butter-flavored popcorn. The label assures buyers it has zero grams of trans-fat and "zero mg cholesterol." But the ingredients list fails to mention that the savory butter taste and mouth-watering aroma comes courtesy of diacetyl, a flavoring long known by pulmonary specialists to cause "bronchiolitis obliterans," a disease that causes the small airways in the lungs become to become swollen, scarred and, eventually, obliterated. - Our Bodies' Chemical Burden, Little Doses Matter a Lot.
Here's sobering news: any one of us, anywhere on the planet, lugs hundreds of industrial chemicals around in our bodies - and they are up to no good.If you want to know what industrial chemical compounds Michael Lerner or his wife Sharyle Patton carry around in their bodies, just go to this Environmental Working Group website. Lerner and Patton are both active in environmental health, the field that studies how the chemical byproducts of industry and commerce impact the human body.
- What's Really in Your Shampoo, and Why You Should Find Out.
A friend who helped start a line of shampoos for a famous hairdresser confides that, truth to tell, every shampoo is built around just four basic types of chemicals. The first is surfactants, cleaning agents that strip dirt off hair. But surfactants are harsh and can leave hair dry and brittle, so formulators add a conditioning agent to rectify the Ph balance. Foaming agents make it bubbly; fragrances give a shampoo its unique identity.
Learn more about Daniel Goleman and his latest book, Ecological Intelligence.
Preventing Cancer: 9 Practical Tips for Consumers
By Jane Houlihan, EWG Senior V-P for Research
Four of every 10 Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes, and two of every 10 will die of it.
But there are some things you can do to reduce the risk. First, talk to your doctor about lifestyle changes that are known to make a difference - stopping smoking, reducing drinking, losing weight, exercising and eating right.
But according to a new report from the President's Cancer Panel, environmental toxins also play a significant and under-recognized role in cancer, causing "grievous harm" to untold numbers of people. Environmental Working Group's own research has found that children are born "pre-polluted" with up to 200 industrial chemicals, pesticides and contaminants that have been found to cause cancer in lab studies or in people.
Here are some simple things you can do to reduce your exposures:
- Filter your tap water. Common carcinogens in tap water include arsenic, chromium, and chemical byproducts that form when water is disinfected. A simple carbon filter or pitcher can help reduce the levels of some of these contaminants. If your water is polluted with arsenic or chromium, a reverse osmosis filter will help. Learn about your tap water and home water filters at EWG's National Tap Water Database.
- Seal outdoor wooden decks and play sets. Those built before 2005 are likely coated with an arsenic pesticide that can stick to hands and clothing. Learn more from EWG.
- Cut down on stain- and grease-proofing chemicals. "Fluorochemicals" related to Teflon and Scotchgard are used in stain repellants on carpets and couches and in greaseproof coatings for packaged and fast foods. To avoid them, avoid greasy packaged foods and say no to optional stain treatments in the home. Download EWG's Guide to PFCs and learn more about PFCs.
- Stay safe in the sun. More than one million cases of skin cancer are diagnosed in the United States each year. To protect your skin from the sun's cancer-causing ultraviolet (UV) radiation, seek shade, wear protective clothing and use a safe and effective sunscreen from EWG's sunscreen database.
- Cut down on fatty meat and high-fat dairy products. Long-lasting cancer-causing pollutants like dioxins and PCBs accumulate in the food chain and concentrate in animal fat.
- Eat EWG's "Clean 15." Many pesticides have been linked to cancer. Eating from EWG's Clean 15 list of the least contaminated fruits and vegetables will help cut your pesticide exposures. (And for EWG's Dirty Dozen, buy organic.) Learn more at EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides.
- Cut your exposures to BPA. Bisphenol-A (BPA) is a synthetic estrogen found in some hard plastic water bottles, canned infant formula, and canned foods. Some of these chemicals cause cancer in lab studies. To avoid them, eat fewer canned foods, breast feed your baby or use powdered formula, and choose water bottles free of BPA. Get EWG's tips to avoid it.
- Avoid carcinogens in cosmetics. Use EWG's Skin Deep cosmetic database to find products free of chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer. When you're shopping, don't buy products that list ingredients with "PEG" or "-eth" in their name.
- Read the warnings. Some products list warnings of cancer risks - read the label before you buy. Californians will see a "Proposition 65" warning label on products that contain chemicals the state has identified as cancer-causing.
Read EWG's news release about the President's Cancer Panel report.
Have a Coke and a Smile? Maybe Not.
By Alex Formuzis, EWG Director of Communications
Do big corporations care about what large blocks of their shareholders have to say about company practices? I don't know. I've never worked for one.
But I know politicians do. I've worked for four, and each did their dead-level best to take the pulse of their constituents every single day.
At Coca-Cola's annual shareholders' meeting last month, nearly a quarter of them called on the beverage behemoth to come clean about its use of bisphenol-A (BPA) in the linings of its cans. These concerned investors voted for a resolution urging Coke to make public how it is responding to the growing public anxiety over its use of the toxic, gender-bending chemical.
Coke thinks shareholders don't need to know - even though they asked
Coke, being Coke, decided that this wasn't information that those who invest in the company should be privy to.
"We do not believe the information requested in the proposal would be useful to our shareholders," a spokesman for the company said in a statement.
Why on Earth would shareholders or future investors need to know about what industrial pollutants are in the products their customers drink?
Ignoring BPA is bad business
Michael Passoff, a spokesman for As You Sow, one of three organizations promoting corporate social responsibility that pushed the resolution, drove home an important point:
"Coke should be concerned about where these resolutions are headed over the long term. The main implication of the resolution is that Coke is an industry laggard, and shareholders like to invest their money with leaders not laggards."
Passoff noted that this was only the first of many BPA resolutions that the company's shareholders will vote on.
Coke's trying to stop state BPA bans - but it's not working
Last year, Coca-Cola, several of its competitors in the beverage biz and chemical industry representatives met at a D.C. social club where they hatched a plot to kill state-level efforts to restrict the use of BPA in certain products designed for young children. (It isn't working, by the way).
Not long after word of the closed-door meeting broke in the press, EWG president Ken Cook sent a letter to Coke's Chairman and CEO, Muhtar Kent, calling on him to take immediate steps to reduce children's exposure to BPA. The next month, several top execs from the Atlanta office jumped on a plane to D.C. for a two-hour meeting with EWG -- where they assured my colleagues that they understood our concerns and were trying hard to find an alternative to BPA.
EWG's advice to Coke
Try harder. That's what every teacher I've ever had told me, and that's what your shareholders are telling you.
[Thanks to dan1710 on Flickr for the can image]
Should state employees be drinking bottled water? On your dime?
You may have kicked the bottled water habit, but has your state government?
EWG has exposed the many downsides of bottled water, from low quality to high costs, piles of plastic waste to inadequate regulation. The new Story of Bottled Water video sums up the saga nicely.
The message hasn't reached most of our state capitols
Of all the things they could be funding (my kids' education, for example), states are spending taxpayer dollars on bottled water (yes, even though they're responsible for your public drinking water infrastructure!) - and not just for those understandable emergency situations or parts of the state where the water isn't drinkable.
According to an analysis by EWG partner Corporate Accountability International (CAI), states are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on bottled drinking water for state employees (can you say: state budget crisis?).
Here's an idea: Use the money for our public water systems
Many public water systems are in desperate need of costly upgrades - which states can't afford. It would make good sense to cut bottled water expenditures and spend it on unfunded infrastructure upgrades, instead.
While the amount being spent on bottled water isn't enough to fill states' (huge) infrastructure funding gaps, savings of any kind are important for state budgets these days (especially those with nothing but positive outcomes), and any additional funding for our failing water systems is welcome.
Plus, states shouldn't send the message that their tap water isn't good enough for state employees to drink. Bottled water companies already create that misperception to their benefit - and the detriment of tap water, which has an image problem.
Some local governments are getting off the bottle
Three states (Illinois, New York, and Virginia) and more than 100 cities have taken steps to cut spending on bottled water. For example, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom passed an executive order that phases out city spending on bottled water and invests the recouped funds in the city's public water system. As a result, the city is saving $500,000 a year simply by not buying bottled water. As the CAI report notes,
"...spending taxpayer money on bottled water is an unnecessary expense that sends the wrong message about the importance of the public water systems cities are entrusted to maintain."
So it's not just about ditching the silly bottled water, it's about the very serious job of maintaining the nation's drinking water systems, a lot of which are in bad shape.
New York has made the most progress by directing state agencies to phase out the purchase and use of single-serve and "large format" bottles. Governor David A. Patterson states his reasoning for taking action - which EWG applauds:
"Taxpayers have spent billions of dollars to ensure that we have clean drinking water supplies. If we are going to make such significant investments, we should reap the benefits and use that water."
Want to know more?
Read Corporate Accountbiity's Getting States Off the Bottle report. If you live in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania or Vermont, it'll tell you who's supplying the bottled water, what state agencies are buying it, and what the state could be doing instead.
And by all means, kick the bottled water habit if you haven't already. It's probably one of the easier vices to drop, right?
