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
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
FCC Softpedals Cell Phone Radiation
By Olga Naidenko, PhD, EWG Senior Scientist
Battle lines are being drawn. Alliances formed. And as the cell phone industry wages war against San Francisco over its cell phone-labeling ordinance, many are looking east to see if the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will support or hinder consumers' right to know information about cell phone radiation levels.
When Mayor Gavin Newsom signed into law the Cell Phone Right-to-Know Ordinance in July, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to require retailers to display at the point-of-sale cell phones' radiation, as expressed by Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), the industry standard measure of radiofrequency energy absorbed by the body of a person using a cell phone.
Surprise! The cell phone industry doesn't love the new law
CTIA - The Wireless Association filed a lawsuit against San Francisco seeking a federal judicial order to bar the city from enforcing the law. The trade group also announced shortly after the ordinance passed that after its annual convention in San Francisco next month, it would seek a new (presumably less consumer-friendly) venue for its meetings "for the foreseeable future." Punishment by money, pure and simple.
FCC follows industry's playbook
Last week, in a suspicious coincidence - or is it a coincidence? - FCC overhauled its website to downplay the health risks of cell phone emissions. It did so the very same day citizens in nearby Burlingame met to debate a right-to-know ordinance similar to San Francisco's, and the same week San Francisco officials publicly released information about their plans to carry out the new ordinance. Meanwhile, local governments in Arcata, California and Portland, Oregon were considering measures similar to the San Franciso law.
The FCC's altered webpage, produced under the aegis of the FCC's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, essentially copies and pastes the industry position. It is full of internal inconsistencies and at odds with latest research on cell phone radiation. See for yourself in EWG's detailed critique of the FCC's new website.
The revised FCC website devotes considerable space to casting doubt on the usefulness of comparing maximum SAR values for determining potential health risks for consumers. Yet this exercise raises a pointed question: if the FCC is not sure that SAR tests are effective for determining health risks, how can the agency say with confidence that cell phones are safe?
It comes down to this: the FCC is following the industry's rulebook. If the agency has doubts about SAR values, then it should overhaul its testing rules and come up with a better way of measuring cell phone radiation exposure. In the meantime, the FCC must remember who's paying its bills - the U.S. taxpayers (that's you!) - and defend the consumer's right to know about the products on American store shelves.
To get to the bottom of this, EWG filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking copies of all FCC records relating to the development and drafting of the FCC's revised "Wireless Devices and Health Concerns" page and its new page, entitled "SAR for Cell Phones: What It Means for You." So stay tuned.
You can download our 9.29.10 FOIA request here: EWG 9.29.10 FOIA request to FCC re SAR Consumer Information.pdf
Nanosilver in your underwear? We hope not.
Environmental Working Group (EWG) recently sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opposing its proposal to approve a Swiss nanosilver textile coating for sale in the U.S.
EPA announced last month it was considering the application of the Swiss company HeiQ Materials Ag to market the coating, called HeiQ AGS-20, as an antimicrobial treatment to help control odor in clothing, including children's athletic wear. EPA proposed to give the Swiss company a "conditional" approval, lasting four years, while the agency explores nanosilver's possible implications for human health and environmental harm:
In comments filed with EPA on September 14th, EWG said:
The agency's willingness to introduce this product on the American market is simply baffling. Even as it proposes to grant the Swiss nanosilver coating access to the U.S. market for the next four years under a conditional registration, the agency expresses many qualms about its potential to harm people and the environment.The proposal acknowledges bluntly that EPA "lacks information to conduct a complete assessment of the potential risks to human health and the environmental associated with the use of AGS-20," that there is "considerable uncertainty about the risk assessment" and that "more extensive product chemistry, toxicology, exposure, and environmental data are necessary to... provide an accurate assessment of the risks.
Not so many pros, plenty of cons
Nanosilver consists of manufactured, nanometer-scale particles of silver. According to research studies, these particles can be toxic to cells that develop into eggs or sperm in mammals. Recent studies also suggest that nanoparticles may penetrate the skin, cross cell membranes to reach the interior of cells, enter the brain through the blood-brain barrier and may be toxic when inhaled, especially to people with respiratory diseases such as asthma.
Many companies infuse athletic clothing with antimicrobial coatings, advertising them as effective in reducing odor. Nanosilver can kill bacteria on contact, but washing clothes regularly works just as well. The hygiene advantages of nanosilver-treated articles are slim and may be temporary.
The disadvantages, however, are obvious: people of all ages, including children, would be exposed to a new nanosilver formulation while wearing treated clothes. Nanosilver can migrate into washing machines and onto other clothing, into wash water and from there into the general water supply. It can contaminate ground waters and animal and plant habitat. Once nanosilver pollutes the environment, reversing that contamination is very likely impossible.
Not now, please
Until EPA develops a solid scientific basis for assuring the public that nanosilver presents no danger to people and the environment, EWG argues that the Swiss company should not be granted a permit to market its textile coating.
Read our full comments to the EPA here: EWG_nanosilver_comments.pdf
Thanks to Flickr CC and Poiseon Bild & Text for the image.
Yes we can - and should - make our food safer
By Ken Cook, EWG Founder & President
We're all used to hearing Big Food and Big Ag brag about America having "the safest food supply in the world," usually as a warm-up for complaining that EWG and other critics of our food system are, well, out to lunch. But the facts about food safety - food poisoning in particular - are nothing for the richest country in the world to crow about.
The US food safety problem
According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), every year more than 76 million Americans get sick because of something they ate. Some 325,000 people are hospitalized and 5,000 die from food-borne illnesses. At least half the reported cases involve children. A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts Produce Safety Project estimates the total cost of food-related sickness at more than $150 billion annually.
U.S. food producers have issued 85 food recalls since July 2009. Most recently, more than half a billion eggs from just two mega-farms were pulled from store shelves. The problems are too many and have been around for far too long to list here.
Relief is in sight
The Congress is poised to approve sweeping reforms that would allow the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and food processors and producers to identify possible contamination and take immediate action to protect large numbers of people from sickness or death.
The Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510) authored by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and supported by a long list of public health, environmental and consumer watchdog groups, is expected to come up for a Senate vote in the next week or so. The House of Representatives passed its version of a food safety bill earlier this year.
The Durbin bill would:
- Require food processors to anticipate and prevent possible contamination in the food production process.
- Increase FDA inspections of food-processing plants based on risk associated with a particular product.
- Require imported food to meet the same safety standards as domestic food.
- Establish science-based minimum standards for safe fresh produce farming.
- Empower FDA to order mandatory recalls.
Rumors and reality
Internet rumors that the bill would kill small farms, eliminate farmers' markets, prohibit home gardens or mandate the use of GMOs or pesticides flat out are not true. Moreover, the bill offers significant protections for small operations. It would:
- Ensure that FDA produce regulations do not conflict with organic requirements or duplicate other rules--something vitally important to EWG, which has played a major role fostering the establishment and growth of the organic food industry in this country.
- Require FDA to consider the impact of regulation on conservation and on small and diverse farms.
- Exempt small operators who produce food for farmers' markets, bake sales, directly for restaurants or for their own consumption from new recordkeeping requirements levied on large operations.
- Limit FDA's rule-making authority to foods it already regulates.
- Give small processors additional time to comply with new safety practices and guidelines.
- Require FDA to minimize paperwork for small processors.
- Give FDA discretion to limit safety standards for small businesses that produce or harvest low-risk food.
- Provide training and technical assistance grants to small farmers and processors to help them comply with the new law.
This legislation will benefit small farmers by helping FDA trace the source of an outbreak more quickly, so that other producers and processors won't suffer unnecessarily. We stand ready to support additional amendments to the Senate bill to make more improvements to assist small farms.
Learn more
A trip to the supermarket or a restaurant need not be a roll of the dice. For the first time in more than 70 years we could see a much-needed change in the way our food is produced, processed and inspected. These reforms could protect each and every person.
To read more about the legislation and the overall issue of food safety in the U.S., we encourage readers to visit the website of Make Our Food Safe, a coalition of some of the most well-respected public health, environmental and consumer organizations. These groups have been working together for many years to make our food system safe for everyone.
Thanks to Flickr CC & Darwin Bell for the great egg.
CA Lawmakers Fail to Ban BPA From Kids' Food, Drink
In a victory for the chemical industry and a great loss for the health of California's children, the California State Legislature on Tuesday narrowly failed to pass a bill that would have eliminated the plastics chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic estrogen, from baby bottles, sippy cups and infant formula cans sold in California.
Close isn't good enough
The bill had already passed the State Assembly (July 1, 2010) and the Senate (June 2, 2009), but needed to be approved by the Senate again in what should have been a non-controversial procedural vote.
However, the combination of two ill and absent Democratic Senators - Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach) and Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) - and a heavily funded lobbying campaign by chemical and formula manufacturing companies changed the playing field and ultimately lead to the demise of the the "Toxin-Free Infants and Toddlers Act" (SB 797), authored by State Senator Fran Pavley (D-Santa Monica).
Another one for industry - not children's health
Pavley introduced the legislation in response to mounting scientific evidence that exposure to even minute amounts of BPA endangers human health. More than 200 scientific studies show that BPA exposure, particularly during gestation and early infancy, is associated with a wide range of disorders, including breast and prostate cancer, birth defects, infertility, early puberty in girls, diabetes and obesity. Federal investigators with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have found traces of the chemical in 93 percent of Americans tested.
Renée Sharp, director of EWG's California office, summed up the bad news:
"Once again we see children's health sacrificed to the cold alter of money and influence. Apparently, the fact that the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program, and several other states and countries around the world have expressed serious concern and/or taken action to reduce BPA exposures means little compared to how money talks in Sacramento."
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the chemical and pharmaceutical industries spent more than $5 million to defeat SB 797, and other press reports have exposed how these industries were using "fear tactics" and "befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has said she plans to offer an amendment to landmark food safety legislation currently before Congress that would prohibit the use of BPA in all food and beverage packaging meant for children 3 and under - including cans of infant formula.
EWG, The Breast Cancer Fund and Physicians For Social Responsibility/Los Angeles sponsored the Pavley legislation. We were joined by more than 75 other health, labor, community, environmental ,and consumer protection organizations in support of the measure.
Want to protect yourself and your family from BPA? Get EWG's tips here.
