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
On BPA: Protecting the Bottom Line Over Public Health
Encourage California to Green its Cleaners - and its Air
Common cosmetics ingredient can harm sperm
TEDx Great Pacific Garbage Patch: 11.6.10
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
Tell Congress: Pass the Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act
By David DeGennaro, EWG Legislative Analyst
With the aftershocks from this month's midterm election still reverberating around the nation, the "lame-duck" Congress returning to Washington for one last week's work is largely ready to punt most major issues over to next year. But it still has the opportunity to finish a very important task this week by passing the Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act.
This is a historic opportunity for kids - let's seize it
This bill represents an historic opportunity to improve the health of children across the country. The legislation is a renewal of the Child Nutrition Act, which Congress takes up every few years. This year's version has been beefed up in response to the dual national scourges of rising hunger and epidemic childhood obesity. While seemingly contradictory, both problems are rooted in the lack of access to a steady supply of affordable, healthy food.
The bill would go a long way toward relieving some of the nutrition deficits encountered by many children in many ways. It would, among other things:
- expand the federal free and reduced-price school lunch program to reach many more low-income students;
- increase the number of school breakfasts, after-school meals and summer lunches so that kids have the nutrition they need to succeed all day and throughout the year;
- improve nutrition for kids of all economic backgrounds by updating school lunch nutrition standards and providing additional training for lunchroom workers;
- provide additional funding for farm-to-cafeteria programs that connect kids to healthy local produce; and
- make the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) feeding program healthier and easier to use.
There is, of course, a cost
All of this will cost something, of course -- $4.5 billion over the next ten years. This is less than half of the $10 billion requested by First Lady Michelle Obama and the President, but it would be a good start on the massive hunger and obesity challenges we face.
But the legislation has not had a smooth path so far, mostly because of the increased cost. Originally, the Senate Agriculture Committee proposed cutting farm conservation funding to supply much of the additional nutrition act money, which EWG and others argued was the wrong way to go. Clean air and water should not be traded away in the quest for healthy meals for kids; simply reducing wasteful farm subsidies would provide plenty of money to fund Obama's full request.
The full Senate, instead, settled on an equally distasteful method of paying the tab, deciding to phase out increases to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called the Food Stamp program) that were included in last year's economic stimulus package. Although we feel it is completely counterproductive to give kids healthier meals at school only to make it harder for them to get adequate food at home, it seems this is a compromise we may be forced to accept.
Given the increasing focus on the federal budget deficit, particularly among the Republican lawmakers who will take control of the House of Representatives in January, it is highly unlikely that funding increases for nutrition will stand any chance of passage in the next Congress. Our kids need these improvements now and cannot wait for a more favorable political climate to return, possibly years down the line. President Obama and Agriculture Secretary Vilsack have pledged to use whatever means they can to prevent or limit any cuts in SNAP, and the current Congressional leadership has promised to try to unwind these cuts when they begin to be implemented in the years to come.
Tell Congress: Now is the time!
In order for this bill to make it to the President's desk, the House needs to pass it this week. Since it is likely to be a close vote, Representatives need to hear from their constituents that the bill is vital to them, and that the House must get it done before its time is up. They also need to reject any attempts to weaken or block the bill, such as through a motion to recommit, which would in effect kill it for this year.
Please write or call your House member today and tell them the health of our children is too important for this lame duck to ignore.
European Union Stands Up for Infants
By Leeann Brown, EWG Press AssociateJust a week after a few members of Congress buckled to chemical industry interests and blocked language that would have banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, the European Union is showing the courage to do the right thing for babies' health. Officials announced Friday (Nov. 26) that as of June of next year, baby bottles with -- you guessed it, BPA -- can no longer be sold in the 27 EU countries.
Yes, that's right, our Congress -- well no, not our entire congress, but a few key Republicans (including Richard Burr of North Carolina), decided to favor the interests of the American Chemistry Council's companies rather than the wellbeing of American infants. Those companies churn out billions of pounds of BPA a year, and they're determined to protect the bottom line - whatever the cost.
What led the Europeans to finalize this action plan for BPA? They cited data from recent studies that reaffirm BPA's potential to disrupt the immune system, stimulate tumor growth and interfere with proper development of young children. That same data is available on this side of the ocean, but that apparently doesn't matter to the Chemistry Council, or its friends in the US Senate, who blocked a deal to add the limited BPA ban to pending food safety legislation.
Environmental Working Group knows that reducing children's exposure to this plastics chemical is crucial to protecting the health of our young. EWG's Body Burden studies have found BPA in the umbilical cord blood of newborns -- proof that babies are being born pre-polluted with this toxic chemical. Do they really need any additional doses once they're born? We don't think so.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has been tirelessly fighting to limit BPA exposure nationwide, but she couldn't overcome the chemical companies' resistance this time. But the fight is far from over.
"This
action in the European Union just reinvigorates EWG's commitment to eliminate
human exposure to BPA," said EWG President Ken Cook.
Stay tuned.
Polluting babies? It just takes a phone call
By Alex Formuzis, EWG Vice-President for Media RelationsRaw political power was on display last week in the U.S. Senate. The "world's greatest deliberative body" had just completed two years of negotiations over legislation to safeguard the nation's food supply, and for the first time Congress was poised to take a moderate step in the right direction by restricting the use of the plastics chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles and infants' sippy cups.
On Turkeys: Arsenic In, Arsenic Out
By Lisa Frack, with Sonya Lunder and Rebecca Sutton, PhD
There's a lot to think about when you're buying that Thanksgiving turkey: how many pounds for the number of guests, how far in advance you need to order it (and from where?), whether it's local, whether you also need a tofurkey or some such, too, for those who don't eat the real deal, and last but not least, what to stuff the thing with.
But before you sit down and say, "Pass the cranberry sauce, please," don't forget the arsenic.
The what, you say? Yes, the arsenic.
In addition to the fact that turkey meat itself contains arsenic (as do plenty of other foods), the arsenic that turkeys (and chickens) eat in their feed winds up in their waste, which then makes its way onto our farm fields as fertilizer and into our soil and water as a toxic contaminant.
It turns out that poultry feed is a major ongoing source of arsenic in the
environment. While it might sound alarming that there's arsenic in your
chicken sandwich and your Thanksgiving dinner, it's just one harmful
consequence of the conventional poultry industry's arsenic addiction.
Why are chickens and turkeys being fed arsenic?
Poultry producers often feed their birds antibiotics to combat parasites and enhance the bird's pink color (for eye appeal to consumers), and one antibiotic contains arsenic.
How do arsenic-eating chickens & turkeys pollute the environment, our food and our water?
Poultry waste is widely used as fertilizer, which of course wends its way right into nearby waterways -- and eventually distant ones, too -- contaminating them as well as the food grown on those fields.
The Chesapeake Bay is a perfect example of this, with its numerous poultry-raising factory farms. Some large poultry producers claim to have voluntarily stopped using feed with arsenic, but tests show that not to be a sure bet. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation summarizes the problem well:
"Science tells us that the arsenic in chicken feed becomes concentrated in the birds' manure. Manure is commonly spread on cropland around the Chesapeake Bay, and when the arsenic in the manure degrades it can become harmful.Researchers at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health have expressed concern that arsenic in chicken litter may be a risk to human health, either through exposure of poultry-house workers to airborne arsenic, or through contamination of local soils and or groundwater."
Is anyone working to remove arsenic from poultry feed?
Yes. In fact, we're pleased to see that the state of Maryland currently moving to ban arsenic from poultry feed. The European Union banned it in 1999, and last year about this time Rep. Steve Israel of New York introduced the Poison-Free Poultry Act of 2009. It didn't pass -- though we wish it had.
Some poultry producers say they have voluntarily stopped using the arsenic, but subsequent tests and oddly high sales volumes of the arsenic-containing feed (Roxarsone) suggest that may not be the case (shocking, we know).
What can you do? Buy a better bird.
While the critical step needed here is to ban arsenic in poultry feed, as Europe has done, poultry eaters can vote with our forks for clean water and safer foods. How? Simple:
- Buy organic or antibiotic-free poultry (starting with your Thanksgiving turkey!), because neither is fed arsenic-laden antibiotics. As is so often the case, eating for your own health is a win for the environment, too.
- Support state and federal bans on arsenic-laced feed.
- Spread the word! When more people are aware and care, markets and policy changes happen faster.
Happy (arsenic free) Thanksgiving!
[Thanks to Flickr and minimalistphotography101 for the turkey pic]
On BPA: Protecting the Bottom Line Over Public Health
By Jason Rano, EWG Senior Legislative AnalystEncourage California to Green its Cleaners - and its Air
Good news: There's a surprising silver (er, green) lining to California's infamous smog problem.
Back in 1989, the state's Air Resources Board decided to do something about the pollution created by cleaning supplies, cosmetics and other common consumer products. This also helped California's efforts to meet federal ozone standards when they came in, and over the last two decades this program has periodically set new standards that push industries to make greener, safer goods.
This week, the agency may take another step for clean air and our health, and YOU can help make that happen.
California's "smog rules" have already led to significantly greener products. For example, in recent years the state's actions have pushed manufacturers to:
- ratchet down the amount of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released by cleaning supplies, air fresheners, paint thinners and many other everyday products. VOCs are a broad category of air contaminants that contribute to smog -- check out EWG's cheat sheet on VOCs for more information.
- eliminate ingredients with high potential to contribute to global warming in a variety of consumer products, from aerosol air fresheners to multi-purpose solvents and paint thinners.
- halt the use of toxic perchloroethylene for dry cleaning. Even brief exposure to high levels of "perc" can cause neurological symptoms including headache, dizziness and confusion. Long-term exposure is linked to kidney and liver damage and cancer.
Actions taken in California often lead to greener products nationwide, as many companies prefer to make a single formulation that can be sold anywhere -- and the state's large market share tends to guide industry decisions.
This Week, Take a Stand for Stronger Standards
On Thursday (Nov. 18), the Air Resources Board will vote on its latest consumer product regulations. The proposed standards are a significant step forward. If passed, they will:
- ban use of alkylphenol ethoxylates in cleaning supplies. These chemicals break down into alkylphenols, potent hormone-disrupting chemicals that have been found in the bodies of at least 51 percent of Americans tested. They contaminate rivers, lakes and the ocean, harming aquatic life. The European Union and Canada have already banned these chemicals in cleaning products, but no action has been taken in the U.S.
- expand to more types of consumer products the bans of both "perc" and chemicals with high potential to increase global warming (by staying in the atmosphere and absorbing warmth once released, like C02, but at least 150 times worse!).
- set new, lower VOC standards for general purpose cleaning supplies as well as those used for windows, ovens and grills, furniture and metal. Other products covered by the proposed VOC standards include insecticides, heavy-duty hand cleaners, spot removers and lubricants.
Show your support for these standards today! Email the CA Air Resources Board by noon on Wednesday (Nov. 17).
Here's some sample text. It's even more effective if you customize or write your own email, of course!
I am a California supporter of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) who wants cleaner air. I urge the California Air Resources Board to adopt the 2010 Consumer Products Regulation Amendments. These amendments would reduce smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in cleaning supplies and many other consumer goods.
They would also create product-specific bans of key ingredients with significant health or environmental concerns, including alkylphenol ethoxylates, perchloroethylene and chemicals with high potential to worsen global warming.
I encourage you to strongly regulate and reduce the harmful chemicals in consumer products. In doing so, we can set an important precedent in protecting the health of families and workers -- not only in our state but nationwide as well.
I appreciate the protections you have already put into place -- thank you for taking air pollution and our health seriously!
Common cosmetics ingredient can harm sperm
By Nneka Leiba, EWG Research Analyst
Exposure to butylparaben, an ingredient common in personal care products, has been associated with DNA damage in men's sperm, according to an important new study led by John Meeker of the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
The study, published Sept. 28 by the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, also found that the plastic chemical BPA, a synthetic estrogen, damaged DNA in sperm.
The research team, a collaboration of scientists from the University of Michigan, Harvard School of Public Health and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called for further investigation of the implications for human health of butylparaben.
Biomonitoring shows these chemicals in our bodies
One member of the team is the CDC's Antonia Calafat, a pioneer in the field of biomonitoring, in which blood and urine tests of thousands of Americans are analyzed to determine population-wide exposure to environmental chemicals. The CDC's Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, released last July, found parabens and BPA in more than 90 percent of Americans tested, with significantly higher concentrations of both chemicals in women compared to men.
Both substances are widespread pollutants in people. An EWG biomonitoring study released in September 2008 detected parabens in the urine of all of 20 teen girls tested. A 2009 EWG study of umbilical cord blood of minority newborns found BPA in 9 of 10 samples.
Ubiquitous chemicals
These figures reflect the ubiquitous use of these chemicals in consumer products. Parabens are used to control bacteria and mold and extend the shelf lives of a wide variety of cosmetics and body care products, including moisturizers, face and skin cleansers, shampoos, conditioners, sunscreens, deodorants and antiperspirants, shaving gels, toothpastes and makeup. They also turn up in some foods and pharmaceuticals.
Skin Deep, EWG's cosmetics safety database, indicates that parabens are in almost half of the 60,000-plus products listed, and butylparaben is in almost 3,000 products. You can search the database for paraben-free products here.
What's so bad about parabens?
Previous studies have found that parabens can cause skin irritation, allergic reactions, reproductive health problems and cancer, depending on the form of paraben. Public health experts have been particularly concerned about the longer chain parabens -- butylparaben, isopropylparaben, isobutylparaben and propylparaben -- because studies have shown that they can mimic the hormone estrogen and disrupt normal function of the hormone system.
Ethylparaben and methylparaben, the shorter chained parabens, appear to have few associated hazards and weaker endocrine disruption potency.
Parabens are also linked to ecological harm; low levels of butylparaben can kill coral, according to Roberto Danovaro and a team of researchers from Polytechnic University of the Marche in Italy.
So what's a cosmetics user to do?
Some companies have already moved away from parabens. But they can still be found in some personal care products. Search Skin Deep to find products without them.
There is much that scientists DON'T know about how the body reacts to parabens. But consumers don't need to wait for definitive conclusions - you can (and should!) read labels carefully and vote with your pocketbook. That way, you'll protect your family and help shift the market towards safer products.
TEDx Great Pacific Garbage Patch: 11.6.10
EWG President Ken Cook is in Los Angeles on Saturday, November 6th to talk about plastic at the TEDx Great Pacific Garbage Patch event. Since we can't all be in Los Angeles on November 6th, why not watch the event right here on Enviroblog?
Ken is scheduled to talk from 11:10-11:55 AM (pacific) about plastic pollution and public health. Based on EWG's extensive research about human body burden, he will focus on the impacts of plastic pollution in our bodies.
Ken joins a terrific panel that includes Stacy Malkan (Campaign for Safe Cosmetics), Arlene Blum (Green Science Policy Institute) and Jeanna Rizzo (Breast Cancer Fund).
You can watch the live stream here on Saturday, November 6th from 8:30 AM to 6 PM pacific (or find a watch party near you).
Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper
Today (Thursday, November 4) we chat about healthy school lunches - how to pack 'em and how to fix our broken school lunch programs - with Chef Ann Cooper, The Renegade Lunch Lady.
Join us by clicking here - we're live online from 2 to 3 PM Eastern.
Bring your experiences and questions with you!
School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!
By Rebecca Sutton, EWG Senior Scientist
Whether your child eats the school lunch or your own hand-packed version, there's a chance she might not be getting enough fruits and veggies. U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics show that American adults and teens are chronic under-eaters when it comes to produce (shocking, right?).
And while we likely do a better job with our little ones, per capita annual consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables has been roughly flat for the past two decades.
About those pesticides...
Of course, a concerned parent piling produce into lunch boxes might also be pondering the trace levels of pesticides that could be present. It's a valid concern: USDA research shows that pesticides are detected in 7 of every 10 fruit and vegetable samples tested. Very little is known about the safety of real-world pesticide exposures, but the available studies of people point to increased risks of neurological damage in children. While this is unsettling, the answer is not skipping the produce.
So what's a parent to do?
1. Buy organic if you can. Yes, those organic peaches and apples are more expensive, but they're a worthwhile investment - especially if you're pregnant or feeding kids. Exposure to toxic chemicals - such as pesticides - is especially risky for smaller, still-developing bodies.
2. Buy organic when it matters most. Every year EWG ranks popular fruits and vegetables based on the amount of pesticide residues found on them. Sweet peas, mangos and avocados, for example, are all on EWG's "Clean 15" list, meaning they have the lowest levels of pesticide residue. Celery, peaches and strawberries are among the "Dirty Dozen" with the highest levels. When budgeting your produce dollars, you can feel better about buying conventional when you know which ones have lower pesticide residues.
Download EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce and the handy iPhone app at FoodNews.org. You can get a grocery bag tag for a small donation, too.
3. Take a trip to the farmers' market. Buying local doesn't necessarily mean "pesticide-free," but it does give you the chance to talk to the farmers themselves and find out what growing methods they use. Small farms may not always be certified organic by the USDA, but sometimes they use little or no synthetic chemicals.
Here are a few low-pesticide fruits and veggies we'd like to see in more school lunches, whether packed by parents or offered in the cafeteria:
- Melon (cantaloupe, watermelon, honeydew): High in vitamin C and potassium, cubes of these sweet, crunchy treats are easy to pack in a lunchbox or scoop onto a cafeteria plate.
- Cabbage: Full of B and C vitamins and fiber, cabbage goes great in salads and coleslaw and can be stuffed and baked.
- Sweet corn: I'm happy to chomp on a fresh, sweet ear of corn, even raw, though this might not be an option for kids who're losing or have lost a baby tooth in front. Off the cob and cooked, corn is tasty hot or cold.
With all this pesticide talk, let's be clear about the benefits of produce: The health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure. EWG's Shopper's Guide can help reduce exposures to pesticides as much as possible for families wisely seeking to eat more fresh fruits and vegetables. Get the straight scoop about pesticides and produce from Dr. Weil in this short video.
Learn more about healthy school lunches - and the public policies that affect them - from Chef Ann Cooper, also known as "The Renegade Lunch Lady," on EWG's live online chat about healthy school lunches Thursday, November 4, from 2-3 PM Eastern.
This post originally appeared on Dr. Greene.com
Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars
By Alex Formuzis, EWG V-P for Media Relations
Pro sports teams regularly use signing bonuses to lure the star athletes they want. Now some Texas school districts are taking the bait, too. But the money isn't coming from The Dallas Cowboys; it's being dangled by energy companies drilling for natural gas atop a large swath of North Texas called the Barnett Shale.
Last week (Oct. 24), the Denton Record Chronicle reported that:
In 2008, the Argyle school district signed leases with Hillwood and Williams Production allowing gas exploration on about 110 acres of district-owned property. To date, the district has received $680,681.25 in revenue from the leases, including royalty and bonus payments, according to district records obtained through an open records request.
But along with the substantial amount of money the school district hauled in from its arrangement came some side effects that the students are now feeling. As Lowell Brown and Britney Tabor wrote:
Since gas drilling began near Argyle High School in recent weeks, her (Kelly Gant) daughter has experienced severe symptoms of asthma, a condition she had controlled for years, Gant said. Twice in the last two weeks, Gant said, she had to pull her daughter out of high school marching band practices because of dense fumes on the field.Her daughter was dizzy, jittery. Her head ached and she couldn't concentrate. "She said, 'Mom, I just feel like pacing and I don't understand it,'" Gant said.
According to the article, reports of students suffering nose bleeds and complaining about feeling dizzy and disoriented started appearing in early October on a blog set up by the Argyle-Bartonville Communities Alliance - a group of concerned residents who are working to halt further natural gas drilling in the area.
Another new drilling rig near a school
On Sept. 27, the Forth Worth Star-Telegram's Robert Cadwallader reported that Carrizo Oil and Gas - another Texas-based company, had set up a rig near South Davis Elementary in nearby Arlington, Texas. In late September, the school board gave the go-ahead to the company to drill under the school to reach its "lease pool" of natural gas, which is located under another property in the area. The school district and Carrizo recently settled a lawsuit in which the district had argued the company owed it $3 million in bonuses.
It's not clear whether the companies plan to use a controversial natural gas extraction technique called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The school districts ought to do their homework and ask, because according to studies by the Environmental Working Group, the fracking process injects large volumes of several dozen chemicals listed or regulated as hazardous substances under six federal statutes, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Superfund, but are largely exempted from these laws when used in oil and gas drilling.
Benzene at school, anyone?
Last January tests conducted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) found elevated levels of benzene near a number of drilling operations. Benzene is one of the toxic chemicals used in fracking. Chronic exposure to benzene is known to cause leukemia and other blood diseases. People are primarily exposed through breathing urban air, automobile exhaust and cigarette smoke.
Hillwood International Energy appears to be a privately held company. Carizzo is publicly traded, and its 2009 annual report describes the risks of its exploration and drilling operations in disquieting terms:
We are subject to various operating and other casualty risks that could result in liability exposure or the loss of production and revenues.The natural gas and oil business involves operating hazards such as: well blowouts; mechanical failures; explosions; uncontrollable flows of oil, natural gas or well fluids; fires; geologic formations with abnormal pressures; pipeline ruptures or spills; releases of toxic gases; and other environmental hazards and risks. Any of these hazards and risks can result in the loss of hydrocarbons, environmental pollution, personal injury claims and other damage to our properties and the property of others.
"You can't put a price on keeping our kids healthy," said Susan Knoll, who is a member of the Argyle-Bartonville Communities Alliance fighting the drilling operations.
Agreed. Exposing school children to mix of toxic chemicals, or to the slightest possibility of any of these catastrophic events, seems like the height of irresponsibility.
[Thanks to cafemama for the playground pic]
