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
Plastic Pollution Is Everywhere. Including You.
Big Ag's "Celery Calculator" Lowballs Pesticide Risk
Your New Phone: Extra Radiation or Extra Features?
California Green Chemistry rules should be withdrawn
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
EWG's Top 10 Good Environmental News Stories of 2010
By Nils J. Bruzelius, EWG Executive Editor
Ok, our list of the "worst" environmental stories of the year was a bit of a downer. So here are EWG's Top 10 good environmental news stories. Yes, good things happened, too. And on some issues, there was both bad news and good news. That's life.
1. Beginning to take a hard look at fracking
The growth of gas drilling using hydraulic fracturing has been, er, explosive, but it's no longer getting a free pass - from Congress and regulators, in particularly. EWG has been pointing to fracking's potential risk of groundwater contamination for some time, and this year Josh Fox's acclaimed documentary "Gasland" powerfully dramatized the reality of those risks. By year's end, Wyoming had passed a law requiring disclosure of what's in fracking fluids and some drilling companies began voluntarily providing that information. In New York, outgoing Gov. David Paterson extended that state's moratorium on gas drilling until the middle of 2011, at least.
2. Californians stand up for their climate change law
Texas-based oil companies poured millions into a referendum campaign to put the Golden State's path-breaking climate change law into cold storage until the unemployment rate drops to unrealistic levels. It was a hard-fought campaign, but in the end Californians voted overwhelmingly to reject climate change denial. The NO side got more votes than any other individual or issue on the ballot.
3. San Francisco says consumers have a right to know
The city became the first jurisdiction in the U.S. to require that cell phone retailers provide point-of-sale information on how much radiation each model releases, information shoppers can weigh on the spot as they make their buying decisions. EWG was the leading advocate for this ordinance. The cell phone industry fought it hard, and in the aftermath they moved their annual convention out of the city and filed suit to try to block it.
4. Finally, EPA will regulate perchlorate
An ingredient in rocket fuel, this toxic chemical contaminates water, food and milk and is known to disrupt thyroid hormones that are essential to brain development. Concern over its effects has been building for years, but industry and military interests long resisted any regulation, and EPA had declined to step in. But after revisiting the issue this year, EPA announced in October that it will move to set safety limits on the chemical in drinking water.
5. Safer, healthier food for everyone
In December, Congress passed and President Obama signed two hugely important pieces of legislation that should mean fewer cases of food-borne illness and healthier meals for school children. The Food and Drug Administration gained important new powers to monitor and inspect food producers and to order recalls of tainted food. Days earlier, the President signed a bill that renewed and greatly expanded the Child Nutrition Act, which will bring healthier school lunches and breakfasts to many more children from low-income families. It will also provide training on healthy food preparation to cafeteria workers and help schools link up with local farmers who grow fresh produce. These are big steps forward in the battles tainted food, hunger and obesity.
6. States and cities dump BPA
Even though lawmakers on Capitol Hill declined to vote on banning the endocrine-disrupting plastics chemical in baby bottles and sippy cups, a number of states and cities went to bat. Massachusetts is only the most recent state to restrict BPA's use. Ironically, industry has already responded to consumer concerns even when Congress won't. Everywhere you look, products are being labeled "BPA-free." And in response to the new evidence from EWG that cash register receipts can shed BPA, a number of retailers said they would switch to BPA-free paper. The power of the market strikes again.
7. Baby steps toward better controls on toxic chemicals
Legislators introduced long-awaited bills in the House and Senate to update and strengthen the Toxic Substances Control Act, long a signature issue at EWG. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) filed one version and Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) submitted another. While industry and consumer/health groups remain far apart on major details, there may be enough consensus on the law's deficiencies to make action possible in 2011, even in a more conservative Congress.
8. Presidential advisors take a fresh look at cancer causes
The prestigious President's Cancer Panel released a 200-page report in April that concluded that the "true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated," bolstering the argument long made by EWG and others that the conventional medical view that focused mostly on the role of lifestyles and genetics in cancer was too narrow. The panel called for a big increase in funding for studies of environmental carcinogens, and EWG hopes to see action on that front in 2011.
9. Ditching plastic bags, coast to coast
Around the world and across the country, laws that ban or charge for the use of plastic grocery bags are gaining popularity. Once these laws take effect, the often vocal initial opposition tends to fade to a whisper very quickly. It's not a big adjustment for shoppers, and the payoff in reducing litter and the burden on landfills is almost immediate.
10. Some brands take the lid off cleaning ingredients
S.C. Johnson, the privately held maker of major brands including Windex, Nature's Source and Shout, announced around Thanksgiving that it would disclose the ingredients in its cleaning products, and then mounted a big marketing campaign to tout that pledge. In 2010, the cleaning products industry launched a voluntary initiative to begin disclosing more of what's in their products. There's still a long way to go before all products are similarly transparent, but EWG hopes that S.C. Johnson's competitors will respond to consumer demands and follow suit.
Got any positive stories to add?
[Thanks to Flickr CC & striatic for the appropriately positive hand gesture]
EWG's Worst Environmental Stories of 2010
By Nils J. Bruzelius, EWG Executive Editor
We polled our staff to see what stories they thought had the biggest impact, for better or worse. Here are the results:
We'll start with the worst today, so we can end on a cheerier note by year's end:
- BP's Gulf oil spill (includes: slow response, wholesale use of dispersants and secrecy about what's in them)
No surprise that this one topped almost everyone's list. And as in Alaska's Prince William Sound, it will probably be years before we know the full extent of the damage to the Gulf ecosystem and its economy. - BPA, the notorious plastics chemical
There was both bad news and good (see second list) about this ubiquitous endocrine-disrupting substance, which most of us have in our bodies. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) tried valiantly but couldn't get legislation to ban BPA in baby bottles and children's sippy cups through the U.S. Senate. Earlier in the year, research by EWG and others turned up yet another source of exposure - cash register receipts. - Brazilian Blowout
We're not talking about soccer, though Brazil got the boot in the quarterfinals of the World Cup. This is about the hair-straightening product that, according to testing by health agencies in Oregon and Canada, contains high levels of toxic formaldehyde - despite the company's insistence that it's "formaldehyde free." Oregon tested the product after salon workers reported cases of hair loss and skin burns. - Climate change bill dies in the U.S. Senate
In the toxic political climate of Washington, any kind of climate legislation - never mind a cap-and-trade system - >fell victim to a combination of climate skeptics and protectors of the energy status quo. Early hopes for a bipartisan push on measures to combat global warming withered away. - Carcinogenic chromium-6 in your water
EWG tested tap water samples from 35 cities and found this cancer-causing chemical, the one made notorious in the film "Erin Brockovich," in 31 of them. In 25 cities, levels were above those being considered by California health officials for a public health goal, and as the eventual basis for a legal limit. - California's "Green Chemistry" rule is gutted
When regulators announced their rules for implementing the state's pioneering law designed to reduce the use of toxic substances in consumer products and shift toward safer alternatives, the proposal was so weak that even the law's original sponsor renounced it - joining others who called it a Christmas gift to the chemical industry. - Reading, writing and fracking
At a time when municipal budgets are stretched beyond the breaking point, it's not surprising that officials in Texas, Ohio and elsewhere would be the tempted by the revenue they could gain by leasing mineral rights to drilling companies that want to use hydraulic fracturing to pry natural gas from deep rock formations deep beneath school property. They should pay close attention to reports of dizziness, nausea and breathing troubles at schools that have already done it. - Here comes the sun - but no sunscreen rules
It's been more than 32 years since the Food and Drug Administration began to work on rules that would ensure that sunscreens are safe, effective and don't make exaggerated claims. But what's the rush? That's only one full generation that has had to take its chances, if you don't count their parents and grandparents. - Slouching toward chemicals regulation reform
Another bad news/good news story (see next list). Just about everyone agrees that the Toxic Substances Control Act, the 1976 environmental law that has never been updated, is broken. EPA has stepped up enforcement efforts, but the statute gives the agency too little power to protect the public from dangerous industrial chemicals that often get rushed onto the market with little safety testing. There was some hopeful movement in Congress this year, but nowhere near enough. - Feeding at the corn ethanol trough.
Congress wasn't entirely impotent on energy issues. At the very last minute it kept alive the tax credit that pays gas refiners 45 cents a gallon to blend corn ethanol into gasoline, not to mention the excise tax that blocks imports of cheaper Brazilian (sugar cane) ethanol. This makes commodity corn growers happy - at the expense of the environment and consumers.
Check back Thursday, December 30th to see EWG's picks for the BEST environmental stories of the year (because we could all use a little something positive to kick off the new year).
[Thanks to Flickr CC & striatic for the appropriately negative hand gesture]
French law informs, protects cell phone users
By Olga Naidenko, PhD, EWG Senior Scientist
France will soon become the first nation anywhere to require merchants to inform consumers of the radiation levels of cell phones at the point of sale.
The new French cell phone statute, part of a sweeping legislative package called the National Engagement for the Environment, was approved by the French parliament July 12, 2010 and is set to take effect in April 2011.
France's Law Requires SAR Posting, Headsets, and Protects Kids
It requires French electronics stores and other cell phone vendors to post each device's Specific Absorption Rate (or SAR), the standard measure of radiofrequency energy absorbed by the human body.
France's statute requires merchants to display SAR numbers in legible French to give consumers easy access to radiation information for different models (see example, below). It will allow cell phone shoppers looking for a low-SAR model to make on-the-spot comparisons in stores, instead of having to research various models on the Internet, with tools such as Environmental Working Group's cell phone shopping guide.
The French law also requires that all cell phones be sold with a headset, bans cell phone ads aimed at children and adolescents younger than 14 and bars the sale of phones specifically made for kids younger than 6.
Caution and More Research Recommended
Health agencies around the world agree that more research is needed to clarify the potential for health hazards associated with cell phone radiation exposure. Yet because recent studies suggest a link between head and neck tumors and long-term cell phone use, the Swiss, German and British governments all recommend that cell phone users buy low-radiation phones. These and other governments advise other precautionary steps as well, such as wearing headsets and texting instead of talking. [Read EWG's tips on reducing cell phone radiation exposure.]
The US Cell Phone Industry Opposes Posting SAR Values
The U.S. cell phone industry adamantly opposes posting SAR values on the grounds that displaying the numbers creates "the false impression ... that some phones are 'safer' than others based on their radiofrequency (RF) emissions."
By contrast, the French telecommunications industry, represented by the Association Française des Opérateurs Mobiles (AFOM), has begun publishing phones' SAR values in its journals and brochures and on its website.
SAR value shown with Sony Ericsson phone, Swiss store.
In response to concerns from Swiss regulators and Swiss consumer protection groups about cell phone radiation, many manufacturers and cell phone retail shops in Switzerland opted to post SAR values voluntarily either on their devices' labels or on posters in stores (see example, above right).
Good News: U.S. City Requires Point-of-Sale SAR Values
In the U.S., the city of San Francisco this year became the first municipality to require disclosure of cell phone radiation levels at the point of sale. Lawmakers in Berkeley and Burlingame, Calif., and in Philadelphia are exploring similar right-to-know ordinances.
Resources about the French Law:
- Press statement from the Minister of Health and Sports, Roselyne Bachelot-Narquin, on the posting of SAR for mobile phones, October 15, 2010
- Text of the new French ordinance on SAR disclosure at the point of sale
- Roundtable "Radiofrequencies, Health, and the Environment"
- Statement from AFOM, Association française des opérateurs mobiles, on steps to reduce radiation exposure
- News from Switzerland: "Growing radiation from cell phones"
Hexavalent Chromium: 11 Answers for Water Drinkers
By Rebecca Sutton, PhD, EWG Senior Scientist
When you see news reports about a cancer-causing chemical in drinking water everywhere you turn, you probably have a few questions. Of course you can read EWG's full report, but on the off chance you're pressed for time and just want to know the basics, we put together these 11 questions and answers.
1. What is hexavalent chromium?
Hexavalent chromium (or chromium-6) is a highly toxic form of the naturally occurring metal chromium. It is a well-known human carcinogen when inhaled, and recent evidence indicates it can cause stomach or gastrointestinal cancer when ingested in drinking water. However, a different form, trivalent chromium, is an essential nutrient.
People typically are exposed to chromium-6 by consuming contaminated water or food, and in some workplaces by breathing contaminated air. That's a concern especially for those working in metallurgy or leather-tanning facilities. Ingesting or inhaling contaminated soil particles may also be a source of exposure. Widespread industrial use has led to detections of hexavalent chromium in two-thirds of current or former Superfund toxic waste sites.
2. How does it get into tap water?
Chromium-6 can get into water as a result of industrial contamination from manufacturing facilities, including electroplating factories, leather tanneries and textile manufacturing facilities, or from disposal of fluids used before 1990 in cooling towers. It also occurs naturally in some minerals. The widely used tap water disinfectant chlorine can transform trivalent chromium into the toxic hexavalent form.
3. Why is it a problem?
Exposure in tap water has been linked to cancers of the stomach and gastrointestinal tract in both animals and people. California's Environmental Protection Agency has issued a draft public health goal based on the conclusion that levels of chromium-6 greater than 0.06 parts per billion (ppb) in tap water may increase cancer risk.
Some people may be especially susceptible. Fetuses, infants and children are more sensitive to carcinogenic chemicals. In addition, people with less acidic stomachs appear to have a limited ability to convert chromium-6 to the benign trivalent form (chromium-3), putting them at greater risk. Using common antacids and proton pump inhibitors can lower stomach acidity. Other conditions that can inhibit stomach acid production include infection with Helicobacter pylori (a common bacterium linked to ulcers), pernicious anemia, pancreatic tumors, mucolipidosis type IV and some autoimmune diseases.
4. How can I find out if my tap water has hexavalent chromium in it?
California requires water utilities to test and report levels of chromium-6 in their water. For Californians, this is a good way to find out if this contaminant is a concern in your area. Unfortunately, these tests only measure levels at or above 1 ppb, more than 16 times above the suggested public health goal of 0.06 ppb.
Of the 438 community water sources in California that have provided test data to EWG, 223 detected levels above 1 ppb, and 93 detected levels above 5 ppb. This means more than 13.7 million Californians drink tap water contaminated with chromium-6.
Elsewhere, water utilities only test and report levels of total chromium -- which includes both the toxic form and the essential nutrient chromium-3. Moreover, these tests only detect levels at or above 10 ppb, more than 160 times higher than California's proposed public health goal. If your tap water has detectable levels of total chromium, it's quite possible that it has levels of hexavalent chromium that exceed California's suggested public health goal. The ratio of chromium-3 to chromium-6 varies in different water supplies, so it is difficult to estimate how much of each might be in your water.
Contact your local water utility or check EWG's tap water database to learn if chromium has been detected in your tap water.
5. My tap water has high levels of chromium-6. What should I do?
If your tap water contains high levels, your best bet is to install a reverse osmosis filter certified to remove it. Reverse osmosis filters, especially when combined with superior carbon filter technology, are the best way to remove the largest number of contaminants.
EWG assembled a list of reverse osmosis water filters certified to remove hexavalent chromium and available for purchase on Amazon.com.
See EWG's water filter buying guide for more information on how to choose a water filter.
While drinking bottled water might seem like a good way to avoid exposing yourself to hexavalent chromium in tap water, there is no guarantee that bottled water has lower concentrations of this contaminant. If you drink bottled water, choose brands that provide water quality information indicating their water has levels of chromium-6 below 0.06 ppb or that use reverse osmosis filtration to treat their water.
Because infants can be especially sensitive to carcinogenic chemicals, it is particularly important to use safer water when preparing infant formula. Water treated with a reverse osmosis filter will contain fewer contaminants and be safer for babies than bottled water.
6. Can I test my own tap water for chromium-6?
Most commercial water quality laboratories do not offer this test.
7. Besides drinking water, how else can I be exposed?
Other sources of exposure to hexavalent chromium include contaminated food and contaminated workplace air, especially for those working in metallurgy or leather-tanning facilities. Contaminated soil particles may also be a source of exposure via ingestion or inhalation. Widespread industrial use has led to detections of chromium-6 in two-thirds of current or former Superfund sites.
8. Are some people more vulnerable to the effects?
Yes. Fetuses, infants, and children have a higher sensitivity to carcinogenic chemicals. Their developing organ systems are more susceptible to damage from chemical exposures, and less able to detoxify and excrete chemicals.
In addition, people with less acidic stomachs appear to have a limited ability to convert chromium-6 to chromium-3, exposing them to higher levels of the toxic form and putting them at greater risk. Using common antacids and proton pump inhibitors can reduce stomach acidity. Other conditions that can inhibit stomach acid production include infection with Helicobacter pylori (a common bacterium linked to ulcers), pernicious anemia, pancreatic tumors, mucolipidosis type IV and some autoimmune diseases.
9. What other chemicals in my tap water should I be concerned about?
Check out EWG's tap water database for an in-depth look at water contaminants, including drinking water quality information for 48,000 communities in 45 states and the District of Columbia.
10. What is EPA doing to promote safe drinking water?
Not enough. In the case of hexavalent chromium, the EPA has taken no specific action to limit amounts in drinking water. The agency has left in place an inadequate standard for total chromium, set nearly 20 years ago. It does not distinguish between toxic hexavalent and nutritionally essential trivalent chromium and cites "allergic dermatitis" as the only health concern. The agency has not set a new, enforceable drinking water standard for any contaminant since 2001.
Recently, however, the federal government has begun to focus a critical eye on chromium-6 and other water contaminants. EWG recommends that the EPA set a legal limit for hexavalent chromium in drinking water as quickly as possible and require water utility testing to assess exposures nationwide.
11. Is bottled water a safe alternative?
Drinking bottled water might seem like a good way to avoid exposing yourself to hexavalent chromium, but there is no guarantee that bottled water contains less of this contaminant. Furthermore, there is no legal limit for chromium-6 in bottled water, so consumers cannot assume it is free of it. EWG has assessed bottled water quality and the industry's labeling practices and isn't impressed with either. If you drink bottled water, choose brands that provide water quality information indicating that the water has less than 0.06 ppb of chromium-6 or that use reverse osmosis filtration to purify it. Overall, test results strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. As EWG's Jane Houlihan says,
"It's buyer beware with bottle water. The bottled water industry promotes its products as pure and healthy, but our tests show that pollutants in some popular brands match the levels found in some of the nation's most polluted big city tap water systems. Consumers can't trust that what's in the bottle is anything more than processed, pricey tap water."
Plus, there's all that plastic waste.
Plastic Pollution Is Everywhere. Including You.
By Lisa Frack, EWG Social Media Manager
Unless you've been living under a rock, you're aware that plastic creates pollution. And if you've been paying any attention at all to the state of our planet, you've heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, also known as the Pacific Trash Vortex, an appropriately less cutesy name. [Read this now if you have no idea what I'm talking about].
Here's the thing.
Most folks who work to end our plastic habit focus on the environmental impacts -- such as trash, oil use, and manufacturing emissions. All important. EWG looks at it from another angle, too: the plastic pollution inside us. In you. In newborn babies.
Ken Cook added this environmental health perspective to the global conversation about plastics pollution - and what to DO about it - at a recent TEDx event in Los Angeles (called, aptly, TEDx: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch).
Thanks to You Tube, you can catch his talk here:
Not familiar with TEDx events? They're independent gatherings organized under the umbrella of TED - a small non-profit dedicated to sharing riveting talks by remarkable people, free to the world, in person and (of course) on the internet.
Big Ag's "Celery Calculator" Lowballs Pesticide Risk
By Chris Campbell, Brett Lorenzen and Elaine Shannon
Big agribusiness is up in arms over The Dirty Dozen, Environmental Working Group's list of fresh fruits and vegetables that are most likely to carry pesticide residues.
The Dirty Dozen is based on testing of residue levels conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. EWG compiles the results into a user-friendly Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in produce, because we think people have a right to know what's in their food.
A lot of people evidently agree. The Shopper's Guide gets more than 100,000 page views a month -- and it's now become the target of a slick, well-heeled attack campaign by the conventional produce lobby.
The industry's latest counter-offensive, spearheaded by the California-based Alliance for Food and Farming representing major produce trade groups and agricultural chemical vendors, is a pro-pesticide website that goes by the faux-green name, Safe Fruits and Veggies.com. The website asserts:
"The mere 'presence' of pesticide residue does not mean that the food is harmful in any way. Use the calculation tool below to see how many servings a man, woman, teen or child could consume and still not have any adverse effects from pesticide residues."
The "calculation tool" is a real head-scratcher. Take celery, which ranks first - meaning worst - on EWG's Dirty Dozen list. The industry calculator tells us that a child between ages two and five could eat 98,412 "servings" of celery without consuming a dangerous amount of chlorothalonil, the most abundant pesticide found on celery.
Since few small kids want to tuck into a bathtub-size batch of crudités, the website's message is one of reassurance. But a few facts underscore the absurdity of the Alliance's argument. The pesticide lobby makes the false assumptions that:
- Every child is identical and that children are no more sensitive to toxic chemicals than adults -- or laboratory rats.
- A child eating a piece of celery has no other exposures to pesticides and no other fruits and vegetables get dosed with pesticides.
- Pesticides don't interact in the body, potentially bolstering or multiplying one another's toxic effects.
- The pesticide industry and health agencies know everything there is to know about pesticide toxicity.
- A child's serving of celery is a two-inch, seven-gram bit from the end of the stalk - when the CDC says it's more like 60 grams.
Kids need extra protection. Luckily, the Environmental Protection Agency, not the industry, sets pesticide safety standards. The agency starts with the highest pesticide dose found to be safe for a group of laboratory animals, usually around 50 rats. But then it builds in standard safety margins that take into account "inter-species" differences (rats vs. humans), "intra-species" differences among individuals, data gaps and, unless the agency has data proving it's unnecessary, an additional 10-fold safety factor to protect children's developing bodies. By ignoring these factors, the industry's calculation lowballs the risk by a factor of at least 100 and sometimes 1,000. The effect is enormous.
People encounter lots of pesticides, not just one
Kids get exposed to pesticides in lots of ways. Another whopper in the industry's pesticide calculator is the assumption that a child will encounter any one pesticide residue in just one kind of fruit or vegetable and that it isn't used on anything else. Not true.
As just one example, the pesticide chlorothalonil (the chemical on celery singled out by the industry calculator) turns up in around 10 to 20 percent of the green beans, tomatoes, winter squash and cranberries we eat, according to the test data. It has non-food uses, too. Altogether, at least 57 pesticides (or their breakdown products) have each been found in 10 or more kinds of fruits and vegetables. Moreover, pesticides commonly contaminate drinking water. Think about how many pesticides people encounter on any given day, and you can see why federal law requires that pesticide safety standards take into account aggregate exposures from all sources. That bite of celery is just the beginning.
Many pesticides do compound one another's effects. EPA has found that chlorothalonil is unique in the way it damages the stomach and kidneys. At the moment, the EPA safety standard for chlorothalonil assumes that no other pesticide -- and, implicitly, none of the hundreds of other chemicals known to pollute our bodies -- amplifies its harm.
But that's the exception. More typical is the insecticide Dursban. EPA restricted use of this popular bug-killer when it found that its class of pesticides, organophosphates, poses risks to childhood brain development by blocking chemicals that help transmit signals through nerves.
Children are often exposed to many of these pesticides at once. Again, take celery: on average, samples were polluted with residues of four different pesticides. (In 2008, one particular batch of celery tested positive for 13 pesticides.) Since people eat a variety of foods, the chemicals on a bite of celery represent a small fraction of an individual's daily exposures to industrial chemicals. As testing of umbilical cord blood by EWG and others has shown, babies are exposed to a huge array of industrial chemicals in the womb, including substances that can cause cancer, damage the brain and nervous system and cause birth defects or abnormal development. When you pile up even more exposures from food, water and air, the risks can inch up and reach a tipping point.
What we don't know just might hurt us.
Since November 2009, EPA has amended, stopped or suspended the use of about one of every three of the 22,122 pesticide uses it has reviewed. Some fell out of use because when more effective or safer agricultural chemicals came online, but others were shelved over health concerns uncovered by recent research.
The more we test, the more we find. Take lead, for example. Once an ingredient in pesticides for fruit orchards, it is still a common contaminant in tap water and old house paint. The government's "safe" blood lead level for children has dropped six-fold over the past 40 years, with each decrease driven by new studies revealing risks to brain development at ever-lower doses. New science regularly turns up previously unknown pesticide toxicities, and the standard test protocols in rodents can miss health risks for people. The pesticide industry itself conducts most safety tests for its products, submits them to EPA and then defends the product tooth and nail. It might be anything but safe.
You call this a serving?
In coming up with its estimate that a child could eat 98,412 "servings" of celery without running a safety risk from pesticides (leaving aside the issue of a massive stomach ache), the industry's celery calculator assumes that a serving is 7 grams, basically a thin, two-inch slice of a stalk. The CDC says it's more like 60 grams. If your kids are anything like ours, they don't stop after at two inches, especially when there's a scoop of peanut butter or ranch dressing on it.
Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, professor and chairman of the Preventive Medicine Department at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, helped persuade Congress to pass the 1996 pesticide law. He contends that even a 1000-fold safety factor is inadequate for some chemicals, such as organophosphates, that have been linked to developmental disorders of the brain and nervous system. Says Landrigan:
"There appears to be no safe limit for the organophosphates. Exposure in early development, exposure during pregnancy lead to effects on brain development that are quite profound and qualitatively quite different from the toxicity produced by these chemicals in adult animals. The early development of the human brain is probably one of the most complex phenomena in all of nature.The price we play for that great complexity is great vulnerability. There's not much chance to go back and get it right because the whole thing is such a precisely orchestrated dance. That's why exposures even to small doses of chemicals can have devastating effects."
People don't want to gamble with their health and their children's futures. As they become more aware of the consequences of food pollution, they are voting with their pocketbooks. It's no coincidence that organic produce sales have been climbing rapidly, even during a recession. At the end of the day, young families and children - the audience the AFF seems to feel is most affected by EWG's message - are not only eating their vegetables, they are eating more of them, and they are increasingly choosing to buy pesticide-free products. This is the exact result EWG had in mind when it created Dirty Dozen.
If people mistrust the conventional produce and pesticide industries, it's not because of the Dirty Dozen. It's because of the industry's long, sorry history. People don't refuse to eat vegetables because of EWG. They refuse to buy vegetables, if they actually refuse at all, from people they don't trust -- and EWG's Shopper's Guide makes it easier for them to weigh that decision.
Big Ag would do better to spend its money to fix its trust problem ... instead of making it worse by engaging in nonsensical distractions, like the celery calculation. Turning to public relations campaigns as a "solution" only encourages people to distrust them more.
Your New Phone: Extra Radiation or Extra Features?
Most of us want the latest and smartest phones - but not at the price of high cell phone radiation. This season's good news: a batch of smart-smart phones: lower-radiation choices with plenty of features.
Environmental Working Group examined the radiation output (known as the Specific Absorption Rate or "SAR") and overall features of 80 new smart phones. Many higher-functioning phone emit no more radiofrequency radiation than old-school cell phones.LG QuantumSamsung FascinateSamsung MezmerizeSamsung CaptivateSamsung Continuum
Ultimately, Eilperin concluded that while we still rely on our cell phones, both smart and conventional, we should use them differently to reduce our radiation exposure. EWG recommends that consumers act prudently by buying low-emission devices and taking other steps to reduce cell phone radiation exposure, like these:
- Text more, talk less.
- Use a headset.
- Don't talk where reception is poor.
- And, most important: Limit children's cell phone use. Young children's brains absorb twice as much cell phone radiation as those of adults.
California Green Chemistry rules should be withdrawn
By Renee Sharp, EWG California Director
California is supposed to be a leader on all things green. That was certainly Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's message back in September 2008, when he signed two bills (AB 1879 and SB 509) that he said would propel "California to the forefront of the nation and the world with the most comprehensive Green Chemistry program ever established."
But environmental legislation is only as effective as the rules written to implement it. The state's rules for the green chemistry initiative have turned out to be a bait-and-switch ploy. That's why we at EWG joined more than a dozen public health and environmental public interest groups at a press conference at the state capitol last week to denounce them as a holiday gift to the chemical industry.
The new regulations would:
- set an extremely high bar for the state to take action on a dangerous chemical by requiring proof of harm that is difficult to demonstrate when the substance causes subtle changes such as irregularities in infant brain development;
- expand the loophole for proprietary information so that chemical makers can shield even more data on safety testing than in current law;
- exempt chemicals from regulation if found in concentrations of less than 1,000 parts per million;
- fail to provide credible independent scientific review of chemical manufacturers' assessments of alternatives to chemicals under scrutiny;
- offer no fast track to get particularly dangerous chemicals out of products;
- limit actions by the California Department of Toxics Substances Control between now and 2016 to three narrow categories of products;
- place off-limits chemicals that other federal or state programs regulate;
- exempt nanomaterials from regulation.
Harsh critiques from many voices
It's not just EWG and other environmental advocates who object to the new rules. Others authorities who strenuously criticize them include California legislators, scientists, academics, public health officials, businesses, water agencies and many members of the state's own Green Ribbon Science panel.
Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles), author of the Green Chemistry law, announced he "cannot support" the regulations because they "fundamentally alter... the approach called for" by his bill.
Among the harshest critiques filed with the state Department of Toxics Substances Control:
"[T]he current regulations have been diluted to such an extent that they do not achieve the primary objectives of the legislation that initiated them.... [They] do not establish an implementable process as required by the statute, nor do they promote or encourage green chemistry in the state of California."
Ann Blake, PhD, Principal, Environmental & Public Health Consulting
Roger Mc Fadden, Vice President, Senior Scientist, Staples, Inc.
Members, Green Ribbon Science Panel
"[T]he current proposed regulations would not effectively protect our water resources from emerging constituents of concern, may provide a false sense of safety while stalling urgently needed legislative actions addressing the most harmful substances, and leave publicly-owned treatment works and the public at large vulnerable the host of poorly evaluated chemicals used in consumer products."
San Francisco Public Utility Commission
"[T]he Revised Safer Consumer Products Alternatives Regulation does not lead us down a road to safer products."
Bay Area Clean Water Agencies
Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group
"The Post Hearing Changes are substantial and they fundamentally change the proposed regulations.... While many deletions may have been in the spirit of streamlining the regulations, some of these deletions appear to weaken public protections."
Linda Rudolph, MD, MPH
Deputy Director, California Department of Public Health
"With the publication of the Green Chemistry Initiative's final report in 2008, California EPA Secretary Linda Adams declared it a 'far-reaching market-driven strategy with an ambitious aim--the launch of a new chemicals framework and a quantum shift in environmental protection.'In fact, the revised proposed implementing regulations undermine Cal/EPA's ability to accomplish this vision.... As such, we can no longer support these regulations, and we urge DTSC to withdraw them."
Megan R. Schwarzman, MD, MPH and Michael P. Wilson, PhD, MPH
Center for Occupational and Environmental Health at University of California, Berkeley
Members, Green Ribbon Science Panel
Authors of the 2006 report to the California Legislature: "Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation"
"In my view, for DTSC to propose such a dramatically different set of regulations, seemingly out of nowhere and at the last minute, with no input from the Green Ribbon Science Panel seriously undermines the work and value of the Panel.It simply is not a legitimate use of an expert panel to consult with it actively for two years, but then disregard it completely when what seems to be the real, near-final set of regulations is drafted."
Joseph H. Guth, Ph.D., J.D.
U.C. Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry
Member, Green Ribbon Science Panel
"[T]his new version of the implementing regulations for AB 1879 (Regulations) comes as a great surprise to us as it is substantially different from anything the Science Panel has seen and reacted to over these past months."
Debbie Raphael,
Department of the Environment
City and County of San Francisco
Member, Green Ribbon Science Panel
Ken Geiser, Ph.D.
Professor of Work Environment
Co-Director, Lowell Center for Sustainable Production
University of Massachusetts Lowell
Member, Green Ribbon Science Panel
"There is no principled scientific basis for setting this de minimis level. [The 1,000 parts per million level of contamination that would trigger enforcement action.] It fails to recognize the wide range of potency of chemicals and the reality that numerous chemicals exhibit toxicity at levels which are orders of magnitude below the 1,000 parts per million level."
Timothy Malloy
Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Peter Sinsheimer, PhD, MPH
Executive Director, Sustainable Technology & Policy Program
UCLA School of Public Health
With such withering commentary from distinguished experts, the regulations, if enacted, would have no legitimacy. EWG and 32 other organizations are calling on Governor Schwarzenegger to rescind the regulations in their entirety, or the Green Chemistry Initiative that held so much promise for California will become an embarrassment to the state. Read our letter to the Governor. Then email him yourself!
Don't Let Toxic Toys Grinch Your Holiday!
By Lisa Frack with Sonya Lunder
There may be 12 days of Christmas and eight days of Hannukah, but EWG has boiled the shopping hullabaloo down to the number five: five ways to detox your holiday shopping. And, no, our list does not include a golden ring. (We're not keen on jewelry for kids.)
Finding great gifts for the kids in your life should be fun. Yet there are toxic chemicals in children's toys that simply shouldn't be there and there's no guarantee that what's on the shelf is necessarily safe. We've seen progress in recent years (specifically the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which strengthened rules and tightened oversight on lead and phthalates), but our laws have a l-o-n-g way to go.
Which is why we whipped up these simple but important toy shopping tips:
- No cheap jewelry. Some baubles contain the toxic metals lead or cadmium, and plenty of kids (young and old) chew and even swallow them. Earlier this year, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission advised parents to throw out their kids' cheap jewelry because the odds were high it contained toxic substances.
- Choose arts and craft supplies carefully. Many contain toxic chemicals. Read labels closely - but keep in mind that these products aren't sufficiently regulated, tested or labeled to ensure safety for children. Here are a few to watch out for:
Paint. Paints should be water-based and colored with natural, non-metal pigments. Oil paints contain toxic solvents.
Clay. Don't buy polymer clays that stay soft at room temperature or can be hardened in a home oven -- they're made from PVC (polyvinyl chloride) and often contain phthalates.
Coloring. Common crayons often contain paraffin wax, a petrochemical product. Look for alternatives like soy and beeswax. Don't buy dry-erase and permanent markers, which contain solvents. No plastic-encased crayons. No scented markers: scents encourage kids to sniff them, but those fragrances contain chemicals that are not listed on the label.
- Get creative! Give a little differently: Six ideas to get you thinking about gifts that don't require a toxic analysis:
- Simplify your approach to non-toxic shopping. It can be frustrating - if not downright impossible - to figure out what this year's "must have" toy is made of. Instead, ignore fads and buy items you know aren't toxic. Work from a list you trust, like HealthyStuff.org or U.S. PIRG's Toy Safety Tips. And shop where you can get straight answers. Of course, the fewer gifts you buy, the fewer you have to research.
- Shift your traditions to raise a greener generation. Parents have an opportunity to shape the next generation's holiday traditions - and tamp down commercialism. Some ideas: draw names for large families so there are fewer gifts to give, agree to a dollar limit, or shop at resale shops.
Books make wonderful gifts - especially when they're used. Amazon has an extensive used collection and EWG benefits when you shop through our unique Amazon link. Of course there's always the local used book shop, too!Say no to disposables. Choose toys made to last. They may cost more, but disposable toys waste your money (which = your time, right?).
Give activities, not things. Take your child to a play or a favorite restaurant, or sign her up for that gymnastics class. Time together and special activities make wonderful, non-toxic gifts!
Rediscover game night. It's an easy way to make family time. Share your beloved childhood games - chess, checkers, backgammon, Scrabble, parchesi, mah-jong, bingo, Life, Jenga, Connect Four, Yahtzee, Uno, and, of course, cards. Remember to keep small pieces away from little hands and mouths.
Encourage outside play. Kids love and need to play outdoors (and plenty say they don't do it often enough). Encourage them to head for fresh air with fun outdoor equipment like sleds, soccer and dodge balls (and goal posts!), snow shoes and skis, roller skates, skateboards, bikes, jump ropes - even pogo sticks! Give helmets, too, and make sure the kids wear them.
Think twice about battery-operated toys. Batteries contain heavy metals, so the fewer we use the better! If you must, grab some rechargeable batteries and a charger.
And about those holiday lights - the cords usually contain lead, so kids should wash their hands after handling them (with plain soap and water). Sad, but true.
Most of all, have fun! Don't let the threat of toxic chemicals in toys get your holiday spirit down!
Your Green Holiday Kitchen in 3 Easy Steps
Whether you're entertaining 20 of your nearest and dearest, baking cookies with the kids, or just filling up a bowl of chips, chances are you're going to spend a lot of time in the kitchen this holiday season. So will we. And, like you, we want it to be a green and healthy holiday kitchen.
Go ask Jane!
Jane Houlihan (right), EWG's Senior Vice President for Research and the visionary behind our popular cosmetics database Skin Deep, is the person EWG staffers go to for tips on greening our kitchens (or our anything, really!).
Whether it's for smart tips on storing leftovers or food choices that are better for your health and the environment, Jane's our go-to this time of year. Her tips are sure to make it a bit easier for you to shop for healthier foods and stock your holiday kitchen, so that you can truly enjoy peace of mind through the winter holidays.
As a busy mother with environmental health on her mind, Jane has lots of ways to green her holiday celebrations -- and now she's letting us in on how she does it. So go ahead, make your holiday kitchen safer and healthier (thanks, Jane!).
It's actually pretty easy -- just follow these simple tips as you shop, cook and eat together:
1. Choose food low in added chemicals and pollutants
Food can contain ingredients we don't want to eat -- from pesticides to hormones to artificial additives to food packaging chemicals. Some simple tips to cut the chemicals:
- Buy organic when you can. I make sure fresh fruits and vegetables are on the menu, and I go organic when I can. Organic produce is grown without synthetic pesticides (I prefer my dinner without, thanks!). Organic meat and dairy products also limit your family's exposure to growth hormones and antibiotics.
- It's OK to choose non-organic from our "Clean 15" less-contaminated conventional fruits and vegetables, too. EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides ranks popular fruits and vegetables based on the amount of pesticide residues found on them. Check out our Shopper's Guide to Pesticides (and get the iPhone App).
- Cook with fresh foods, not packaged and canned, whenever you can. Food containers can leach packaging chemicals into food, including ">food can linings that leach the synthetic estrogen bisphenol A into food. Instead, head for fresh food or prepared foods in glass containers. Pick recipes that call for fresh, not canned, foods.
I like to check in with EWG's Healthy Home Tip: Go organic and eat fresh foods when planning grocery trips.
2. Use non-toxic cookware
Using a great pan makes a huge difference when I cook. I skip the non-stick so that my kids (and our new puppy) don't have to breathe toxic fumes that can off-gas from non-stick pans on high heat. Non-stick cookware is in most American kitchens. Is it in yours?
- For safer cooking, EWG suggests cast iron, stainless steel and oven-safe glass. Yes, there are many new products on the market, but most companies won't tell you exactly what they are. Even if they're advertised as "green" or "not non-stick," manufacturers do not have to release their safety data to the public.
- If you're in the market for a new cast iron pan, purchase it through Amazon and a portion of your purchase total will go to EWG!
- Cook safer with non-stick if you're 'stuck' with it. You can reduce the possibility of toxic fumes by cooking smart with any non-stick cookware you happen to own: never heat an empty pan, especially at high heat, don't put it in an oven hotter than 500 degrees F, and use an exhaust fan over the stove.
Learn more about cooking safely in our Healthy Home Tip: Skip the non-stick.
3. Store and reheat leftovers safely
Leftovers can extend the joy of a holiday -- by giving you a break from the kitchen! But be sure to avoid plastic when storing and (especially) when heating them. Here's why -- and how:
- Skip the plastic food storage containers if you can. The chemical additives in plastic can migrate into food and liquids. Ceramic or glass food containers (like Pyrex) are safer. ">Click here to get a 10-piece Pyrex set on Amazon (and a portion of your purchase will go towards helping EWG!).
- Don't microwave food or drinks in plastic containers, even if they claim to be "microwave safe." Heat can release chemicals into your food and drink. Microwaves heat unevenly, creating hot spots where the plastic is more likely to break down.
- If you do use a plastic container you already own, handle it carefully. Use it for cool liquids only; wash plastics on the top rack of the dishwasher, farther from the heating element (or by hand!); use a paper towel instead of plastic wrap to cover food in the microwave. Also, avoid single-use plastic whenever you can -- reusing it isn't safe (it can harbor bacteria), and tossing it fills up landfills (and pollutes the environment).
Read more about heating and storing food safely in EWG's Healthy Home Tip: Pick plastics carefully.
I hope these tips make having a green holiday easier for you -- Happy Holidays!
PS - If you're looking for a great, green cookbook (as a gift or for yourself!) - look no further than EWG President Ken Cook's personal favorites.
A cookbook for everyone on EWG's list
By Ken Cook, EWG President
My favorite gifts are recently released cookbooks. I love to give and get them. I know picking the right cookbook can be a challenge - especially when there are so many great ones these days to help us cook and eat healthier and more sustainably. Something to be thankful for!
Rather than struggle in the cookbook section by myself, I asked the EWG staff (some of whom even cook!) to put together a list of some of their favorite green cookbooks for this holiday season - ones they might like to receive (or already have and love!). They've seen more than a few in recent months, as we work more and more on the issues around healthy food and sustainable farming.
Without further ado, here are EWG Staff's 8 Top "Green" Cookbook Picks - I hope you find one that's a perfect fit for a loved one or just for yourself:
Quick note: If you shop through our special Amazon links (below with each cookbook), not only will you be able to conveniently shop online and snag a terrific cookbook for a cook in your life, you'll be supporting EWG at the same time - no matter what you purchase. So you support our work (thank you!) - at no extra cost to you! Now that's a gift that keeps on giving.
- The Earthbound Cook: 250 Recipes for Delicious Food and a Healthy Planet by Myra Goodman -- a beautiful and inspiring cookbook by the co-founder of Earthbound Farm with simple information on how to protect the planet one meal at a time. Click here to see more or purchase on Amazon.
- The Family Dinner: Great Ways to Connect with Your Kids, One Meal at a Time by Laurie David and Kirstin Uhrenholdt -- David enlists more than 50 child-care experts, writers, celebrities, activists, musicians, and chefs - including Nora Ephron, Maya Angelou, Judge Judy, Michael Pollan, Sheryl Crow, and Alice Waters -- in support of family mealtime rituals. Click here to see more or purchase on Amazon.
- Lunch Lessons: Changing the Way We Feed Our Children by Ann Cooper and Lisa Holmes - A great resource for busy parents who want to make sure their kids have healthy and tasty lunches. Click here to see more or purchase on Amazon.
- The Conscious Kitchen: The New Way to Buy and Cook Food - to Protect the Earth, Improve Your Health, and Eat Deliciously by Alexandra Zissu -- For anyone who longs to make easy green changes when it comes to the food they buy, cook, and eat, this is an invaluable resource filled with real world, practical solutions. Click here to see more or purchase on Amazon.
- Easy Green Organic by Anna Getty -- In this fact-filled guide and cookbook, Anna explains how to shop for organic, seasonal, and local ingredients, how to keep an eco-friendly kitchen, and how to cook meals that are as scrumptious to eat as they are healthy for you and the earth. Click here to see more or purchase on Amazon.
- Dr. Mercola's Total Health Cookbook & Program: 150 Delicious Grain-Free Recipes & Proven Metabolic Type Plan to Prevent Disease, Optimize Weight and Live Longer by Dr. Joseph Mercola - This two part book outlines over 150 healthy and delicious new recipes. Click here to see more or purchase on Amazon.
- In the Green Kitchen: Techniques to Learn by Heart by Alice Waters -- Ideal for the cooking novice, this book showcases basic cooking techniques every cook can and should master along with recipes using each method. Click here to see more or purchase on Amazon.
- Raising Baby Green: The Earth-Friendly Program for Healthy, Safe Nutrition by Dr. Alan Greene -- A great resource for new parents by the author of Raising Baby Green. He offers how-to-guidance and recipes in addition to his philosophy that we parents have everything to do with our kids' "nutritional intelligence" - for life! Click here to see more or purchase it on Amazon.
Happy Holidays & Bon Appetit!
PS - If you make a tax-deductible donation of $125 or more to EWG this month, you'll receive our new 2010 Holiday Gift Bag -- stuffed with a variety of eco-friendly products including one of our recommended cookbooks, The Earthbound Cook: 250 Recipes for Delicious Food and a Healthy Planet.
California Regulators Pull a Bait-and-Switch on Green Chemistry
By Renee Sharp, EWG California Director
In September 2008, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger celebrated the signing of two bills (AB 1879 and SB 509) that, he said, would propel "California to the forefront of the nation and the world with the most comprehensive Green Chemistry program ever established."
Once they went into effect, he said, "we will stop looking at toxics as an inevitable byproduct of industrial production. Instead they will be something that can be removed from every product in the design stage, protecting people's health and our environment."
It sounded pretty good -- in theory.
CA Green Chemistry Law is a Major Disappointment
Two years later, after countless public workshops, straw proposals and drafts of regulations, the reality is turning out to be a major disappointment. More than that, it's a betrayal.
On Sept. 14, the California Department of Toxics Substances Control (DTSC) issued what it called close-to-final regulations for a 45-day public comment period. Those draft regulations weren't everything we hoped for, but they at least presented a small step toward protecting the public from the threats posed by toxic chemicals in consumer products and meeting the intent of the legislation.
More Bad News: 11th-hour Bait-and-Switch Maneuver
Then, at the eleventh hour, the Schwarzenegger administration and the toxics control department pulled a classic bait-and-switch maneuver.
Just two weeks after the deadline for comments had passed, the agency issued a revised set of regulations that essentially gutted the Green Chemistry program established by the two laws. The changes were made without notifying or seeking input from the public or even the Green Ribbon Science Panel, which the law established to advise DTSC in developing the regulations. What's more, they gave the public only 15 days to comment on latest draft.
Californians will be worse off than before
If the new last-minute regulations go into effect without being fundamentally overhauled, Californians will actually be worse off than before: Some State legislators could point to the inept program as an excuse not to get involved in the issue of toxic chemicals, and state regulators would have their hands tied in knots by a program that is structured to spin wheels and eventually fail.
The proposed regulations would also set a terrible precedent for the nation, because many aspects of the gutted California program are actually worse than the flawed and outdated federal 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.
EWG asks Governor-elect Brown to stop the madness
That's why Environmental Working Group is calling out this bait-and-switch ploy for what it is. We're telling Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Department of Toxic Substances Control that they won't get away with this dirty trick and calling on governor-elect Jerry Brown to stop the regulations from going forward next year -- unless they are radically revised to live up to the goals of California's pioneering Green Chemistry laws.
Honoring Environmentalist and Philanthropist Richard Goldman
Richard Goldman, who died in San Francisco Monday (Nov. 29) at the age of 90, was a pioneer environmentalist and philanthropist who believed passionately in the power of the individual.