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
Watch "Bag It," Then Just Bag It
Water utilities, meet water drinkers.
Sen. Lautenberg Introduces Safe Chemicals Act of 2011
Obama Must Ensure Safe Gas Drilling
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
Cancer: Putting Prevention First
By Rebecca Sutton, EWG Senior Scientist
Medical experts will never cease searching for cures for the gravest illnesses that afflict people. But a growing consensus is forming in the medical and public health communities that preventing these disorders in the first place is a more urgent - and ultimately less costly - priority.
Though researchers have much to learn about the very earliest stages of a variety of diseases ranging from cancer to asthma, many experts believe that environmental pollutants are often a key trigger.
Doctors are speaking up for a stronger national chemicals policy
Earlier this week (April 25), the American Academy of Pediatrics called for an overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 in order to protect developing children, pregnant women and other vulnerable people from toxic chemicals. The law, the academy said, has not kept pace with the "explosion of knowledge about special vulnerabilities and differential exposures that children and pregnant women have to environmental toxicants."
The pediatricians' statement follows the U.S. government's latest Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, made public last month, which found that rates of U.S. cancer deaths generally declined between 1998 and 2007, but rates of new diagnoses of childhood cancers increased. Cancer death rates among American children under 19 decreased, the report said, but that's likely the result of better treatment, not prevention.
Last month, David Christiani, M.D., M.P.H., an expert in environmental and occupational health issues at the Harvard School of Public Health and Harvard School of Medicine, issued a similar call. Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, Christiani asserted:
"...over the past three decades, increases in incidence of some childhood cancers, such as leukemia and brain tumors, may implicate prenatal exposures to environmental carcinogens."
Cancers could be prevented
He said epidemiologists believe that in developed countries like the United States, as much as 85 to 95 percent of many cancers would be prevented by eliminating environmental factors.
Environmental Working Group's research has documented more than 300 industrial chemicals in the umbilical cord blood of newborns. A number of these chemicals are suspected carcinogens or hormone system disruptors.
Christiani underscored the importance of last year's report on environmental carcinogens by the President's Cancer Panel, an advisory committee of doctors and scientists appointed by President George W. Bush. In a paper released in April 2010, the Cancer Panel called for more research on the environmental causes of disease.
Like the pediatricians, Christiani argued for "stronger environmental laws and regulations to require pre-marketing safety testing, reduce industry influence on regulation, and control the importation of toxic chemicals and products."
Christiani made his case with hard evidence that:
- Eliminating exposure to vinyl chloride monomer in PVC manufacturing facilities resulted in decreased incidence of angiosarcoma of the liver;
- Reducing exposure to bis-chloromethyl ether used to make bulletproof glass eliminated work-related small-cell lung cancer;
- Removing aromatic amines from dyes decreased bladder cancer incidence.
Cause-and-effect relationships between many chemicals and disease aren't easily established. But, Christiani argued, why delay until scientists come up with proof beyond reasonable doubt? He wrote:
"The current regulatory approach calls for safety testing [of chemicals in commerce] only when evidence of possible danger arises. Since most cancers are long-latency diseases, waiting for population-based evidence of a problem allows avoidable cancer epidemics to occur."
Individuals and society pay an enormous toll, both human and financial, for chronic disease. We can always know more. Christiani said that roughly two-fifths of Americans are expected to develop some form of cancer in their lifetimes and one-fifth will likely die from it.
There's no time like the present to accelerate the transformation of U.S. policy to an emphasis on prevention.
EWG's BPA Petition Delivered to Maine Governor
By Bobbie Manning, EWG Environmental Health Outreach Coordinator
Maine just became the ninth state to ban the use of bisphenol A in baby products.
Come January 1, 2012, Maine babies will be protected from this potentially harmful endocrine disrupting chemical. The one man who was standing in the way - Governor Paul LePage, who earned national attention by trivializing health risks of BPA, allowed the ban to become law without his signature. As LePage infamously said,
"There hasn't been any science that identifies that there is a problem. The only thing that I've heard is if you take a plastic bottle and put it in the microwave and you heat it up, it gives off a chemical similar to estrogen. So the worst case is some women may have little beards."
As my colleague Alex Formuzis has pointed out, Governor LePage had his hormones confused. But we did find a possible explanation for his opposition to the bill: one of his former aides now represents the toy industry and drafted a list of laws and regulations the governor should consider axing - including the ban on BPA.
Despite Governor LePage's controversial remark, earlier this month, the GOP-controlled Maine House of Representatives wasted little time in passing the BPA bill by a vote of 145 to 3, with overwhelming bipartisan support. A week later, it was the Maine Senate's turn. This time the vote was unanimous.
Because restricting BPA is a priority issue for EWG and our supporters, we decided to send Governor LePage the facts and a message. More than 19,000 concerned citizens signed our petition and encouraged LePage to re-examine the real science about BPA. And on April 14, an EWG supporter from Maine and her son (pictured above, right) delivered the EWG petition - and a strong message to Governor LePage's office.
We're not sure what "science" has convinced Gov. LePage that BPA isn't a "problem" but his views are certainly at odds with the hundreds of published studies that have linked the toxic chemical to many serious and costly illnesses, including breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, obesity, birth defects, neurological disorders, heart disease and impotency. These are the same studies that have persuaded eight other states, Canada, the European Union and even China to restrict the use of BPA in baby products out of concern over its potent affects on human development.
It has always been EWG's position that reducing harmful chemical exposures is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is a children's health issue. Though Governor LePage didn't sign the bill into law, the children of Maine will still be protected from this dangerous toxic chemical thanks to the overwhelming support of the Maine legislature.
Don't live in Maine but want to reduce your BPA exposures? Read EWG's tips.
Prenatal Pesticide Exposure Linked to Diminished IQ
By Sonya Lunder, EWG Senior Scientist
In a 2010 meeting between the pesticide industry and the Obama Administration, the pesticide industry revealed its objective that government food testing data (like the USDA pesticide residue data EWG uses to create our Shopper's Guide to Produce) be spun to emphasize the safety of pesticide residues on conventional produce.
Why?
They're worried you know too much. See, if people know about the health (and environmental) downsides of pesticides, they might, well, not want to eat them. In their own (self-interested, your-health-is-not-their-first-priority) words in this high-level meeting:
"[W]e want to see if we can figure out that whatever data is out there be less likely to be misconstrued and misinterpreted. We're trying to make sure that anyone who reads [USDA's pesticide residue report] sees -- as do all the people in the room -- that there is no risk associated with the consumption of fresh produce due to pesticide residues."
But are pesticides really safe? Should fruits and veggie eaters everywhere breath a sigh of relief because there's "no risk," as the pesticide guys want you to believe? Not so fast.
The science does not say "no risk"
Industry's task spinning pesticides got a bit more difficult today, when a group of 3 long-term studies found that a woman's exposure to organophosphate pesticides during pregnancy could affect IQ and memory in her child 6 to 9 years later.
Researchers at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, University of California Berkeley's School of Public Health and Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health separately recruited pregnant women and tested either their mother's urine during pregnancy or umbilical blood at birth.
All three studies are available for free and online at the Environmental Health Perspectives website. And you can hear it for yourself on ABC's World News Tonight.
Some restrictions in place, more possibly needed
Between 1999 and 2003, EPA put in place restrictions on the most toxic organophosphate pesticides on crops and in homes. In 2006, the Agency concluded those restrictions would be sufficient to protect children's health, but these studies show further restrictions over the use of organophosphates in agriculture may be necessary to protect kid's health.
For years, EPA used complex models to assure us that pesticide exposures were safe. These studies strongly suggest that kids remain at risk. The next time EPA and the pesticide industry tell you all is well with the food system, don't rush to believe them.
Organophosphates have been associated with learning delays and ADHD in children. But the fact that three separate studies arrived at such similar conclusions is overwhelming evidence that this family of pesticides presents profound and very serious health risks to children before they're even born.
Understanding - and avoiding - pesticide residues
About that data the pesticide industry is worried you'll be worried about. Each year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture extensively tests fruits and vegetables for pesticide residues. The tests are conducted after each sample has been washed as if being prepared to eat or cook. EWG compiles USDA's data and ranks the most popular fruits and vegetables according to the levels of overall pesticide residues. The cleanest 15 and dirty dozen are listed below (grab the iPhone App or see the full list here):
We think there is ample evidence to avoid pesticides, particularly while you are pregnant. Here are the 12 with the highest and lowest levels of pesticide residues from EWG' 2010 Shopper's Guide. The 2011 Guide will be out soon once USDA releases its latest round of produce testing.
EWG's top tips to eat fewer organophosphate pesticides:
It makes good sense to avoid these pesticides whenever possible, especially during pregnancy. Here's how:
- Eat organic and low-residue fruits and veggies. Organic produce is becoming much more available and the price gap between it and conventionally grown fruits and vegetables has narrowed somewhat, but buying organic can be a burden on families on tight budgets. EWG's online Shopper's Guide to Pesticides provides an easy-to-use list of non-organic items that have the lowest levels of pesticide residues. EWG recommends sticking to those fruits and vegetables whenever possible.
- Wash, wash, wash. Washing conventional produce won't remove all of the residues, but it does make a difference. Wash all fruits and vegetables before serving.
- Eat food that's in season. It is more likely to be grown domestically where there are tighter restrictions on organophosphate pesticide use.
- Pregnant? Make that extra effort to eat organic or low-residue fruits and veggies. Eating fruits and vegetables is an essential part of a healthy diet, but we recommend that women who are pregnant choose organic produce or conventional fruits and veggies with the lowest levels of pesticide residues. And, by all means, avoid farms that spray these chemicals.
For more tips for an environmentally healthy pregnancy, see EWG's 11 Healthy Pregnancy Tips. Those are nine (plus!) very important months, with significant health consequences for babies.
Fast Food Follies
By Alex Formuzis, EWG Vice-President for Media Relations
Around this time last year the health-conscious crew at KFC headquarters gave the American consumer the Double Down chicken sandwich - 540 calories of bacon and cheese with no veggies, smashed between slabs of fried chicken instead of buns.
At the time I thought Fast Food couldn't sink any lower.
I was wrong.
This time the cause for my stomach churn is Burger King and its latest product, the Meat Monster burger that delivers 1,160 calories via a mountain of:
- two beef patties
- a piece of chicken
- two strips of bacon
- two slices of cheese
- teriyaki sauce
- if you want, add a fried egg and/or a fish patty on top - but that's extra.
Along with the whopping calorie count come 24 grams of saturated fat, 12 grams of sugar, 240 miligrams of cholesterol, 54 grams of carbs and 2,290 miligrams of salt, according to a breakdown by the folks at Consumerist.
Currently, this heart attack in a box is only available in Japan. Haven't the Japanese suffered enough?
Here in the U.S. it's estimated that roughly 75 percent of all health care-related spending goes to treat chronic diseases, many of them associated with a diet high in calories, fat and sodium from regularly indulging in meals like the Meat Monster.
Comparatively little is spent on preventive care, including helping people get access to and eat healthy, nutritious food like fruits and vegetables.
We're the richest and one of the fattest populations in the world. Not our proudest achievement.
The number of American adolescents who are overweight or obese has tripled since 1980. One of the primary reasons is the easy access kids have to cheap, ready-made fast foods and sweet, fizzy drinks. In many places the fast food joint has replaced the park as the place where kids hang out before and after school.
A 2009 study conducted by economists at Cal/Berkeley and Columbia universities found that kids at schools within walking distance (500 feet) of a fast food restaurant will likely have an obesity rate at least 5 percent higher than kids who aren't so "lucky."
Another 2009 study cited in the same Reuters article, by a team of researchers at the University of Michigan, found that residents of neighborhoods heavily populated with fast food restaurants are at greater risk of suffering a stroke.
Both these scenarios typically confront families who live in inner-city neighborhoods and depressed rural communities throughout the country, where fast food chains and junk food mini-marts are often the only available and affordable options.
In a recent analysis by Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, researchers reported that:
"Fast food is the most unhealthy food product marketed to children, other than sugar-sweetened beverages, and is relentlessly and aggressively targeted toward children starting as young as age two. Food marketing to children negatively influences the dietary choices and health of society's most vulnerable citizens."
The report by the Rudd Center may be the most extensive to date focusing on Fast Food's marketing assault on American children. According to the Yale researchers, the industry spent more than $4.2 billion in 2009 on advertising and other media, and the average child between 2 and 5 years of age watches 2.8 fast food ads every day.
Our friends at Burger King and McDonalds pledged to clean up their acts and improve the way they pitch to children. But the Rudd researchers found that both chains ramped up their television advertising to kids from 2007 to '09:
"Preschoolers saw 21% more ads for McDonald's and 9% more for Burger King, and children viewed 26% more ads for McDonald's and 10% more for Burger King."
The report goes on:
- McDonald's web-based marketing starts with children as young as 2 at Ronald.com.
- McDonald's and Burger King created sophisticated websites with 60 to 100 pages of adver-games and virtual worlds to engage children (McWorld.com, HappyMeal. com, and ClubBK.com).
- McDonald's 13 websites attracted an average of 365,000 unique child visitors and 294,000 unique teen visitors each month in 2009.
- Nine restaurant Facebook pages had more than one million fans each as of July 2010.
Smartphone apps were available for eight fast food chains, providing another opportunity to reach young consumers anytime, anywhere.
Overworked, exhausted parents don't stand a chance against this onslaught. It's the equivalent of the Erickson family from two doors down facing the NFC champs in the Super Bowl.
Crunchtimefood's Sherri York does provide some helpful tips for parents looking for ways to steer their kids away from junk food and eater more fruits and vegetables. But perhaps the best advice on this front is: Just do it -- the longer you wait, the harder it gets.
Watch "Bag It," Then Just Bag It
By Rebecca Sutton, Phd, EWG Senior Scientist
Plastic pollution: it's everywhere, from the gigantic garbage patch swirling in the Pacific Ocean to the cells of our bodies, a point EWG's President, Ken Cook, makes so well in this recent TEDx talk. For a fresh - and fun - look at plastic, watch Bag It, an award-winning new documentary airing across the nation this month (check your local public television listings).
In Bag It, "everyman" Jeb Berrier starts with a few questions about the ubiquitous plastic bag, and soon embarks on a wholesale investigation into plastic and its effects on our waterways, oceans, and even our own bodies. Jeb shows us how our crazy-for-plastic world has finally caught up to us and what we can do about it. Today. Right now.
Bag It Intro from Suzan Beraza on Vimeo.
After you watch the movie (it's showing all during Earth Week on PBS - check for local times), check out EWG's Healthy Home Tips on plastics for some easy ways to reduce your use of and exposure to toxic plastic chemicals.
And if you haven't already, sign EWG's pledge to skip bottled water whenever possible. It's a simple way to reduce your reliance on single-use plastics - not to mention overpriced, badly labeled, often repackaged tap water.
Live online chat with movie director and star
Bring your ideas and energy to a live online chat with Jeb, Bag It director Suzan Beraza and special guests in a live webcast on Thursday, April 21st at 9:15 pm Eastern. Register now -- it only takes a minute!
Water utilities, meet water drinkers.
By Ken Cook, EWG President
The Water Research Foundation, an offshoot of the American Water Works Association of water utilities, has accused Environmental Working Group of informing utility customers about the presence of chromium-6, a suspected carcinogen, in their tap water. "Reckless and irresponsible," the foundation claims.
Guilty as charged.
We believe the public has the right to know what contaminants may be swirling around in that glass of water served up at the kitchen table.
Last December, EWG tested tap water samples from 35 cities - and found chromium-6, also known as hexavalent chromium or the Erin Brockovich chemical, in 31 of them. Our report made national headlines. The Environmental Protection Agency promptly took steps to monitor the nation's water supply and said it would consider regulating the suspected carcinogen in drinking water.
Last week, EWG followed up by reporting that back in 2004, the Water Research Foundation, formerly the Awwa Research Foundation, had conducted a nationwide survey of untreated source water and found that chromium-6 was common in groundwater.
Why would we talk about a study that is more than seven years old?
Because the utilities didn't.
As far as we can determine, the utilities-supported study, involving data on 341 source water samples from 189 utilities in 41 states, was not released to the public generally nor to customers of the municipal water systems whose source waters were found to be tainted.
The Water Research Foundation did not deny our report. Instead, it fired off a statement complaining that we had spoken up about the issue. It accused EWG of "creating public fear and hysteria about drinking water" and suggesting "there is a massive conspiracy by water providers in a nationwide cover up."
Hysteria? Conspiracy? Not our words. We take the position that people have a right to know what's in their water. That's it.
As we said in last week's report:
The industry study, though clearly relevant to the current debate over what to do about chromium-6 in drinking water, has received scant attention. The Occurrence Survey of Boron and Hexavalent Chromium is sold to water utilities and their consultants, who pay four or five-figure subscription fees to the foundation, then a document fee of around $300 (it can now be bought online for $200 or more).
The industry report makes clear that utility officials have been well aware for some years of the engineering and financial problems posed by chromium-6 pollution. Should scientists and regulators concur that very small amounts of chromium-6 pose a risk to human health, the industry report says, removing the chemical presents "complex occurrence and treatment issues for the drinking water community."
The Water Research Foundation protested that there was "a major difference between detection of a substance in source water and what comes through the tap in people's homes" We agree. We chose to test tap water because we wanted to know about contamination that water drinkers are actually consuming.
The foundation's 2004 study similarly tracked chromium-6 levels through the water system - from source to tap - in about a dozen municipal water systems. The researchers wanted to find out if water treatment methods used by utilities removed chromium-6.
The answer was no.
On March 24, the Water Research Foundation announced that it would co-sponsor an existing project in Glendale, Calif. to "explore new technologies and processes to reduce chromiumâ6 levels in drinking water." The study is scheduled for completion next March. We hope the foundation will disclose the results to the public. Americans have a right to know when their water is clean and, more importantly, when it is not.
Sen. Lautenberg Introduces Safe Chemicals Act of 2011
By Jason Rano, EWG Senior Legislative Analyst
Once again, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is leading the effort to try to contain the constant onslaught of dangerous industrial chemicals on our bodies. This week, Lautenberg, along with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 to reform the broken and failed Toxic Substances Control Act. Lautenberg's bill will establish a system for ensuring that the thousands of chemicals to which Americans are exposed are safe. In 2011 style, the Senator announced his bill on You Tube:
It's not news to any of EWG's fans that regulation of toxic industrial chemicals is virtually non-existent. In the 35 years since President Gerald Ford signed the Toxic Substances Control Act into law - it's the only major environmental law never to be reauthorized - the Environmental Protection Agency has required testing on only 200 chemicals. Only five substances have been restricted or banned. The 1976 law is so weak that the agency was unable to ban asbestos - one of the most carcinogenic substances ever known.
There is little debate that the current law has failed and is in desperate need of an overhaul. We know, thanks in large part to EWG's biomonitoring research projects, that babies are being born pre-polluted with hundreds of chemicals. In recent years we've learned more and more about the risks associated with some of those chemicals. But we still don't know enough about most of them.
Lautenberg's Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 would require chemicals to be tested against a standard that protects the most vulnerable among us, including children. It proposes the same safety standard that has already proved effective and feasible when determining the safety of pesticides. And don't forget, many companies that make chemicals for consumer product also make pesticides.
The legislation would put the onus on chemical companies to prove their products are safe before they reach consumer products. It would give the Environmental Protection Agency authority to require companies to conduct further testing. It would impose some balance on out-of-control confidential business claims. In 2009, EWG released a report that showed that the public had no access to any information to about 17,000 chemicals in EPA's inventory. Since 1976, industry has claimed confidentiality of the chemical identity of nearly two-thirds of the 20,403 new chemicals that came on the market.
While the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has used her agency's limited authority to require testing and restrict chemicals - including eliminating many spurious confidentiality claims - scientists know much more about risks posed by industrial chemicals than they did 35 years. We can't sit idly by and believe that a law passed more than three decades ago will effectively protect us.
Throughout his distinguished career, Frank Lautenberg has been a tireless advocate for protecting public health. Since 2005 he has led the charge to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. Environmental Working Group is honored to stand with him on this important issue.
Obama Must Ensure Safe Gas Drilling
By Dusty Horwitt, EWG Senior Counsel
President Obama contends that natural gas drilling can help meet his goal of reducing U.S. imported oil consumption by a third by 2020. Yet, in a welcome change from his previous position, Obama recently acknowledged that drilling carries inherent risks. Obama told a March 30 assembly at Georgetown University,
"We have to make sure we're doing it safely, without polluting our water supply."That very day, the Denton (Tex.) Record-Chronicle published reporter Sarah Perry's account of the Knoll family, who moved into their dream home in Bartonville, Tex, three years ago. Because of nearby gas drilling, the newspaper reported, the dream has turned into "a scene out of a Stephen King novel, complete with noxious water, foul air, numbing headaches and grasshoppers falling dead from the sky."
Susan Knoll told the Record-Chronicle,
"This was supposed to be the home before the nursing home. We built this home to live in forever, and before we have any long-term health effects, we have to move. But where do you move where there isn't going to be drilling? Now people sit in our backyard and get bloody noses."
Knoll had her well water tested by a private company last summer. The tests turned up something called methylene blue active substances -- a type of lubricant used in gas drilling that can make water feel like soap.
Knoll complained - dozens of times - to the Texas Railroad Commission and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Agency staff members visited her home but found no violations. A Railroad Commission inspector tested pools of water that mysteriously appeared on her land for salt content. The inspector did not test her well water, the Record-Chronicle reported. The Railroad Commission did not link her health complaints and the tainted well water to drilling.
This compelling and well-documented article reflects the fears of thousands of American landowners who have found out firsthand that developing natural gas resources in their back yards could mean destruction of property, hazards to health, contamination of water, soil and air, regulatory passivity and a lack of corporate accountability. Many of these problems have been documented in the Sundance award-winning and Oscar-nominated documentary Gasland.
Here's what the Obama Administration Needs to Do
The Obama administration must take action immediately to protect landowners' air, water and soil quality. It should:
- Enforce the federal Safe Drinking Water Act's provision that requires drillers to obtain a permit before injecting diesel fuel underground in hydraulic fracturing operations, a drilling technique used in more than 90 percent of U.S. natural gas and oil wells. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hasn't shown much interest in enforcing this provision. A recent Congressional investigation found that between 2005 and 2009, drilling companies injected 32 million gallons of diesel or diesel-laced fluids in hydraulic fracturing operations in 19 different states without obtaining permits.
- Use its position on the Delaware River Basin Commission to vote against drilling in the basin, which provides drinking water for 15 million people, until federal and state officials produce a comprehensive environmental statement for the area and show that drilling regulations can be enforced effectively.
- Launch studies focused on the experience of landowners near existing drilling operations. These could shed light on desperately-needed regulatory reforms to ensure that the long-term environmental and human health of America's urban, suburban and rural gaspatch communities are not sacrificed for a short term boom in natural gas, a nonrenewable resource. Such inquiry ought to be part of the EPA's current study of hydraulic fracturing.
When natural gas burns, it looks clean. But as President Obama has recognized, producing natural gas carries great risks. As gas drilling spreads into previously untapped formations from Wyoming to Pennsylvania, his administration must ensure that drilling does not come at the expense of our health and water.
Earth Day: If you've done one thing, you've done something.
By Lisa Frack, EWG Social Media Manager
Of course it shouldn't take the arrival of Earth Day to spur us to greater greenness. But the truth of it is, it works. Last year, it was on Earth Day that I (finally!) committed to taking my kids to school on the bus once a week. And while once a week may sound lame to the bolder greenies among us, for me, at that time, it was what I could do. And it was, a bit embarrassingly, because of Earth Day that I did even that.
Earth Day 2011: The Plan
It's almost a year later, and Earth Day is right around the corner. So naturally I'm pondering my next move, and thinking through what "next step" makes the most sense for my family - and the planet. My list is (unfortunately) long, but it will get shorter as I green our routines, one by one, over time, until it is just part of how we live.
At EWG, in celebration of Earth Day 2011, we're challenging ourselves to take that next step, to take at least one new green action to improve our health and environment. Will you join us in taking ONE ACTION between now and Earth Day on Friday, April 22nd?
Don't underestimate the power of taking one step or making a single change. Whether it's watching an awareness-building documentary, broaching a conversation with friends or colleagues about environmental hazards, or simply committing to shop smarter. If you've done one thing, you've done something.
1. Eat Healthier Food
Most of us aren't eating the way we would like. What have you been wanting to change to make your diet more green and healthy? Here are some ideas:
- Go organic. Organic produce contains no Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and no pesticides are used to grow them, which means no pesticide residues in your body or polluting our water. Don't have access to organics or find it too expensive? Use EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce to go organic when pesticide residues are highest on conventional fruits and vegetables.
- Eat fresher foods - shoot, grow them! The average American eats too much meat and too few fruits and vegetables - plus a whole lotta processed food (those middle aisles in the grocery store). So why not make an effort in the next few weeks to buy and cook more fresh foods? They tend to come without toxic packaging, too! And if you plant some seeds in your very own garden (backyard, schoolyard, community plot, median strip!), all the better. Because that is the freshest food around. And, if you haven't noticed (you have, right?), it's also all the rage.
- Stop eating so much BPA. With 200+ studies now linking this hormone-disruptor to serious health issues, trying to reduce your exposure is a no brainer. And it turns out that it not only works (a recent study showed that some families reduced their BPA exposure by 60% when they changed several eating habits), but it's not that hard and it's healthier because you wind up eating more fresh foods. What are you waiting for? Here's how.
- Take a close look at your kids' school lunch routine.
Whether your kids eat "hot lunch" provided by their school or you pack it at home, is it as healthy as it should be? Have you joined your child for hot lunch yet this year - that's the one way to really get to know what's for lunch. Chef Ann Cooper has loads of ideas - both for what to put in that lunchbox every day, and how we can improve our country's school lunch program at the policy level.- Learn a thing or two about the Farm Bill.
If your first reaction to this suggestions is "me? why?" then you should watch EWG Prez Ken Cook's recent TEDx talk on the matter - now. We're trying our very best to turn the farm bill into a healthy food bill.
2. Drink Cleaner Water
- Get that water filter. Most tap water should be filtered before you drink it. But many people aren't quite sure how to go about picking the perfect filter - that doesn't break the bank but saves you from whatever's in your water that shouldn't be. Why not cross this off your environmental health "to do" list (you have one, right?) before Earth Day (you could take the first sip ON earth Day!)? Simply visit EWG's tap water site to finally figure out what filter to get - then get it.
- Say buh-bye to bottled water - for good. You know you should. The water quality is not necessarily better than tap (in fact it often IS tap), the labels tell you very little and are under-regulated, and then there's the pesky single-use plastic. Get a reusable water bottle (preferably non-toxic) and, well, use it! It's easy once you're in the habit. And yes, you CAN lug it on the airplane (no excuses!). Need it all in a nutshell? Then watch the short Story of Bottled Water.
- Do the research - find out what's in YOUR drinking water. The first step to clean drinking water is figuring out what's in your water that you might need to filter out by reading the local drinking water report. Water providers are required by law to provide you with certain contaminant and water quality info (unlike bottled water), because we water drinkers have a right to know what we're drinking. Let's exercise it! Just search by zip code in EWG's tap water quality database.
- Find out about fracking. If you're not yet familiar with fracking, you should be. It's the new(ish) process to drill for deep natural gas that relies on a toxic cocktail of water and chemicals and has a short but serious history of contaminating drinking water and being dangerously under-regulated. Is it happening near you? Check this map to find out. And whatever you do, watch Gasland - it almost won an Oscar and will bring you up-to-date right quick.
3. Use Safer Cosmetics
We all use a few cosmetics every day. But are they safe? Here are a few ideas to educated yourself and make your cleaning and preening routine a bit greener.
- Get acquainted with EWG'S Skin Deep Cosmetics Database. If you've ever wondered whether there are toxic ingredients you should avoid in those l-o-n-g ingredient lists on all those bottles in your shower and bathroom cabinet (you know you have!), Skin Deep's for you. Simply type in your product and voila, a score! And an explanation. And a list of safer alternatives to start using instead.
- Go through your cosmetics! We all let them pile up. The shampoo that made your hair too fluffy, the greasy lotion, and that awful color lipstick. But since this is for Earth Day, we can take it a step beyond mere tidying up and tossing. Let's consider which ones are toxic (Skin Deep, again), and which ones get to stay because they're not. It might come to this: take them ALL out, look them up, and put back only the safer ones that earn a spot on your shelf.
- Lighten the load. If you're like most Americans, you use more than a few cosmetics every day (beyond the basics). Think you could use fewer? Many contain harmful ingredients that could harm your health - why risk it? Plus, the fewer products you use (do you really need the hair spray? the foot, hand, body, and face lotions?), the easier it is to navigate the labels - an added bonus!
Phew! That was a long list. And maybe we missed the Earth action that makes the most sense to YOU?! If so, what is it?
In the next two weeks, we'll be posting tips and reporting out on Facebook as we make our way through our own lists of personal changes that directly affect the earth - and our health. In the end, they are one and the same.
New old news: 2004 Industry Tests Found 'Brockovich' Chemical Nationwide
April 5, 2011By Alex Formuzis, EWG V-P for Media RelationsTap water industry representatives made no mention of their chromium-6 2004 study when they testified alongside EWG at a Feb. 2 Senate environment committee hearing on chromium-6 pollution.
Some water utility representatives have protested Environmental Working Group's report of laboratory tests that found worrisome levels of chromium-6, a suspected carcinogen, in the drinking water of 31 cities across the country.
Tap water industry knew of contamination
Yet the tap water industry was worried enough about the contaminant to conduct its own extensive survey in 2004 that found clear evidence of widespread chromium-6 pollution in untreated source water. The survey, conducted by the Awwa Research Foundation (since renamed the Water Research Foundation), an offshoot of the American Water Works Association, obtained data on 341 source water samples from 189 utilities in 41 states. The conclusion: chromium-6 is common in American groundwater.Tap water industry representatives made no mention of their study when they testified alongside EWG at a Feb. 2 Senate environment committee hearing on chromium-6 pollution. There is no indication that customers of the 189 participating utilities were advised of the chemical's presence in source waters in their communities.
The industry research group provides its report Occurrence Survey of Boron and Hexavalent Chromium to water utilities and their consultants, who pay four or five-figure subscription fees and a document fee of about $300. (The report can now be bought online for $200 or more.)
Chromium-6, also known as "hexavalent chromium," is often called the "Erin Brockovich" chemical, after the crusading legal assistant who helped residents of tiny Hinkley, Calif, win a $333 million settlement from Pacific Gas & Electric Co, accused of dumping the chemical in local ground water. Actress Julia Roberts won an Oscar for her portrayal of Erin Brockovich in the 2000 film of the same name.
The 2004 industry study, which EWG obtained from a source and cited in its December 2010 report, Cancer-causing Chromium-6 Pollution in U.S. Tapwater, demonstrates that chromium-6 pollution was not confined to California. According to EWG's Senior Vice-President for Research:
"The tap water industry's 2004 study is unmistakable proof that it has known about extensive chromium-6 contamination for at least seven years. Water utilities should tell their customers any time they know that a suspected carcinogen has polluted local waters. People have a right to know what they and their families may be drinking."
And Erin Brockovich registered no surprise when she learned the industry hadn't shared its study results - with customers or the U.S. Senate:
"I'd like to say I'm surprised at the utilities' silence, but I'm not. Instead of treating their customers like adults and sharing the test results with them, they shelved the findings, letting folks continue to drink water for years that could contain chromium-6."
While pollution levels in untreated and treated water are not directly comparable, the two studies, read together, paint a picture of coast-to-coast chromium-6 pollution.
Toxins in Our Kids' Foods: Where is the FDA?
April 4, 2011
Guest Post by Laurie David and Robyn O'Brien, EWG Board MemberYesterday, in the face of a just- released report by the National Cancer Institute that showed a 9.4% increase in childhood cancer between 1992 and 2007(1), the FDA let moms and dads all across America, down. Instead of making the long overdue move to do something serious about getting rid of toxic food dyes so ubiquitous in our food supply, they instead fell back on those two simple words so often used to stall, delay and deny..."more research."
In kitchens across this country, eight dyes, currently being used by manufacturers can be found in everything from packaged macaroni and cheese, breakfast cereal to practically every piece of candy your child has ever put in its mouth. Links are being found to hyperactivity in kids (ADHD), cancer and serious food allergies. (2)But here is the truly crazy thing. Kraft, Coca Cola and Wal-Mart have already removed these artificial food colors and dyes from the same products that they distribute in other countries. They did it in response to consumer demand and an extraordinary study called the Southampton Study.
The Southampton Study (3) was unusual in that it tested children on a combination of two ingredients: tartrazine (yellow #5) and sodium benzoate. The study's designers knew that a child very rarely has occasion to ingest just a synthetic color or just a preservative; rather, a child who is gobbling up multicolored candies is probably taking in several colors and at least one preservative.
What's amazing is that in the U.K., the federal food safety agency actually funded the Southampton Study that led to even U.S. corporations eliminating synthetic colors and sodium benzoate from their U.K. products.
And in response, a whole host of companies, including the U.K. branches of Wal-Mart, Kraft, Coca Cola and the Mars candy company (who make M&Ms), have voluntarily removed artificial colors, the preservative sodium benzoate, and even aspartame from their products. Particularly those marketed to kids. Take a close look at the ingredient list for the product below.
Our American companies had removed these harmful ingredients from their products overseas--but not here!
Kraft, Coca Cola and Wal-mart are living proof that it is possible for giant corporations to make and sell kid-friendly, family-friendly, and healthy processed food without necessarily exposing them to a chemical cocktail that might also give them allergic reactions, brain tumors, or leukemia, or the symptoms of ADHD, as the Center for Science in the Public Interest recently highlighted in their report "Rainbow of Risks".
No need to go through all the numbers for increased health problems here. You've heard them all and it isn't pretty. For goodness sake, no more research necessary. Lets stop poisoning our own kids. Lets start assuming chemicals are dangerous until proven safe, not the other way around.
Is it too much to ask the FDA and the processed food companies for the same value to be placed on the lives of the American kids in their cost-benefit analyses that has been placed on the lives of kids in the UK?
Moms, we can create that same change here. And with 51 million moms waking up to the dangers that toxins present to the health of our kids, our numbers are equivalent to the entire population of Spain. Time to get down to business, level the playing field for our kids, and send a message to these companies. Vote with your pocketbook today, this weekend, next month as you grocery shop for your family. Because while the American children only represent 30% of our population, they are 100% of our future. So while the FDA may not value their lives accordingly, we can.
Notes:
1. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, March 31, 2011 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djr141
2. Rainbow of Risks, http://www.cspinet.org/new/201006291.html
3. Southampton Study http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/additivesbehaviourfinrep.pdf
