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
Why we (still) don't trust Chesapeake Energy
Protect our Water, Protect our Health
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
Here Comes the Sun, What Now?
By Lisa Frack, EWG Social Media Manager
Every year about this time my friends want to me to tell them exactly which sunscreen to buy. They want the one that works the best to protect skin with the least toxic ingredients. And who can blame them?
The thing is, I recommend a hat, shade, sunglasses and long sleeves, which is not at all what they're after. Our cultural norm is to slather our (very) bare skin with sunscreen and assume we're "covered." But of course we can't duck and cover all summer - especially with kids who are, and should be - outside playing. So I tell them what EWG discovered when we researched this year's sunscreen products - the highlights and the red flags:
THE HIGHLIGHTS
More recommended sunscreens
EWG recommends 1 in 5 of more than 600 beach and sport sunscreens, compared to 1 in 12 last year. Not because sunscreen makers are producing more superior products; because you told us you wanted more options for safer, more effective sunscreens, we went out and found some more good ones and added them to our database.
More mineral sunscreens
Nearly 90 brands, including CVS, Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Walgreens and Aveeno now offer sunscreens with zinc and titanium. These are the right choice for children, people with sensitive skin and others who want the best UVA protection without potentially hormone-disrupting chemicals like oxybenzone or vitamin A, which may be carcinogenic on sun-exposed skin. None of these sunscreens are sprayed or powdered, so they don't pose inhalation dangers. More on hormone disruptors and nanomaterials in sunscreens.
THE RED FLAGS
Poor UVA protection
Three of five U.S. sunscreens wouldn't be sold in Europe. EWG's analysis of more than 500 beach and sport sunscreens with SPF ratings of 30 and higher finds that more than 300 of them, about 60 percent, provide inadequate UVA protection and are too weak for the European market, where manufacturers voluntarily comply with a standard for meaningful UVA protection.
Risky vitamin A additives
Many sunscreen makers still use a form of vitamin A, called retinyl palmitate, ignoring recent scientific research by the federal Food and Drug Administration indicating the chemical may be photocarcinogenic - that it may heighten skin cancer risk when used on sun-exposed skin. While more definitive research is under way, EWG recommends that prudent consumers avoid vitamin A-laden sunscreens.
Sky-high SPF claims
About 1 in 6 beach and sport sunscreens claims SPFs higher than 50+, up from 1 in 8 in 2009. Yet studies show that high-SPF users are exposed to as much or more ultraviolet rays than people who use lower SPF products. Why? Those big numbers give people a false sense of security. They wait too long before reapplying, and they stay out in the sun too long.
Still no federal sunscreen rules
The FDA declared its intent to regulate sunscreens back in 1978. Thirty-three years later, the rules are still in bureaucratic limbo. While regulators delay, sunscreen makers can sell products that overstate sun protection and underperform in the real world. EWG continues to pressure the FDA to issue enforceable rules for sunscreen products.
Find the right one for you!
Now that you know our key findings, it's time to get started on your search for a sunscreen that protects your skin with minimal toxic ingredients - that you're comfortable wearing (or slathering on your kids!). Our searchable database has 1,700 products in it - beach and sport sunscreens, lip balm, moisturizers and makeups. Research the ones you already have - or find a new one. And download our iPhone App to keep the info handy when you need it most - in the sunscreen aisle!
It's almost Memorial Day weekend, the perfect time to stock up for a skin-safe summer of outdoor fun.
Hey Baby, Your Stuff is Toxic!
By Sonya Lunder, EWG Senior Scientist
Last year I cut small squares of foam from my sons' car seats, our glider rocker and my breastfeeding pillow, wrapped them in foil to prevent contamination and mailed them off to Duke University for chemical analysis. What the researchers there turned up is now part of a just-released study that found a startling number of toxic fire retardant chemicals in common baby products.
This isn't the first time I've studied fire retardants and children. A few years ago I documented the presence of these persistent and toxic chemicals in people. Used to slow the ignition of polyurethane foam (which is pretty flammable), these substances (known as polybrominated diethyl ethers or PBDEs) were taken off the U.S. market in 2006 because they were shown to be toxic to lab animals and, ultimately, to people. Studies by EWG and others confirmed that they were in the bodies of every American. We even found them in umbilical cord blood, which supplies nutrients - and in this case toxic fire retardants - to the developing fetus.
Identifying replacement chemicals - and their safetyUntil this week, though, we didn't know exactly what chemicals had replaced PBDEs in foam products. Without a stronger federal chemicals regulatory process, new chemicals aren't sufficiently tested before use, so there's no way to know for sure if they're safe., Thanks to Heather Stapleton and her team of chemical detectives at Duke, however, we now know that we've got another toxic problem on our hands - and in our baby products!
For the new study, a group of organizations, including EWG, collected 101 foam samples from baby products in the homes of our friends and supporters, including changing table pads, nursing pillows, car seats and portable crib mattresses.
The analysis found that 80 percent of the samples contained chemical fire retardants and more than a third contained a chemical called Tris, which was taken out of polyester pajamas in the 1970s because of indications that it caused cancer. In total, the products tested contained eight different fire retardants, including PBDEs in a handful of older items.
Kids are unique and have higher exposures
Three years ago EWG found that 1-to-4-year-old kids had higher concentrations of fire retardants in their blood than their mothers did, probably because kids spend more time on the floor and are always putting their hands and other objects in their mouths - and ingesting microscopic particles of foam and fire retardants that lie around the house in dust.
My sons are probably more exposed to toxic fire retardants than I am - particularly my 1-year-old, who is teething right now, with both hands always in his mouth! Come to think of it, given the wide array of foam children's products that are required to be fire retardant, they probably have a lot more exposure to Tris than I did when I wore fire retardant PJs back in the 70s.
California requires foam in children's products to be fire safe (per its Technical Bulletin 117), and, as a result, most American kids' products contain Tris and other fire retardants. As a matter of fact, this new study found chemicals in every single car seat, rocking chair and nursing pillow tested.
As of January 2011, California exempts strollers, infant carriers and nursing pillows from that requirement, but we at EWG urge them to exclude car seats and all other foam baby products that pose a very low fire risk and to find safer ways to protect other foam items from fire. Unfortunately, this spring the state failed to pass just this sort of a bill.
How to reduce your family's exposure
To limit your exposure to these chemicals, you should carefully consider the foam products in your household - and any new ones you might bring in:
- Try to buy baby items that don't contain foam, such as nursing pillows that are filled with polyester instead.
- Contact companies to ask how they meet the fire safety requirements. In many cases, it can be done without chemical fire retardants.
- Throw away old items if the foam is exposed or starting to break down. (You can tell this is happening if it's sagging in places or otherwise changing its shape.) Some companies sell replacement pads for old glider rockers.
- Repair foam items with ripped covers.
- Take extra precautions with anything made before 2006 - it might contain PBDEs, the most toxic fire retardant chemical. In addition to kids' products, this applies to those hard-to-replace items such as couches, easy chairs, carpet padding and automobile seats.
- Dust! That's right, these chemicals accumulate in household dust, so dust often. And use a vacuum fitted with a HEPA filter. These vacuums are more efficient at trapping small particles and will likely remove more contaminants and other allergens from your home. Read more about dust and fire retardants in our report.
Stacking a Fracking Panel
Energy secretary Stephen Chu claims that his panel studying the safety and environmental dangers of natural gas hydraulic fracturing is "diverse" and "respected."
- Panel chair John Deutch is on the board of Cheniere Energy, Inc., a liquefied natural gas drilling company that paid him $882,000 from 2006 through 2009. Schlumberger, Ltd., one of the world's three largest hydraulic fracturing companies, paid Deutch $563,000 in 2006 and 2007. Deutch is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and served as a director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
- Stephen Holditch is an engineering committee chairman at Matador Resources, an oil and gas exploration company, and heads the petroleum engineering department at Texas A&M.
- Mark Zolack is senior advisor to Baker Hughes, Inc., an oilfield services company engaged in fracking and chair of GeoMechanics International, a consulting firm for various oil and gas drilling problems. He is a professor, at Standford University.
- Kathleen McGinty is senior vice president of Weston Solutions, Inc., an oil and gas industry consulting firm, and a director of NRG Engery, a Princeton, N.J. wholesale power generation compan whose assets include more than two dozen natural gas companies. She has served at the Clinton White House and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
- Susan Tierney is a managing principal of Analysis Group, which consults for utilities that use natural gas and for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the natural gas pipeline industry association. She was an assistant Energy secretary under Clinton.
- Daniel Yergin is co-founder, chairman and executive vice president of IHS CERA, an international consulting firm whose clients include the oil, natural gas, coal, power and clean energy communities. He wrote the book The Prize about the oil industry.
U.S. Pediatricians to Congress: Reform Chemical Policy Now
By Leeann Brown and Lisa Frack
U.S. pediatricians are putting their considerable muscle behind the calls for Congress to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a failed federal law that has exposed millions of children, beginning in the womb, to an untold number of toxic chemicals.
In its statement, Chemical-Management Policy: Prioritizing Children's Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that the 35-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act be "substantially revised," as it has "been ineffective in protecting children, pregnant women, and the general population from hazardous chemicals in the marketplace." Environmental Working Group would agree.
EWG President Ken Cook welcomed the pediatricians into this important effort to protect children's health:
"When the nation's pediatricians sound the alarm, it's time for everyone to act. These are the doctors who see and treat more and more children with autism, ADHD, cancer and other health problems that are on the rise in the U.S. and are associated with exposures to toxic chemicals.
It is my hope that all members of Congress take the AAP's call for reform seriously and think about the children they represent when it's time to vote."
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) took the charge to reform the outdated law once again, and recently introduced the federal Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. Lautenberg's legislation would establish a protective standard by which chemicals' safety would be determined.
It would go a long way to eliminating spurious claims of confidential business information, which currently allow health and safety information of common chemicals to be withheld from the public, medical professionals and even within the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA would set priorities among more than 84,000 chemicals in the agency's inventory, insuring the most problematic and hazardous chemicals are acted upon first.
Dr. Harvey Karp, a nationally renowned pediatrician and EWG board member sums it up well:
"People are innocent until proven guilty, but toxic chemicals should not be. The chemical industry must take the necessary steps to ensure its products are safe for human health before enter commerce and work their way into our children's vulnerable bodies."
Hear, hear. It's past time to reform TSCA. We're glad the to have this esteemed group of pediatricians on board to make it a reality.
Why we (still) don't trust Chesapeake Energy
By Leeann Brown, EWG Press SecretaryApril was a busy month for the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania, especially for one company in particular - Chesapeake Energy Corporation. And that's saying a lot for one of the country's most active natural gas drilling companies.
"Until recently, EPA has shown little interest in regulating the drilling industry. One reason is that Congress has stripped the agency's ability to set standards for drilling activities. But now, in response to growing public concern, EPA is finally beginning to take action to ensure that natural gas and oil drilling do not pollute precious water supplies."
Protect our Water, Protect our Health
