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
Don't wipe out: The hidden hazards of antibacterial wipes
Getting sick on pesticides Big Ag can't live without
Dry cleaning chemicals hang around - on your clothes
Salad bars surge in D.C. schools
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
Your best air freshener isn't an air freshener
By Rebecca Sutton, PhD, EWG Senior Scientist
A quick spritz of air freshener may seem like a simple way to kill funky odors. Unfortunately, that pleasing smell is just more indoor air pollution.
Levels of harmful indoor pollutants like formaldehyde, chloroform and styrene range from 2 to 50 times higher than outdoor levels. And because we spend most of our time indoors, our toxic exposures inside our homes, workplaces and schools are significant.
The dirt on air fresheners
Air fresheners - in aerosol, spray, solid, candle or plug-in form - don't remove odors. They just mask them.
It's literally impossible to track down a full list of ingredients for most air fresheners sold in the U.S., because there is no requirement for companies to disclose ingredients. A few companies provide ingredient lists on their website in response to consumer demand, but the word "fragrance" may hide dozens of chemicals, many of which may never have been assessed for safety. Ingredients commonly used in fragrances in air fresheners include phthalates, which make fragrances last longer and are linked to male reproductive system birth defects and hormone disruption, and synthetic musks, which are linked to allergies and hormone disruption.
Last year, a University of Washington study found that eight unnamed, widely used U.S. air fresheners released an average of 18 chemicals into the air. On average, one in five of these chemicals were hazardous substances highlighted in federal and some state pollution standards. Fully half the air fresheners tested released acetaldehyde, a likely human carcinogen according to the EPA.
When EWG conducted more sensitive testing of the air freshener Febreze Air Effects as part of a 2009 study of cleaning supplies used in California schools, we detected a total of 89 airborne contaminants, including acetaldehyde.
Are there greener alternatives?
When it comes to air fresheners, not so much. Some cleaning supplies are rated green by third-party certifiers Green Seal and EcoLogo, but there are no green certification standards for air fresheners.
Natural or homemade air fresheners scented with essential oils aren't guaranteed free of potentially harmful chemicals. Essential oils are a complex combination of highly concentrated, naturally-derived chemicals. Though they are found in the natural world, they are rarely so concentrated. Few natural chemicals in essential oils and other plant-based ingredients have been tested for safety. Some can trigger allergies in sensitive individuals.
Better ways to freshen your indoor air
Instead of using air fresheners, open a window, run a fan, and get rid of the real source of the smell. A box of baking soda is a safe way to reduce odors. A HEPA air filter can safely remove some odors and allergens.
It just doesn't make sense to pollute our inside air. It's easier, cheaper and healthier to just say no to completely unnecessary products.
[Thanks to Flickr CC & soham_pablo for the open window]
Chemical ag's flyboys often miss the mark
By Alex Formuzis, EWG V-P for Media Relations
One of my favorite movie scenes of all time features George C. Scott portraying General George Patton in the film Patton. As he's meeting with other Allied field commanders in a base in North Africa they come under surprise attack from the German Luftwaffe.
I hadn't thought about that clip until I read an August 29 article in the Denver Post:
"I came out of a sound sleep and honestly our entire house was shaking, and I said, 'What is that God-awful roar'," said Stephanie Feller, a resident of Sagewater Court in Fossil Lake Ranch (Colorado). "I thought, 'My God, we are all under attack'. "The "God-awful roar" Feller experienced came from a crop duster, not enemy aircraft, and it wasn't gunfire, but pesticides that hit her property.
Again, from the August 29, 2011 edition of the Denver Post: "Feller said immediately after the airplane flew over, her nose and eyes began burning."
Folks who live near corn operations in the Midwest are also facing similar incidents of crop duster flyovers. In 2010, Indiana residents filed 24 complaints of aerial pesticide spray drifts with the state's pesticide program.
Dave Scott, with the Office of Indiana State Chemist and Seed Commissioner told the Muncie Star Press (Aug. 21, 2011) that "If they get sprayed, they should take their clothing off, stick it in a clean garbage bag, take a shower and call us. The bottom line is, it's OK for crop dusters to be out there, but every product says you can't spray people or drift onto people. If you get sprayed, that's the greatest likelihood of absorbing the stuff."
This reminds me of another iconic film clip.
Crop Dusters: Back in Vogue
For years, the use of crop dusters on the cornfields wasn't always the preferred method to apply pesticides and fungicides to cornrows. It was often too expensive.
However, with corn prices at record levels, demand for more of the crop has made aerial application affordable and back IN vogue, including squirting cornfields with the highly toxic pesticide glyphosate, known by Monsanto's trade name RoundUp.
According to the August 21 report in The Muncie Star Press, one crop dusting operation was fined $1,250 for applying pesticides without a license. The paper quoted a local resident as complaining that the pesticides "browned his maple leaves and spruce needles, burned his petunias and peonies and spotted his strawberry plants." A lab identified the substance as glyphosate, the paper said.
The U.S. Geological Survey recently reported finding widespread glyphosate in air, river and rainwater in Iowa and Mississippi.
Unfortunately, people who happen to live in fly zones are being dusted with airborne releases of pesticides and fungicides, causing much concern about the potential impacts these chemical aerial assaults may mean for people's health.
"I am a cancer survivor. I try so hard to avoid this stuff. I don't smoke or drink, so it's very upsetting to be poisoned in my own home. It was coating my house and it also hit me," Selma, Ind., resident Sheri Stewart told the Muncie Star Press.
Dan Cooper of Fort Collins, Colo. described some of the symptoms he experienced shortly after a crop duster buzzed his home. "Dizziness, sinuses swollen, just a little bit stumbly," Cooper told The Coloradoan's Bobby Magill.
There are similar stories of pesticide drift into residential areas located near cotton fields from west Texas to Georgia and fruit and near vegetable operations in California.
Spray Drift: Is it Floating Your Way?
The practice of blasting crops with pesticides is not a precise science - far from it.
Spray drift is a common occurrence that can leave homes, playgrounds, schools, backyard swing sets and patio furniture - not to mention people -- covered in toxic chemicals.
Of particular concern are schools, playgrounds and daycare facilities located near chemical agriculture operations. The Pesticide Action Network has helped sound the alarm on this issue.
According to the network's website:
- Schoolchildren in Strathmore, California, were exposed to pesticides sprayed in a neighboring field in November 2007, after which they reported feeling dizzy and falling sick.
- Eleven people got sick, including seven children who were hospitalized in Kahuku, Hawaii in 2007 when organophosphate insecticide fumes drifted over a school from a nearby sod farm.
Aerial and land pesticide spraying can taint soil, other field crops and nearby waterways. Modern agribusiness is predicted to use more than 1 billion pounds of pesticides annually, with large quantities contaminating local water supplies throughout the country.
For nearly a decade, Oluf Johnson's central Minnesota organic farm, which is surrounded by corn and soybean operations, has been the victim of aerial pesticide drift. Johnson and his family have fought the Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. in court for years. Last July, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that Johnson is entitled to damages from the pesticide cooperative that contaminated his fields, rendering his crop unsalable in the organic market.
A California appellate court handed down a similar ruling in December of 2010, awarding an organic herb farmer $ 1 million after a nearby farming operation doused his crop with pesticides. Agriculture chemicals are now so widely used that they can be found in umbilical cord blood of American newborns.
Chemical agriculture and its aerial bombardiers have managed to pollute the entire biosphere --including people not yet born.
Keep on flying and thanks again (for nothin'), chemical ag.
EWG to FDA: Sunscreen Regs a Good Step, Not Enough
By Etan Yeshua, EWG Stabile Legal Fellow
Nearly thirty-three years after the federal Food and Drug Administration announcing its intention to develop sunscreen regulations, it finally finalized some of its rules this summer. And while we at the Environmental Working Group were pleased with some of the progress made, in some key areas the FDA didn't go far enough to protect public health.
So when the agency asked for comments, EWG weighed in and requested additional, more health-protective measures.
New Sunscreen Rules: Some Progress, Some Shortcomings
In June we blogged about the new rules' shortcomings. Our comments to the FDA raise those issues in a formal way. The rules set a very low bar for sunscreens to qualify as "broad-spectrum." If most sunscreens score an easy A, consumers will get a false sense of protection. The rules also fail to advance the investigation of new active ingredients (used in sunscreens in Europe) that could prove to be safe and effective tools in the fight to prevent skin cancer.
But the new rules do provide consumers with better information, promote more effective use of sunscreens, and help to ensure the safety of products on the market. Our letter to the FDA reflects these positive steps as well.
FDA's Unfinished Business
EWG urges the FDA to make good on its proposal to cap SPF labeling at "50 Plus." Products with SPF values above 50 have not been shown to provide additional clinical benefit. Studies show that people who use high-SPF sunscreens tend to stay out in the sun for longer periods of time - without applying another layer - than do people who use lower SPF sunscreens. Consumers believe that the higher the SPF level, the greater the protection though, in fact, SPF levels above 50 do not provide significant increases in protection from the sun's ultra-violet rays.
We also support the FDA's plan to study the safety of sunscreen sprays. Aerosolized chemical ingredients present unique risks to health because they can be inhaled. Safety assessments of sunscreen ingredients have focused exclusively on lotions. Spray sunscreens, which contain active ingredients that have been found to cause skin sensitization and hormone disruption, have not been studied. Nor is it clear that fast-drying spray formulations are effective; they may dry up before users can spread them around the skin for full coverage.
The FDA has taken an important step in the right direction. Yet consumers deserve a more complete set of regulations that ensure the safety and effectiveness of sunscreens.
You can track the FDA's progress in rolling out the regulations on its own website or here on Enviroblog. While you're at it, take a look at EWG's sunscreen database to see how the sunscreen you use measures up.
Fracking Jobs? N.Y. Residents Need not Apply
By Elaine Shannon, EWG Editor-in-chief
Think fracking for natural gas means jobs?
Think again.
In a new assessment of fracking's potential and risks, the New York state Department of Environmental Conservation projects that if the natural gas industry is permitted to conduct hydraulic fracturing to exploit the state's gas-rich shale deposits, less than a quarter of the jobs would go to people who live in the state.
"A handful of jobs in the drilling industry could cost New Yorkers billions of dollars they don't have," Dusty Horwitt, senior counsel for the Environmental Working Group, testified before the New York City Council environmental protection committee today (Sept. 22, 2011). "That's why it is especially important for New York to proceed carefully."
After analyzing a 1,500-page environmental impact statement on fracking published earlier this month by the state environmental conservation agency, Horwitt said the state plan projects that New Yorkers would not fill 90 percent of local gas industry jobs until the 30 years after drilling begins.
In the meantime, he said, the risks of pollution are daunting. He said the state's plan for regulating fracking doesn't require a large enough buffer zone between drilling operations and water sources. Consequently, he said, the state cannot assure New Yorkers that drinking water supplies will be safe from pollution by fracking chemicals nor from methane released from gas pockets deep in the shale. As Josh Fox's Oscar-nominated film Gasland demonstrates, flammable methane freed from underground fissures can bubble into well water and turn a homeowner's faucet into a torch.
"If upstate drilling causes contamination, the state estimates that building a filtration plant to clean up New York City's drinking water is $8 billion AT MINIMUM," Horwitt testified. "The state does not guarantee that the city's water can, in fact, be cleaned at any cost. The state's revised environmental impact statement acknowledges as much, saying 'once polluted, it [is] very difficult and very expensive to return these water supplies back to their original condition'."
Horwitt pointed out that, according to published reports, the state's 14 inspectors now oversee about 1,000 active oil and gas wells. If high-volume hydraulic fracking is permitted, their workload will escalate by an anticipated 1,600 applications annually, or about 100 applications per inspector.
"These 14 overworked inspectors stand between New York City and a multi-billion-dollar disaster," Horwitt said.
He added that the industry's history of flouting the law calls for heightened vigilance. Earlier this year, he said, investigators for the U.S. House of Representatives' Energy and Commerce Committee reported that from 2005 to 2009, oil and gas drilling companies injected underground more than 32 million gallons of diesel fuel, or fluids containing diesel fuel, in hydraulic fracturing operations in 19 states. The investigators said those actions appeared to violate the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, which requires permits for fracking with diesel because it contains carcinogenic benzene. Industry officials confirmed that they had done so but explained that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had failed to set up a permitting process.
"This record of willfully ignoring a federal law on a technicality shows that regulators will need to keep a close watch on the industry," Horwitt said. "We doubt that a handful of overworked state inspectors can scrutinize thousands of new drilling and fracturing operations as closely as they - and the public - would like."
Don't wipe out: The hidden hazards of antibacterial wipes
By Rebecca Sutton, PhD, EWG Senior Scientist
Grocery stores dispense them for wiping down carts, gyms, for spiffing up exercise equipment. Some schools hand them out so kids can scrub their desks and ask parents for wipes as back-to-school supplies.
Antibacterial cleaning wipes are everywhere, but are they harmless? Unfortunately, for most popular versions, that's not the case.
Why worry? In a word: Quats
The most common antibacterial agents in cleaning wipes are called "quats" (short for quaternary ammonium compounds) and include such chemical mouthfuls as alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride and benzalkonium chloride. Of course, difficult pronunciation does not necessarily equal danger, but in this case we are talking about pesticides that are certainly toxic to bacteria and can affect human health, too.
The American Medical Association discourages the use of antibacterial agents in consumer products because they may encourage the development of "superbugs" - antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Quat-resistant bacteria have been detected in homes routinely cleaned with antibacterial products. These bacteria were also resistant to a number of other important antibiotics, suggesting that regular exposure to quats could create microorganisms difficult or impossible to control with today's antibiotic arsenal.
The Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics, a leading international authority on asthma, considers these chemicals to be "asthmagens," - substances that can cause asthma to develop in otherwise healthy people. With asthma now affecting nearly one in ten children in the U.S., it makes sense to avoid unnecessary exposures to asthma-causing chemicals, especially for kids.
Hold the fragrance, please!
The mystery mixtures that provide a wipe's burst of fragrance can contain hundreds of untested chemicals, including toxic ingredients like phthalates and synthetic musks - both suspected hormone disruptors. Fragrances are also among the top five allergens worldwide. Just skip them; does a wipe really need a scent?
Greener options for clean hands and surfaces
Regular hand washing - with ordinary soap, not antibacterial versions - is the best way to fight germs and avoid getting sick. Fragrance-free alcohol hand sanitizers are good options when no sink is available (like a school classroom, for example). And because antibacterial pesticides don't always penetrate the dirt and grime that hide germs, routine cleaning with regular - not antibacterial - cleaners is the best way to keep surfaces free of germs. So don't ask kids to clean school surfaces with antibacterial wipes - a quick squirt with soapy water and some elbow grease is healthier.
Where an antibacterial cleaning wipe is necessary, look for alcohol-based wipes, rather than those containing quats. If you don't see these in the cleaning aisle of your grocery or drug store, try the aisle with bandages and antiseptics. And if you do use wipes, pulls them from the container slowly and with a sideways motion - a quick, upward jerk can spray disinfecting chemicals right into your eyes.
PS - Diaper wipes for babies are a whole different ball of wax. The ingredients to avoid there are preservatives (specifically 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, also known as bronopol) and fragrance. You can find safer, fragrance-free options in EWG's Skin Deep database, or make your own at home using cloth or paper towels (that way you'll know exactly what's in them!).
[Thanks to flickr & SMercury98 for the clean hands pic]
Getting sick on pesticides Big Ag can't live without
By Alex Formuzis, EWG V-P for Media Relations
Chemical agriculture's defense of pesticides conjures up the image of the chain-smoking industry attorney Nathan Thurm slithering through a minefield of facts and figures about the causes of global warming in this classic skit from Saturday Night Live.
Stacks of scientific studies have documented serious health risks to humans from pesticide exposure, but pesticide makers and sprayers, like the fictional Mr. Thurm, ignore the research and stick with talking points or their own questionable "science" in their efforts to muddy the waters, create confusion and delay government action to protect the public. Meanwhile, we eaters are left to consume pesticides along with conventionally grown produce.
Pesticides are engineered to kill living organisms in a number of ways, including destroying the nervous system of the insects they target. They can't be good for human health, either.
The most worrisome pesticides in wide use today are organophosphates, OPs for short. Earlier this year, three separate studies published at the same time reached very similar, and very disturbing, conclusions: Children exposed to organophosphates while in the mother's womb had lower IQs when they reached school age than unexposed children.
Other health problems that have been linked to low-dose exposure to OPs include disruption of the endocrine (hormonal) system, lower levels of testosterone and other hormones, leukemia, lymphoma and Parkinson's disease.
Here's a rogue's gallery of the most worrisome pesticides:
1. Chlorpyrifos:
One of the OP pesticides most widely used by chemical agriculture is chlorpyrifos, also known by the brand names Dursban and Lorsban. It's applied in large quantities to a number of crops, including corn, oranges and apples. It was once heavily used as an in-home insecticide, but the Environmental Protection Agency banned it for home use in 2001 because of the risk to children's health.
Most recently, chlorpyrifos was back in the headlines when it was linked to the deaths of several tourists in Thailand, who were apparently killed by a chlorpyrifos-based fumigant used to eradicate bedbugs from hotel rooms.
None of this seems to matter to sprayers and manufacturers, though. In the face of this and plenty of other evidence that chlorpyrifos exposure can cause serious and permanent health problems in humans, the statements of leading agribusiness representatives reveal their true colors:
"CAFA (California Alfalfa and Forage Association) has been working hard to oppose some people in the environmental movement who are trying to basically take all the organophosphates away from us, but in particular, chlorpyrifos." - Philip Bowles, CAFA board member and president of Bowles Farming in Los Banos, Calif. Western Farm Press, January 17, 2009"Chlorpyrifos has become a major target of environmental groups who are trying to take it off the market. Fortunately, Dow AgroSciences has stated its determination to defend the insecticide." - Aaron Keiss, Feb.18, 2010 column in Western Farm Press
When environmental and community groups pressed EPA in 2010 to restrict Lorsban, one of Dow AgroSciences' popular products, the company ran this (scare-tactic) ad depicting a world without fruits and vegetables.
"Medellin lives with his parents and three little sisters in the agricultural town of Lindsay, California, where chlorpyrifos is sprayed routinely on the orange groves surrounding his home. During the growing season, the family is awakened several times a week by the sickly smell of nighttime pesticide spraying. What follows is worse: searing headaches, nausea, vomiting."
Tests showed that Medellin had five times more chlorpyrifos in his body than the average American, based on research conducted by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In turn, a July 23, 2010, article in the San Francisco Chronicle, quoted Cynthia Cory, director of environmental affairs for the California Farm Bureau Federation, as having this to say about chlorpyrifos and the situation the Medellin family faced:
"We have to continually evaluate chemicals and make sure they are used in the safest way - but I do believe that has been done with this chemical. It's a widely used chemical in California and across the United States, and it's used on a wide range of insects. There's no alternative that's going to replace it tomorrow, but we try to continue to reduce its use." (Emphasis added)
Think about it. If chlorpyrifos is so safe, why does chemical agriculture strive to reduce its use?
2. Parathion:
One of the most notorious members of the organophosphate family is the pesticide parathion, which made hundreds, if not thousands, of farm workers sick and was responsible for nearly 100 deaths before it was banned in the U.S. in 2003. More than a decade earlier, public health officials and agribusiness executives had been debating its risks to human health.
"It is a chemical that is very acutely toxic, and as an agency we need to decide what we are going to do on it quickly." - Linda J. Fisher, then EPA's assistant administrator in charge of pesticides, in March 1991.
But according to a story by Maura Dolan in The Los Angeles Times, the toxicity of parathion was hardly atop the list of concerns for Bob Krauter of the California Farm Bureau at the time.
"Bob Krauter, spokesman for the California Farm Bureau, said the loss of the pesticide, manufactured by Cheminova A/S, a Danish company, would be especially hard for almond growers, the farmers most dependent upon it in California. Substitutes tend to be less effective and more expensive," he said.
Krauter's bottom line: Nuts come before the public's health.
3. Aldicarb
This pesticide was responsible for the worst outbreak of pesticide poisoning in U.S. history.
"At least 2,000 people fell ill from eating California watermelons illegally contaminated with aldicarb on the Fourth of July in 1985," wrote Environmental Health News' Marla Cone on Aug. 18, 2010.
Four years later, the EPA began it push to restrict the use of aldicarb, as The New York Times reported on March 21, 1989:
"The Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide division has recommended barring the use of an acutely toxic insecticide on potatoes and imported bananas. The staff report says the chemical presents an unreasonable risk to infants and children.
"One drop of aldicarb absorbed through the skin can kill an adult, toxicologists say.
"A spokesman for Rhone-Poulenc (manufacturer of aldicarb), Mary Anne Ford, said today that aldicarb is not a hazard on food crops.
''That data does not reflect any risk to any group including infants and children,'' said Ms. Ford. ''I'm concerned for parents who hear such unrealistic numbers.''
Thanks for your concern, Ms. Ford.
Aldicarb is still being used today on a number of fruits and vegetables. Its U.S. manufacturer, Bayer CropScience, has agreed to phase it out by 2015, but despite all the misery it has caused farmers and consumers for decades, the company still more or less sticks to the original talking points, as reflected in this August 2010 press release:
"Although the company does not fully agree with this new risk assessment approach, Bayer CropScience respects the oversight authority of the EPA and is cooperating with them. This decision does not mean that aldicarb poses a food safety concern." 'For nearly 40 years, Temik (aldicarb) has provided farmers with unsurpassed control of destructive pests, without compromising human health or environmental safety,'
said Bill Buckner, president and CEO of Bayer CropScience." 'We recognize the significant impact this decision will have on growers and the food industry, and will do everything possible to address their concerns during this transition,' added Buckner."
What about the impact this pesticide has had on the public's health for more than four decades, Mr. Buckner?
The Public Votes at the Grocery Store
While chemical agriculture clings to its arsenal of pesticides, the American public has become increasingly concerned - and rightly so - about their presence in food. A recent NPR/Thomson-Reuters poll found that nearly 60 percent of Americans prefer organic produce to conventional alternatives, a third them primarily concerned about pesticides.
The reactions of pesticide users and producers I've highlighted is just a snapshot of the industry's typical response in the face of research and federal action stressing the negative impacts that pesticides have had on human health.
Its leaders never acknowledge possible risks to people, especially children. Time and again, their only concern is for losing a tool from the pesticide toolbox. That should tell consumers something about where U.S. agribusiness stands on the use toxic chemicals in growing its fruits and vegetables.
Dry cleaning chemicals hang around - on your clothes
By Paul Pestano, EWG Research Analyst
If you've ever dry cleaned your clothes (you have, right?), you've likely wondered how the "dry" part happens. And it may even have crossed your mind that it's a chemical process. Of course you'd be right.
Dry cleaners use dangerous chemical solvents that can stick to clothing. Most cleaners use perchloroethylene, also known as tetrachloroethylene, PCE, or perc. It is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, according to the U.S. National Toxicology Program, a prestigious inter-agency scientific body. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has reached a similar conclusion.
When inhaled, even low concentrations of perc are known to cause respiratory and eye irritation, headache, dizziness and vision problems.
How much perc remains on dry cleaned clothing?
A new study by scientists at Georgetown University, published online last month in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, found high levels of residual perc on dry-cleaned wool, cotton and polyester (what do you have on now?). Subsequent dry cleaning cycles intensified these concentrations. Silk was the only fabric that did not appear to retain perc.
The research team found that the concentration of the chemical on wool was reduced by about half after a week, even inside a plastic bag. This finding suggests that perc vaporizes from clothing and is released into your home.
The Georgetown study was the first of its kind. "I was surprised that no one has taken this first step of quantifying perchloroethylene," says Paul Roepe, the principal author. "There should be a lot more studies done on this."
Roepe noted that actual human exposure and the consequent health effects from the amounts of perc his team found on fabrics are difficult to assess. Nevertheless, the presence of a suspected carcinogen and its inherent capacity to dissipate into the air are disconcerting. Dry cleaning workers face even greater hazards than consumers.
There are no federal regulations that limit the use of perc in commercial dry cleaning, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is reassessing the chemical's health impacts.
The California Environmental Protection Agency has adopted measures to phase the chemical out of dry cleaning by 2023.
Green(er) Options?
Dry cleaning establishments have begun using alternatives to perc. In fact, fabrics cleaned at dry cleaners in the Georgetown study successfully used so-called "green" methods that left no perc residue.
However, consumers should always be wary of substitutes. The dry cleaning solvent Siloxane D5, for instance, has a potential cancer hazard and accumulates in human and animal bodies and the environment. There is some evidence that hydrocarbon dry cleaning fluid, which typically employs a propriety mixture of chemicals, causes cancer in rats. Georgetown researchers say that one of the "green" dry cleaners from which they obtained samples most likely used hydrocarbon solvents.
There are very few truly "green" dry cleaning technologies. Liquid carbon dioxide is the safest because it uses a naturally occurring gas and recyclable cleaning agents. Another safe alternative is wetcleaning, a relatively new process that uses biodegradable detergents and water.
The best way to avoid harmful dry cleaning chemicals is to buy washable clothing. When you must dry clean, follow these tips:
- Ask your cleaners what solvents they use. Watch out for perchloroethylene under any of its names (perc, PCE, tetrachloroethylene), siloxane and hydrocarbon solvents.
- Patronize cleaners that use liquid carbon dioxide or the wetcleaning method.
- Don't leave dry cleaned items in the car for a long time because perc vapors can build up inside the vehicle.
- Air dry cleaned clothes outdoors.
- Ask for a less toxic alternative - you just might convince them.
Salad bars surge in D.C. schools
By Alex Formuzis, EWG V-P for Media Relations
Local bok choy and baby spinach, a mesclun mix with mandarin oranges and broccoli florets topped with Asian chicken strips. No, it's not the lunch menu at Chez Panisse, the influential organic restaurant known for serving up healthy and local cuisine. It's part of Monday's lunch menu at 27 Washington, D.C. public school cafeterias.
These lunchrooms are striving to get young people hooked on healthy foods by offering new salad bars to students. The menu changes are part of a campaign launched by Jeff Mills, the food service director for the D.C. school system, to improve the diets of kids, especially those who live in neighborhoods without stores and farm stands selling fresh produce.
According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rates of obesity among American adolescents are highest in D.C., a fact not lost on Mills and his colleagues. In the last two years, several schools have started gardens and removed sugar-laden cereal and flavored milk from the breakfast menu.
An initiative called Let's Move Salad Bars to Schools and its partner organizations, including Whole Foods and United Fresh, funded 15 of the new salad bars in elementary and middle schools. The school system bought a dozen more salad bars for high schools.
Paula Reichel, program coordinator for the school system's Office of Food and Nutrition Services, told Environmental Working Group:
"For high schools, we felt a larger salad bar (10 feet) was needed to support an increased number of students per lunch period and to provide students with more choice and variety."
Reichel also told EWG she and her team are currently working to put salad bars in all remaining schools through the grant DC received from Let's Move Salad Bars to Schools.
"We feel salad bars are a great addition to any cafeteria," Reichel said. "In middle and high school, they serve the purpose of increasing students' access to school meals as well as encouraging more fresh fruit and vegetable consumption and increasing students' food literacy. For the elementary age group, salad bars expose students to new foods and the repeated exposure increases the likelihood they'll try the items in the future."
Chartwells School Dining Services has been contracted by DCPS to help improve the overall food service in the city's schools, including assisting with the salad bar initiative. Margie Saidel, MPH, RF, LDN, VP for nutrition and sustainability for Chartwells is pro-salad bar:
"Chartwells is very happy to be working with Jeff Mills and the District of Columbia Public Schools to implement the new salad bars in schools campaign. Salad bars are a great way to support and promote the dietary guidelines in school-aged children by encouraging students to make half their plate fruits and vegetables. Chartwells is committed to providing a wide variety of fresh and local fruits and vegetables to the students we serve in a variety of formats, including the traditional salad bar as well as other unique methods of service."These and other initiatives are part of the Healthy Schools Act adopted by the D.C. City Council and signed into law in August 2010.
The new law is a groundbreaking approach to addressing the obesity crisis facing many of DC's children. It emphasizes nutrition and diet, increasing exercise, health and food education and making schools and classrooms more environmentally friendly.
[Thanks to Flickr and NatalieMaynor for the salad bar pic]
Keeping You in the Dark on Tap Water Contaminants
By Jane Houlihan, EWG Senior V-P for Research
More than 300 pollutants contaminate the water Americans drink, an EWG analysis of almost 20 million public records found. Truly pure tap water is a rare commodity in the U.S., but until now, at least, consumers have had an easy way to find out what's in the glass they're holding.
That could change if two Florida Congressmen get their way.
Under federal law, nearly every water supplier is required to mail to its customers an annual water quality report, called a Consumer Confidence Report, and many utilities also post them online. These documents list the pollutants detected in the water during the year by the utility's testing, how those contaminants might harm people's health, any violations of water quality standards, how the water is treated, and more -- the basics everyone should know about their water. Here's an example.
A bill (HR 1340) introduced by Republicans Bill Young and Gus Bilirakis would make it much harder for the public to get this vital information. Under their proposal, utilities would no longer need to mail the reports to customers unless testing found that a regulated contaminant had exceeded the legal limit (called the Maximum Contaminant Level or MCL) during the year. If not, reports could just be posted on the Internet. The two representatives argue that it's unnecessarily expensive to require the mailed reports.
This idea would be fine if the legal limits for tap water fully protected people's health and covered every contaminant in their water. Neither is true. The annual water quality reports that customers now get in the mail also list unregulated pollutants that EPA requires utilities to test for - chemicals for which no legal limit has been set - as well as those detected at legal but still troubling levels.
Why are these facts important to know?
- More than half of the pollutants found in tap water are not subject to any health or safety limits and can legally be present in any amount, and;
- The fact that a regulated pollutant is found at a level below the allowable limit is no guarantee of safety. The Environmental Protection Agency has set legal limits for 40 percent of regulated contaminants higher than the health-based levels its scientists recommend, often because achieving a lower level is considered too costly or technically impractical. The annual water quality report lists contaminants found in the water regardless of whether they exceed the legal limit or not.
The EPA stresses to utilities the importance of the annual water quality reports:
"It is important to communicate to your customers, and your customers have the right to know, the source of the water and what is in the water they drink. [Consumer Confidence Reports] help consumers make informed choices that affect the health of themselves and their families. They also encourage consumers to consider and appreciate the challenges of delivering safe drinking water. Educated consumers are more likely to help protect their drinking water sources and to understand the true costs of safe drinking water."
How can people make informed choices about their water - choices that affect their health - if they don't know what's in it? How many would know to go to their utility¹s website and download an annual water quality report after July 1 each year? Would you? And what about the one-fifth of all Americans who don't use the Internet, according to a 2010 study by the Pew Research Center? They cancall the utility and ask for a report, but how many will?
When everyone gets the report in the mail, more people learn about their water than would otherwise. In fact, the EPA urges utilities to send the report in a separate mailing, not with water bills, so that renters and other non-bill payers will be sure to get a copy.
EWG's message to utilities is this: be sure to use recycled paper, and then send a report to everyone who drinks your water. Until tap water is pure and safe for everyone, EWG believes that it's crucial to get the word out about what's in water and how to protect drinking water sources from pollution in the first place - loud and clear, online, in the mail and any other way the information can get out.
Support a Climate Rider for EWG
By Lauren Heumann, EWG intern and climate rider
Growing up, I was a huge fan of the Environmental Working Group. It had me hooked with its first Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce. I always rely on EWG's Sunscreen Safety Guide and the Skin Deep Cosmetics Database to help me sort through the thousands of personal care products out there, and I chose my most recent cell phone based solely on EWG's Cell Phone Radiation Report (it is definitely not a smart phone).
When I moved to Oakland and realized that one of EWG's offices was just down the street, I made a beeline there to see how I could get my foot in the door. And now here I am - interning for one of my favorite organizations.
But the environment isn't my only passion; cycling is, too. I've signed up to ride in the five-day, 320-mile Climate Ride California 2011 in support of EWG. I have a personal goal of raising $2,700 by Tuesday, Sept. 20. Can you help me make this goal? A donation in any amount - $5 or $50 or whatever you can afford- will make a big difference.
Click here to donate to my Climate Ride campaign and help support EWG!
As part of my internship, I was fortunate to work on EWG's recently released Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change and Health. Climate change is one of the most pressing environmental issues today. Our daily choices have large impacts on the climate: driving is the most obvious one, but what we eat also has consequences. The Meat Eater's Guide shows that there are easy choices we can make to reduce our effect on greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental effects.
In addition to working on the Meat Eater's Guide, I have made a personal commitment to reduce my carbon footprint. I have been commuting by bicycle for a number of years now, and last November I made the final leap and sold my car. I now rely solely on my own two legs to get me where I need to go.
My relationship with my bike goes far beyond my daily commute. My biking began as a way to get around, but it has erupted into a relentless passion. I bike not only for transportation but to explore new places, new roads, new mountains. As part of the Climate Ride, I will ride to help support EWG and other environmental organizations.
The ride supports and promotes sustainable solutions and environmental causes. The money I raise for EWG will help keep it working on improving and protecting the world we live in.
I am honored to be the face of EWG on this ride, carrying its message along the beautiful coast of Northern California and out into the rest of the world. I have relied on EWG's information and guidance for many years, and now it's my turn to return the favor. I need to raise $2,700 by Sept. 20. Please help me as I ride for EWG. Donate to my Climate Ride campaign today!
Thank you for your support. EWG and the Climate Ride mean so much to me.
