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
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
Feinstein to fight for BPA-free formula
By Elaine Shannon, Environmental Working Group editor-in-chief
Five years ago, tens of millions of baby bottles and sippy cups sold in the United States were manufactured with a petrochemical derivative called bisphenol A.
Today, according to the American Chemistry Council, that number is - zero.
The reason: the market - millions of American parents - has overwhelmingly rejected food containers made with BPA, a plastic hardener that leaches out of the plastic. Environmental Working Group and other consumer and health advocates have helped marshal a consumer revolt against baby bottles and sippy cups made of polycarbonate plastic because a major component, BPA, mimics estrogen and can disrupt the endocrine system. Research studies have linked BPA to cancer and serious brain, cardiovascular and reproductive system disorders, particularly when test animals are exposed in the womb and early life.
On Oct. 4, California became the latest and most populous state to bar the ubiquitous, lucrative chemical in baby bottles and sippy cubs. The California legislation was sponsored by EWG, which in 2009 published the first biomonitoring tests to detect BPA in American newborns. EWG's tests of umbilical cord blood bolstered biomonitoring research by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has found BPA in the bodies of virtually all Americans over age six. The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the United States produced 2.4 billion pounds of BPA worth about $2 billion in 2007.
Two days after the California statute became law, the powerful American Chemistry Council declared that it would no longer battle legislative and regulatory efforts to rid baby bottles and sippy cups of BPA. In fact, the ACC actually petitioned the federal Food and Drug Administration to change its regulations to reflect that "BPA is no longer used to manufacture baby bottles and sippy cups and will not be used in these products in the future." Steve Hentges, Ph.D., of ACC's Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, said in a press release,"Although governments around the world continue to support the safety of BPA in food contact materials, confusion about these products has become an unnecessary distraction to consumers, legislators and state regulators." (The ACC's categorical statement purports to cover ALL bottles and cups sold in the U.S., but independent research is needed to determine whether some U.S. outlets will still sell cheap BPA-based bottles and sippy cups manufactured overseas.)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), wrote to EWG on Oct. 12 that she intends to press ahead with her own bill, introduced last January, that would impose a federal ban on BPA in all children's products - not only polycarbonate baby bottles and cups but also cans of infant formula and baby food. Nearly all tin cans are coated on the inside with epoxy resin, which, like polycarbonate plastic, is based on BPA.
"At both the state and federal level, industry has spent millions lobbying against any restrictions on the use of BPA," Feinstein wrote to EWG. "You helped lead the way in California, and now the chemical industry has realized that consumers, advocates and legislators will not stand down against a chemical that could harm their health."
Jeremy Jacobs of Greenwire reported Oct. 12 in the New York Times that the American Chemistry Council has spent nearly $10 million on lobbying in California since 2005, and uncounted more through national campaigns online.
For Feinstein, for EWG and other reformers, the next hurdle is the canned food industry, which has been reluctant to abandon epoxy can coatings, claiming that substitutes are not as readily available and cheap. If Feinstein has her way, the industry would be forced to find a new coating material for cans of infant formula and baby food. Reformulation of those products could lead to even more dramatic market changes - because, as a 2007 EWG study documented, many canned foods like soup and soda favored by older kids and teens are also contaminated with BPA leached from can linings.
Feinstein acknowledged that she faces a tough fight. "As you well know, last year the American Chemistry Council prevented a vote in the Senate on precisely what they now seem to be advocating - a national ban on BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups," Feinstein wrote. "...I know how stubborn this industry has been, and how they have turned a blind eye to the manufacturers, retailers, and states taking action to remove BPA."
Canada, San Francisco blaze forward on cell phone advisories
By Renee Sharp, EWG California Director
As the world mourns the passing of iPhone creator Steve Jobs, San Francisco and Canada are blazing new paths to ensure that the public knows how to use cell phones safely.
On Oct. 4, responding to the World Health Organization's recent classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen, Canadian health officials updated their advice on safe cell phone use practices. In a significant step, Health Canada now advises parents to "reduce their children's RF exposure from cell phones," though it acknowledges that more research is needed to explore the consequences for human health of long-term exposure to cell phone radiation.
Canada joins France, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Germany, Israel and Finland in officially recommending limiting cell phone radiation exposure to children. Health Canada's recommends that consumers limit the length of their cell phone calls, use "hands-free" devices and text instead of talking.
The U.S. government appears unwilling to take similar actions, but that has not stopped San Francisco from taking a step forward to protect public health. This month, the city will start requiring retailers to post an informational poster and distribute fact sheets to educate consumers about how they can take simple steps to limit their exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones.
However, the fate of San Francisco ordinance depends on the outcome of a pending lawsuit filed by the wireless industry, which, apparently coincidentally, escalated its legal assault on the city the same day as the Health Canada announcement. In its revised complaint, CTIA, the wireless industry's main trade association, argues that its members' free speech rights are being violated because San Francisco is "compelling them to communicate messages and in a manner that is inaccurate and misleading, and that will harm consumers."
It's hard to imagine how a poster (above, right) whose tone is carefully measured -- reiterating unassailable facts scientific such as "cell phones emit radio-frequency energy" and "studies continue to assess potential health effects of mobile phone use"--could really be construed as inaccurate or misleading, much less harmful to consumers.
Even more amazing is CTIA's claim that San Francisco's ordinance conflicts with the federal government's effort to promote "the deployment of a robust, efficient, nationwide, wireless communications system."
Really? How is recommending that people text more or talk less going to really undermine that policy? After all, no one is asking consumers to get rid of their phones; rather they simply being advised to use them more safely.
If you want to talk about efficiency, one can't help but wonder whether the wireless industry should have spent more time making lower-RF cell phones instead of pouring all of this time, money and energy into fighting a simple campaign to educate the public about cell phone safety.
The Great Food Divide
By Alex Formuzis, EWG V-P for Media Relations
The fortunate among us need never struggle with either hunger or obesity. This morning my healthy 3-year old had yogurt, a banana and scrambled egg whites for breakfast before beginning her day. But for many in the U.S. and around the world, the story is very different.
Last month (Sept. 22), the World Disasters Report 2011 of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) highlighted the two very different struggles that people around the world are facing over food: the number of people considered overweight or obese has hit 1.5 billion, far outnumbering the 925 million who are literally fighting for crumbs.
The obesity epidemic is most often identified with Americans and other Western populations, but it has exploded into a full blown crisis in much of the rest of the world as well, including countries such as China and India that also have millions of people going hungry. And "globesity," as it's called, is on course to afflict millions more. The World Health Organization predicts that more than 2.3 billion people will be overweight and 700 million considered obese by 2015.
As in the United States, the global obesity epidemic hits hard among children. Worldwide, the World Health Organization found that more than 43 million children under 5 years of age were overweight, 35 million of them in developing countries.
Why is this happening? One of the main reasons is that more people than ever are consuming heavily processed "food" that offers little more than calories, sugar and fats.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calculates that about 17 percent of American children between 2 and 19 years of age are now obese, a threefold increase since 1980. And in the US, like the rest of the world, childhood obesity is much more prevalent in low-income communities where fast food chains and snack stores are often the cheapest, most convenient options for families.
Those with fewer resources are more likely to have diets heavy in processed food instead of fresh fruits, vegetables, proteins and whole grains. The CDC estimates that one of every seven preschoolers from low-income families is technically obese.
Spreading the Inactivity and Poor Diet
In addition to fundamental shifts in diets driven by the availability of fast food, other factors contributing to the explosion of obesity around the world include decreased physical activity due to improved access to modern transportation, including cars, trains and buses.
As the World Health Organization put it, "Increased consumption of more energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods with high levels of sugar and saturated fats, combined with reduced physical activity, have led to obesity rates that have risen three-fold or more since 1980..."
"They are simply catching up with us in terms of all the modern 'conveniences,' such as fast food, vending machines and so on," said Dr. David Katz, director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center.
On the other end of this dismal spectrum is the growing number of people who suffer from undernourishment. According to the IFRC, 15 percent of the world's population goes to bed hungry each night - many of them children.
Not surprisingly, the vast majority of them are in the populous countries of Asia. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has this geographical breakdown for 2010:
Extreme poverty, political and military conflict, climate change and misguided agriculture policies in the developed world all play a role in this catastrophe.
In recent years, for instance, the United States Congress has mandated that fully 40 percent of all corn crops be used for ethanol, taking out of production millions of acres of farmland that could have been dedicated to food instead of fuel. This policy has put pressure on prices of this and other food staples, reducing the availability of common grains for famine-plagued populations.
Hunger Amid Plenty
Adding to the crisis is the fact that vast amounts of food are simply wasted. Americans alone throw out about 40 percent of the food they buy, according to Jonathan Bloom, author of American Wasteland.
Today, Oct. 19, 2011, nearly 18,000 people worldwide will die from hunger-related causes. In the same 24 hours, only a little more than $3 million will be spent globally on food aid - a tenth of what Americans and Europeans combined will spend on pet food.
Yet there are 515 million obese people around world right now, and, today, Oct. 19, 2011, obesity-related diseases will cost the U.S. economy more than $281 million. These figures come from data and research conducted by the WHO, the United Nations and the National Institutes of Health.
If nothing changes, the arc of these pandemics will leave more than 3 billion people sick, dying or dead in the next few years. By 2020, those affected would make up about a third of the entire world population.
"If the free interplay of market forces has produced an outcome where 15 per cent of humanity is hungry while a fifth is overweight, something has gone wrong. Economics exists for people, not vice versa," wrote Bekele Geleta, the secretary general of the Red Cross/Red Crescent federation. "If this lamentable situation is to be tackled, we must find ways to regulate the laws of supply and demand and promote a more equitable distribution of food between those who have too little to eat, and those with too much."
You'll find Mr. Geleta's entire statement here. It's compelling commentary and analysis of this global crisis.
Dear Super Committee: What to Cut, What NOT to Cut
By Nils Bruzelius, EWG Executive Editor
Lobbyists for polluting industries and opponents of environmental regulation have been tripping over one another to come up with self-serving lists of targets for the Congressional Super Committee as it labors to find ways to reduce federal spending and trim the deficit.
The nation deserves a more thoughtful approach, one that recognizes that Americans want, and deserve, to live in a place where air and water are clean, where soil and natural resources are conserved for future generations, and where health and safety - not merely profit - stand atop the hierarchy of public values.
EWG believes that many, but not all, of the budget proposals offered by President Obama go in the right direction by recognizing a larger vision of the public good, one that takes into account the interests of all Americans, not just the self-serving interests of the wealthiest and those who seek to profit while sacrificing health and the environment.
With that in mind, EWG offers the Super Committee its own lists:
Top 10 Things NOT to Cut - if you care about the environment and public health:
- Good food for kids. Full funding for nutrition programs that help Americans who lack access to affordable, nutritious food, especially the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (formerly Food Stamps), the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, school meals and the Fruit and Vegetable School Snack Program, as well as funding for the Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act of 2010.
- The EPA. The Environmental Protection Agency's funding and authority to protect human health and the environment, including the resources it needs to appropriately enforce the Clean Air, Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water and inadequate Toxic Substances Control acts.
- Healthy foods. Programs that promote cultivation and consumption of fruits, vegetables and other healthy foods, including Section 32 Fruit and Vegetable Purchases, including the Department of Defense's FRESH program, and the Department of Agriculture's Specialty Crop Block Grants that are targeted to a wide range of specialty crop farmers and consumers.
- Food safety. Programs at the Food and Drug Administration and the US Department of Agriculture designed to ensure food safety, especially funding for the brand new Food Safety Modernization Act.
- Agricultural conservation. Conservation and research programs that support farming practices that prevent the loss of irreplaceable soil, prevent water and air pollution and conserve water and wildlife habitat.
- Water infrastructure. Funding for state and local efforts to replace the nation's crumbling, leaky infrastructure of aqueducts, pipes and water treatment facilities that struggle to supply Americans with pure, safe water.
- Clean energy. Funding for basic and applied scientific research at the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy that sow the seeds for tomorrow's true clean energy breakthroughs.
- Extreme weather. Research and monitoring programs at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA and elsewhere that seek to better understand the dynamics of climate change and to develop strategies to reverse the trends toward warmer temperatures and extreme weather events.
- Toxic-related disease research. Programs at public health agencies that identify, understand and find cures for disease and disability caused by poor diets and environmental contamination, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the National Toxicology Program and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
- Sustainable agriculture. USDA programs that provide new market opportunities and research for beginning, sustainable and organic farmers and ranchers, including the Farmers Market Promotion Program, Value-Added Producer Grants, Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, Sustainable Agriculture Research Education Programs and Organic Extension and Research Initiative.
Top things that the Congressional Super Committee should cut:
- Kickbacks for dirty fuels. Subsidies, tax credits and special breaks for the oil, gas, and mining industries that encourage the fouling of land, water and air.
- Ethanol subsidies. Subsidies and tax credits for first generation biofuels such as corn ethanol that encourage fencerow-to-fencerow crop production, contribute to higher food prices and barely dent the nation's reliance on fossil fuels.
- Cash to wealthy, absentee landowners. Direct payments that go to wealthy farm operations regardless of need and to landowners who do no farming, and loopholes that allow these subsidies to be paid to landowners and farmers who exceed payment limitations or income caps.
- Crop insurance. Heavily subsidized crop insurance programs that enrich insurance companies and farmers already making record incomes.
- Antiquated price support programs. Outdated price support programs for crops that currently command all-time high prices, such as corn, soybeans and wheat.
- Bogus rural energy programs. Energy programs in the farm bill that undermine true energy efficiency and independence at the expense of wind, solar and energy conservation projects, such as subsidizing large pulp and paper companies and funding installation of ethanol blender pumps.
Like our lists? Great. Then let the 12 members of the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction (aka the Super Committee) know that you want them to tackle the deficit the right way - because there IS a right way.
EWG sent the committee members our recommendations, showing that they can address the budget AND make sure that we protect programs for children, the environment and our health, as well as ensure that there's a true safety net for farmers who need it.
