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. Enviroblog is a project of EWG Action Fund.
FEED
An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.
TIPS
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblg.
BLOGROLL
STAY CONNECTED
Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]
Your body. My body. The Body Toxic.
Fire retardants: Disproportionate risk to small children
FEATURED
Elected officials MIA; Instead Wal-Mart and Burger King protecting your health
Back to school: Are we ready? Are we non-toxic?
Fire retardants: Disproportionate risk to small children
Lead: Celebrate its ban, but don't cross it off your list
7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs
Ask EWG
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?
SEARCH
Category Archive
Consumers to FDA: Be there or be square
While the federal Food and Drug Administration dithers about whether to ban bisphenol A (BPA), a plastics chemical and synthetic estrogen, from U.S. food packaging, increasing numbers of Americans are voting with their pocketbooks.
The winners: entrepreneurs who paid attention to the early scientific reports documenting possible health risks of trace amounts of BPA leached into food and beverages from epoxy can linings and polycarbonate plastic bottles.
Eden Foods, Inc., a Clinton, MI., natural food company that adopted BPA-free cans in 1999, around the time the Japanese food processing industry voluntarily eliminated the chemical from its wares, reports a 40 percent jump in sales of its canned beans since 2006.
Kleen Kanteen, a Chico, CA., company founded in 2003 to produce reusable stainless steel water bottles, did $2.5 million in sales in 2007. This year’s sales have spiked by a whopping 600 percent, and the company projects sales of $15 million or more by the end of the year. Since April, when Canada announced a ban on BPA in baby bottles, says Kleen Kanteen officer Jeff Cresswell, “It’s been pretty crazy.” Orders for Kleen Kanteen bottles, he says, “quadrupled in a matter of days.” The company has recently introduced new product lines, including a 12-ounce bottle that accepts a baby bottle top, sippy-cup lid and regular lid so it can stick with its owner from diapers to skinny jeans.
BornFree of Boca Raton, FL., launched in 2006 to make BPA-free baby bottles, sippy cups, pacifiers and other baby products, is enjoying "tremendous growth," according to a company official who declined to cite sales numbers.
The Environmental Working Group and other health and consumer organizations are pressing the FDA to order BPA removed from can linings, baby and water bottles and other food packaging. The agency is ignoring those calls -- and consumers are ignoring the FDA. Major North American retailers like Walmart, Toys “R” Us, REI, Costco, Sears and Home Depot have been pulling BPA-based baby bottles, water bottles and other products from their shelves. Earlier this year, popular sports bottle makers Nalgene and Camelbak introduced bottles made of Eastman Tritan copolyester, which contains no BPA.
Major baby bottle brands like Gerber, Evenflo and Playtex are also moving to non-BPA bottles, though more slowly. Top makers of canned baby formula, revealed by EWG to use BPA-laden can linings, have told Congress they are exploring alternatives. PBM, a maker of store brand formula, recently wrote the House Energy and Commerce committee, “[T]he possibility that bisphenol A may pose adverse health risks to the infants and children who are fed our formula was more than sufficient for us to begin the process of eliminating bisphenol A from our infant formula packaging." (In the meantime, to help parents through the transition, EWG has posted an online “guide to baby-safe bottles & formula.”)
Small, agile companies with the ability to ramp up production of non-BPA products appear to be enjoying the steepest growth curves. Earlier this month, the Investor Environmental Health Network, which calls itself a “collaborative partnership” of environmental health-savvy investment managers responsible for portfolios totaling $41 million, issued a “Bisphenol A Market Analysis Report” that concluded that demand for BPA-free food contact products has “exploded” because “consumers are not waiting around for the regulatory process to kick in.”
“Companies monitoring emerging science and taking strategic steps in advance of slow government regulatory processes appear to clearly have the competitive edge as ‘first movers’ in the marketplace,” the IEHN report says. “Whether they are innovative entrepreneurs or old-line companies, they are grabbing market share, enhancing their branding, and otherwise prospering from public awareness of toxic chemicals in common consumer products.”
The consumer revolt against BPA is an object lesson in how the power of information is changing the world -- one bottle at a time.
Photo by garageolimpo.
Relax, it's baby safety month
Thanks to Nature's Child for reminding me that September is Baby Safety Month at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). I feel a little safer now, don't you?
So it's no secret that I'm less than impressed by their recent performance. But what's so ironic about this honorary month is the total absence of any guidance from the CPSC for keeping babies safe from the toxic chemicals commonly used on and in baby products.
They remind us to take the standard precautions that our parents and grandparents took (stay away from cords and sharp objects!), plus some newfangled additions like back sleeping and narrow crib slat widths. All good advice, yes. But not one word about environmental health in the midst of a consumer firestorm over toxics? A time when some chemicals are so commonly reviled that Wal-Mart is discontinuing baby bottles that contain BPA and Congress up and banned phthalates? When laypeople talk about endocrine-disruptors, and understand them. OK, so it's not that surprising. Just disappointing and, uh, not completely baby safe.
Well if the CPSC isn't going to give us the skinny on what else we can do to keep our babies safe, we will. For starters, check out our For Parents web page, taking special note of our Baby-Safe Bottles and Formula Guide, mercury safety guide, and our newest 10 Tips for a Healthy Home. And last but not least, check baby's personal care products in our Skin Deep database or peruse our 1-page cheat sheet with ingredients to avoid and safer product tips.
And don't forget! As Acting Chairman of the CPSC Nancy Nord reminds us, “Parents should be especially vigilant when preparing for a new baby. Babies represent our most precious and vulnerable population.” We couldn't agree more. To see how much, read about the Kid Safe Chemicals Act. Now that would make for some safer babies.
Ask EWG: Rewind
As with all blogs, there's a wealth of information hidden from view, just waiting to be rediscovered. And Enviroblog is no different. Our series, Ask EWG, gets to the heart of readers' real, day-to-day questions - questions many of us share.
Since I've learned so much in looking back through these thorough, still-relevant posts, I wanted to share them all in one place with you. Everything is just so much easier when it's all in one place, right? So read up, and if you've got other burning questions, send 'em in. We usually have answers.
- Should I Use Iodized Salt? Is there a reason why my table salt is iodized? I’m not even really sure what that means, but it sounds a little scary, and unnecessary. Should I switch to kosher salt or sea salt?
- What can I do about fluoride in my water? I recently read a report in which EWG recommended using carbon filtration to filter tap water for drinking. The report pointed out that carbon filtering is less expensive than reverse osmosis filtration, but it didn't mention that carbon filtration does not remove artificially added fluoride from the water. I know that EWG is concerned with the health effects of fluoride, especially for children and pregnant women. Was this an oversight?
- Why is there Teflon in clothes? Is it safe? I recently purchased school uniform shirts for my child and was horrified to find Dupont Teflon fabric protector stickers on the packaging. When I wrote to the company the agent said that there was no danger, as they did not use Scotchgard. Am I correct that Teflon is not better than Scotchgard?
- Arsenic on my new house's old deck? My husband and I are thinking of buying this great old house with a big back deck, but I remember reading something about how wood used on decks can be dangerous. We've got a two year old. Should I be worried?
- What is new carpet treated with? What can I do? I've heard nasty rumors regarding the treatment of carpet before it's sold and put into a house. I've heard that it's treated with some really bad chemicals, then rolled up and stored until sold. I'd really like to know what the carpet is treated with and what's the best thing to do.
- Is mineral based make-up safer? Is mineral-based make-up safer for you than make-up bought at drug stores or department stores? Most of the mineral-based make-up contains titanium dioxide and/or silica, and some contain iron of some type. Is this okay for your skin? I am wondering how such make-up is absorbed into the body, too!
- Is hydroponic produce organic? I bought hydroponic tomatoes at the store yesterday thinking they were organic, but when I looked again I realized that they weren't labeled "certified organic". Is hydroponic produce organic? How does it rate compared to conventional produce?
- What is fragrance? Is it true that the cosmetics industry can put any chemical into a product’s "fragrance" without showing it on the ingredients list? What do they put in there?
- Which infant formula is best? I am unable to breastfeed for medical reasons. How can I choose the best possible formula for my child?
- Should I use iodized salt? Is there a reason why my table salt is iodized? I’m not even really sure what that means, but it sounds a little scary, and unnecessary. Should I switch to kosher salt or sea salt?
- Do flame retardant chemicals on furniture accumulate in breast milk? Is it true that flame-retardant chemicals in upholstered furniture accumulate in women's breast milk? If so, what kind of hazard does this pose to an infant that consumes the breast milk?
Rocket fuel, yet again
Enviroblog readers are very familiar with the health risks posed by perchlorate, a thyroid hormone disruptor and rocket fuel chemical that contaminates water supplies of millions of Americans in 28 states. EWG analysis brought public attention to the fact that three quarters of the most commonly consumed foods and beverages are contaminated with perchlorate, making food the primary source of exposure to people. And many Americans are getting a double perchlorate hit – both from food and water. Especially at risk from perchlorate are women with lowered iodide levels (a third of the US population) and newborn children whose developing brain vitally depends on adequate levels of thyroid hormone.
Ignoring an extensive body of science on perchlorate health effects and two recent reports by the Government Accountability Office, EPA has again and again refused to take any action to address perchlorate contamination of drinking water as well as groundwater, surface water, and soil across the country, leaving the health of Americans at risk. Why? As testified by the EWG Executive Director Richard Wiles before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, “Perchlorate provides a textbook example of a corrupted health protection system, where polluters, the Pentagon, the White House and the EPA have conspired to block health protections in order to pad budgets, curry political favor, and protect corporate profits.”
Today, new research from scientists at the University of Texas Arlington points to the most vulnerable population exposed to perchlorate – nursing infants. Scientists examined perchlorate levels in thirteen mother-child pairs and compared a mother’s dietary intake of iodine, her exposure to perchlorate, and the resultant concentration of iodide and perchlorate in her breast milk. They found that a while only one fifth’s of mother’s dietary iodide enters into her breast milk, a full half of her dose of perchlorate is transferred to milk, which is of course ingested by the infant. The study also confirms strong concerns about sufficient iodine intake both by the nursing infant and by the breast-feeding mother.
This study highlights the urgent need to protect the health of our children at the most vulnerable beginning stage of life. However, rather than being consumed by worries, mothers can take several effective steps to protect their children.
First, breast milk is still the best food for the infants’ long-term health.
Second, intake of iodized salt is a good way to increase our intake of this essential nutrient. For other tips on what parents can do to create safer homes for their children, check out EWG’s Healthy Home Tips .
Finally, our society needs aggressive public health protections from thyroid toxins in the environment, starting with perchlorate. After 50 years of deception and delay we need to pass strong legislation to safeguard our water from perchlorate contamination. For millions of Americans who have dual sources of exposure to perchlorate both in food and drinking water, setting national safety standards for perchlorate in drinking water is imperative. EWG has been at the forefront of advocating for state and federal establishment of stringent, science-based health standards for perchlorate in water in order fully to protect infants and children, who are exceptionally vulnerable to the chemical.
By EWG Senior Scientist Olga Naidenko, Ph.D.
Your body. My body. The Body Toxic.
Like many parents of young children, I don't read books cover-to-cover much anymore. So it was with great pleasure that I read even the appendices in Nena Baker's new book, The Body Toxic: How the Hazardous Chemistry of Everyday Things Threatens Our health's and Well-being.
Baker spent four years researching this book and you can tell. It's chock full of chemical history and the politics that surround it, including tidbits like Teflon's beginnings as a coating for the valves and gaskets in the atom bomb. Her emphasis is endocrine disruptors and she digs deep into five problem areas: the common pesticide atrazine, cosmetics, flame retardants, plastics and perfluorinated chemicals. In each case she not only confronts the major issues head-on, she tells a readable story and even throws in some manageable chemistry. No easy task.
She also wraps her arms around the reason we are all afraid to buy most anything:
The vast majority of [the 10,000 widely used chemicals] have not been tested for potential toxic effects because the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 does not require it. And the news gets shockingly worse: the EPA cannot take any regulatory action regarding a suspected harmful substance until it has evidence that it poses an "unreasonable" risk of injury to human health or the environment.The barriers to action are so high that, according to a 2005 report by the Government Accounting Office, the EPA has given up trying to regulate chemicals and instead relies on the chemical industry to act voluntarily when concerns arise.
Now that makes me sleep soundly at night - you? But as Baker so reasonably says (and perhaps the reason reviewers are calling her 'balanced'), 'it's not that chemicals are bad per se, and it would be preposterous for even the most ardent environmentalist to suggest such a notion. It's that costly societal problems often arise because we know so little about so many chemicals.' Exactly.
Good thing she covers how we're going to change this, 'cause that's what I'm after. It's high time to move beyond what one researcher calls the chemical du jour approach, where we're fighting s-l-o-w-l-y to ban one bad actor after another: lead, phthalates, BPA, and the list (and time, effort, money) goes on. And that is just where the Kid Safe Chemicals Act comes in. Let's test chemicals before they hit the market, not after they start causing trouble.
If you're more personal than political, Baker's got a terrific section that briefly describes the uses and adverse health effects of the five major chemicals she covers, including common exposure pathways and steps for avoiding them (Appendix 1). Happily for us laypeople, Baker has a knack for translating carbon chains and the like into understandable lingo. But her closing sentence needs no translating: We are the body toxic, and we can no longer afford our ignorance.
Fire retardants: Disproportionate risk to small children
We tested 20 mothers and their toddlers for toxic fire retardants and found that the small children typically had three times as much of these hormone-disrupting chemicals in their blood as their mothers - and much higher levels than newborns. Participant Katrina Alcorn responded this way when she learned of her child's blood levels:
Since we did the study, I've become much more aware about what we buy and we're much more on top of the hand washing before meals. It was bad enough to know our levels were high, but it was a shock when we had our furniture tested and found out that the worst culprit was the glider chair that I'd bought to nurse my daughter in when she was a baby. I can't believe it was legal to sell furniture that is essentially poisoning you without you knowing it.
Why are kids levels higher? Not surprisingly, these elevated levels are caused by childhood exposures to household items containing PBDEs, a class of fire retardant added to household furniture and electronic items. Yes, the living room couch, that comfy reading chair, and your laptop where the kids watch videos or type their letters. And it all happens through that childhood habit we all know so well: hands and stuff in the mouth. Kids ingest roughly 10 times more PBDEs than adults from hand-to-mouth contact.
Also not surprisingly, levels are higher in the U.S. because other countries don't require fire retardants and our stringent fire safety standards protect us from potential fires but not from guaranteed chemical toxicity.
Is PBDE exposure a problem? Definitely. PBDEs have been proven to be especially toxic to the developing brain and reproductive system, and the most sensitive periods for adverse effects appear to be late pregnancy and early childhood. Exactly the time their levels are so high. Read more about the risks here.
Is the U.S. doing anything about it? Not so much. There are three types of PBDEs and they are regulated differently. Penta and Octa can no longer be produced in the U.S., but it's legal to import them on products, so exposure is possible on imported furniture. There are no federal restrictions on Deca. Other countries and some U.S. states have banned some or all three types: the E.U., Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands have banned all three, and here in the U.S., 11 states have banned the penta and octa types and two states have banned deca and 10 others have proposed a ban. Time for Congress to step up to the plate, don't you think?
Reducing your exposure. Until PBDEs are no longer allowed in US products, there are several actions you can take to reduce your family's exposure, mainly avoiding electronics and foam furniture with PBDEs - ask when buying, it'll protect you and share consumer concern. Read the report's full recommendations here. You can also take these simple steps:
- Inspect foam items and replace any with ripped covers or mishapen/breaking down foam.
- Use a vacuum with a HEPA filter.
- Don't reupholster foam furniture.
- Carefully remove old carpet because the padding may contain PBDEs.
- Have small children wash their hands frequently so they put clean hands in their mouths!
Read it for yourself. In our full report you'll find more details on our analysis, differences between children and adults that make children uniquely vulnerable to toxic chemicals, government and industry actions to phase out PBDEs, and more.
Where can I get that? Online, of course!
Deciding what children’s products to buy these days is job enough, but it’s really only step 1 of a 2 part process. Because once you’ve logged a few hours online and debated your decision with friends and family, you’ve got to buy the thing. Which entails finding a store that carries it and has it in stock and doesn’t require an entire afternoon of store hopping (so much for trip chaining to reduce emissions!). I’ve spun my wheels (literally and figuratively) a number of times and come home empty handed and frustrated – and that’s in a city with more than a few eco baby stores.
So I’ve done what any time-constrained parent would do who avoids shopping with the little ones at all costs: shop online. No gas, no unhappy kids, no out-of-stock signs, and most importantly, no toxic products after a frustrating attempt to do the right thing (yes, I’ve thrown my hands up in frustration and bought just what I wanted to avoid – more than once). I’ve long wanted to walk into a store and trust every. single. item. there. Doesn’t that sound just great? And if I didn’t know better, I’d say it sounds pretty reasonable. But since - sadly - that’s far from our reality here in the U.S., these online stores are a solid alternative. Plus, there are some online blog-based stores where parent owners vet their products just like I would.
Here are a very few that I’ve tried: Safe Mama, The Soft Landing, Non-Toxic Kids, and Happy Green Baby. But in the interest of compiling a more comprehensive list than what my free time allows, will you share yours? Where on the internet do you turn to purchase non-toxic children’s products?
Lead: Celebrate its ban, but don't cross it off your list
Like many parents, I spent a lot of last year feeling outraged by the (literally) 45 million toy recalls, especially the lead paint. It seemed like every day I read about another contaminated children’s product. Lead is a known neurotoxin to young children that was banned 30 years ago for residential use in the U.S., yet here it was, topping my ‘avoid it’ list 30 years later. Huh?
So by November ’07 I was so mad that I gathered up a bunch of recalled toys from friends and delivered them to my U.S. Congressman and Senators – in baby gift bags, with a note. We suggested that they do something – effective and fast - to improve the safety of children’s products. And - somewhat amazingly – this August, they did. They signed a new product safety bill that not only banned lead but phthalates, too. Impressive.
Of course, I wasn’t the only one raising my angry parental voice over this one. Among others, the Consumers Union’s Not In My Cart campaign motivated many activists and summarizes the new law well. They also credit us activists with making it happen. As they reported:
The president has just signed into law one of the most significant product and toy safety reform bills in almost two decades, and you helped make it happen. Activists sent more than 400,000 emails, made countless phone calls and visited members of Congress urging them to pass the bill.And Congress listened, overwhelming passing the bill with only four ‘no’ votes out of 535 members. Yet big industry was up against a bigger force--the American consumer. You didn’t have the deep pockets or the access, but you had a voice, and you worked for months to let your lawmakers know you wanted them to do the right thing.
So possibly I’m just feeling self congratulatory. But I find this voice-of-the-voter feedback heartening. It helps me believe that when we feel really, very, super strongly about protecting our children, we can prevail. Until we hear that prenatal, women’s and children’s multivitamins contain lead, that is. A ban one week, another scary announcement the next. Call me crazy, but I’m still not feeling very confident, you know?
You can read all about the FDA’s recent vitamin survey here (including brand-by-brand results) and get a quick parent perspective here. The difference with this case is that the vitamins most likely contain lead because it often exists naturally near calcium sources, though the actual source of lead in the 324 vitamins tested is unclear. Doesn’t reduce the adverse health effects, doesn’t increase my trust in labels, but at least the data is in so we can toss the leaded vitamins out. The lead levels may not exceed FDA thresholds, but they exceed California’s and my own zero tolerance approach. Learn about the adverse health effects of lead here and ways to minimize exposure here.
Oh! I almost forgot. Do you wear lipstick?
Choosing the family toothpaste: How hard can it be?
Brush twice a day. Floss. Hit the dentist every year or so for a battery-powered cleaning and a once-over and voila, dental health. Pretty straightforward, huh? Not so fast, it turns out. Just finding a toothpaste this summer for the four people in my family proved to be a time-consuming affair with a bump or two in the road. Makes cleaning your 1 year-old's teeth with a wet washcloth seem e-a-s-y.
Why so complicated? I wish I could just say fluoride, 'cause let's face it, that's complicated enough. But no. Then there's the other ingredients. The ones you can't pronounce. The ones that should be safe because they're in your toothpaste. But these days, who knows?
Fluoride. Now this one can be a bit confusing and at times controversial if it’s in your community water supply. But since we’re just talking toothpaste, it’s simpler: avoid toothpaste with fluoride until your child is around 6 years old - when she's less likely to swallow it. There are plenty of fluoride-free options on the shelves.
The myriad other ingredients. Now here's where I head straight to our Skin Deep database because - shhh, don't tell anyone - I really don't want to spend the time or bandwidth to master the various ingredients and their health effects. Got other things to do, thanks. Plus, once you toss the box, conveniently the ingredients aren't listed on the tube. Those industry marketing folks are really slick.
So this whole project began when my son was gifted two HUGE boxes of Kid's Sparkle Fun Flavor Crest. Which he of course l-o-v-e-s. So much so that when informed of my plan to convert it into a household cleanser he hid it. It is still in hiding, in fact. Such is the power of added 'flavor' and blue dye no. 1 (or blue 1, as the label reads; note the convenient absence of the word dye). To soften the blow, I allowed him a trip to the grocery store to pick out a tasty toothpaste that met my standards.
He agreed and off we went, after a quick investigation in the kids' toothpaste section of Skin Deep, where I was only able to gather some key but very useful facts since both kids were climbing on me (my favorite way to do research - you?):
Continue reading "Choosing the family toothpaste: How hard can it be?" »
My quest for the perfect BPA-free sippy cup
You can probably imagine what it's like to work for EWG and be a parent. In a word: fraught. In two words: consumer paralysis.
Maybe it's just because I'm new here. In time, I'll (hopefully) recover and be able to walk down a store aisle without my 5-year old son saying, "Is that one of the bad toys, mama? What if Georgia (his 2-year old sister) puts it in her mouth?" Of course, for many, my husband included, consumer paralysis is a wonderful condition and he is glad to see I have it. All that said, my kids do need to drink liquids occasionally and their grubby hands aren't the solution. So, in my spare time (ha!), my quest for the perfect BPA-free sippy cup began.
If you're not up on Bisphenol-A yet, check out our cheatsheet or get the whole sordid story from our BPA web page. It's not pretty.
Let's just say a lot of common food and drink containers like baby bottles, formula cans, sippy cups, and tin cans (our entire pantry!) are leaching hormone disruptors right into me and the kids. The kids! Isn't one of my main jobs as a parent to keep them out of harm's way? To make sound choices on their behalf until they can (hopefully!) make their own? It's this kind of thing that makes that job so. much. harder. than it should be. I already have a job, thanks, I don't need another one researching every product I buy! What parent does?
So back to the quest. How'd it go? Long process, positive end result:
The process. We are lucky to have several local stores in Portland, Oregon, where I live, that sell only environmentally healthy baby products. So I visited them. And while they carried one type of BPA-free sippy cup, it was $15. Two kids = $30. And for playdates? Not too kind on the bank account. Plus, when you (inevitably) leave one of those at the local pool/park/bus, it hurts. Next stop, a trusted green mom blog for her BPA-free sippy cup product list. Several weeks later the stars aligned and I found myself alone in a grocery store with - here's the miracle - the list crumpled at the bottom of my purse. Yay! I actually felt organized, gazing at the colorful array of cups, armed with my list. Was there one brand from the list on the racks? Without a movie character? Nope. Internet shopping was starting to look good. Really good.
Buying It Online. The good news is that there are more and more online stores that do the work for you - screen out the bad stuff and sell you only the good stuff. How I love it when someone else does the work for me! So I happily ordered two sets of very reasonably priced Nubu cups from The Soft Landing. I also love Safe Mama's online store, but she didn't have these and they were exactly what I was after. And yes, we like them. Great colors. Plus, now all the lids match all the cups. Something my husband has requested for years - literally.
The End Result. So all in all a pretty happy ending. But the real end to this time-consuming affair, is that the perfect cup was in our basement, gathering dust, throughout my entire search. Another two words for you: jam jars. Cheap, durable, natural, not plastic. Ok, so they don't have lids. But our youngest is two, so it's high time to use a real cup anyway, right? And, if you don't have some little ones in your basement, you can always hit a garage sale or, if you gotta have new, buy them here and EWG will get some money. How great is that?
The chemical industry's war on California toxics reform
Raise your hand if you want your food packaging – hamburger wrappers, french-fry bags, pizza boxes – coated with cancer-causing Teflon chemicals that pollute the bodies of unborn babies and Arctic polar bears. How about baby bottles and sippy cups made with hormone-disrupting chemicals that are about to be banned in Canada and that Wal-Mart and Target have pulled off the shelf?
I didn't think so.
But the chemical industry, with its typical regard for your health, is waging a take-no-prisoners war in California to stop the state from banning those same chemicals.
The American Chemistry Council and DuPont are leading the ranks of lobbying groups and companies who, between them, have hired an army of lobbyists – including a K Street firm that ran Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's first campaign – and are paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars to block the proposed bans. They're using scare tactics, telling food banks that a ban on bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles would mean the end of canned goods. They're brazenly greenwashing, calling one of their food-packaging chemicals – C6, which EWG found in the blood of 10 of 10 newborns – a shining example of the "green chemistry" movement they say is going to transform the industry.
An aide to Sen. Ellen Corbett, author of Senate Bill 1313, which would ban perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) from food packaging, counted 13 lobbyists who've been hired by companies or groups trying to stop the bill. The odds seemed so long against the outnumbered environmental, health and labor groups backing the bill that gasps were heard from lobbyists in the hearing room when the Assembly Health Committee approved the bill a couple of weeks ago.
SB 1713, by Sen. Carole Migden, would ban BPA from baby bottles, sippy cups, and any food container or feeding device intended for children 3 and under. It doesn't have as many registered opponents arrayed against it. But the most recent players to come on board are Navigators LLC, a lobbying firm with offices in Washington and Sacramento, that steered Gov. Schwarzenegger's 2003 campaign and his campaign for budget reform in 2004. Navigators principal Mike Murphy was chief campaign strategist for Arnold in 2003 and Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign in 2000, and just joined NBC and MSNBC as a pundit, after speculation that he would step in to rescue McCain's currently floundering campaign.
Navigators wasted no time in raising the ante and lowering the bar. On July 9, Colleen Coghlan, a senior communications consultant in the Sacramento offices of Navigators, sent the following email, obtained by EWG, to an unknown number of non-profit food banks in California. I'm not sure who the coalition she mentions consists of; disclosure reports for current lobbying activity won't be available until the end of the month.
Canned Goods Removed from Food Banks?By way of introduction, my name is Colleen Coghlan and I am working with a large coalition of members within the health, business and food community to build awareness of a bill moving ahead in Sacramento.
As written, SB 1713 (Migden) could lead to the removal of food from the shelves of grocery stores as well as those from local food banks. SB 1713 becoming law will result in the loss of safe and necessary consumer products such as the following canned and jarred:
• Fruits
• Vegetables
• Sauces
• Olives
• Pickles
• Tuna and other seafood
• Pasta
• Beans
• Soup
• Chili
• Whipped Toppings
• Cooking Spray
• Chicken
• Sausages
• Meats
• Milk, condensed and evaporated
• JuiceThe burden on consumers created by SB 1713 unfairly falls upon society’s most vulnerable who do not have access to alternatively packaged products which are often more expensive and less available to consumers. This bill would ban Bisphenol A (BPA), an epoxy lining, which acts as a barrier to contamination, used in almost all food containers.
BPA has been tested, scientifically reviewed and approved for safe use in food containers by the responsible regulatory agencies in the USA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency), European Union (European Food Safety Commission), Canada (HealthCanada) and Japan (Japanese Ministry of Environment) and has been safely used for over 50 years.
Ensuring CA families eat healthy and have access to the foods they need should be a priority for the state. The current manner in which this bill is written would create greater difficulty for parents to get access to the food their families need.
I could call in an EWG toxicologist to refute Coghlan's claims one by one, but it should suffice to counter the biggest whopper: Migden's bill is specifically aimed at containers for food intended for babies and toddlers – most importantly, formula packages. Even if you don't believe the hundreds of studies showing harm at current levels of BPA exposure, shouldn't we be more cautious when it comes to babies?
This is not nanny government. Neither one of these bills tries to ban all uses of the chemicals, or any uses for which there aren't already safe alternatives. Corbett's bill seeks to eliminate the most direct route of exposure – putting the chemical in your mouth and swallowing it – for a chemical that DuPont has agreed to phase out nationally by 2015. That's too long to wait on a toothless, loophole-ridden agreement the company only accepted after the EPA fined it $16 million for concealing evidence of PFCs' health risks.
The chemical industry is trying to have it both ways, saying legislators shouldn't have to make chemical-by-chemical decisions, but at the same time refusing to support more ambitious reform bills. If reform must come, they would rather see it come from the state-sanctioned Green Chemistry Initiative, which gives corporations a seat at the table in proposing safer chemicals. But the GCI is still in its first draft, and today's 3-year-olds could be in middle school before we see results. I don't think the prospect of a better chemical regulatory system in the future frees the Legislature – or the governor – from taking action now against two very clear threats to public health.
Something stinks, but it’s not what you think
As a soon-to-be first time parent, I have spent many a weekend wandering the aisles at Babies 'R' Us and Buy Buy Baby getting all the things we need in preparation for the arrival of the new boss. Last Saturday was another fun-filled day trying to make the most informed decisions when picking out diapers, diaper bags, and of course the changing pad we’ll spend hunched over for hours, days and months. In an effort at full disclosure, the one and only time I’ve ever changed a diaper was a year ago, and I had to stuff tissue in both nostrils before entering my nephew’s bedroom. It was that bad. Oy.
Anyway, obviously, I am thrilled to death about becoming a father, and I’m sure holding my new son or daughter for the first time will be an experience like no other. But there are still a couple of new daily tasks I’m a little worried about – changing a dirty diaper is one of them. But those fears have been subsiding, and I was just coming to grips with the dirty job, feeling a bit more confident I won’t put my child at risk as the latest rookie to be sent into the big game.
Then I read that they've found unlawful levels of lead in changing pads, diaper bags and other baby care products.
They took it out of gas, paint and pencils but I guess when it comes to the mattress a naked newborn rolls around on 10 times a day – ahhhh, no biggie.
National toxic toy ban? Lead the way, California
Right now, parents who want to avoid exposing their kids of phthalates have to carefully monitor the toys and children's products their young ones have access to. But when the initiative signed into law on Sunday goes into affect in 2009, parents in California will be able to breathe a little easier.
The bill, which bans the sale of products containing phthalates and intended for children 3 years or younger, sparked interest in enacting similar bans in states across the country. The Chronicle reports that "Lawmakers in Texas, Illinois, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, Maine, Connecticut and New York are expected to introduce similar legislation in the coming months."
The slow and painful process of a state-by-state ban would lead toy manufacturers, sooner or later, to abandon the chemicals altogether -- after all, what's the point of making toys that can only be sold in a handful of states?
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has expressed interest in modeling a national bill on the state's new legislation, and we applaud that effort. This much interest in a ban on phthalates ought to send a message to the industry and to Congress: people want safer toys, and they'll get them however they have to.
Learn how to minimize your family's exposure to phthalates.
Toddlers' PBDE exposure (and some Queen for good measure)
I’m warning you now: read this post and you may find yourself humming a particular song for the rest of the day.
Science News has an article this week about human exposure to flame retardants (PBDEs) through dust. PBDEs are linked to cancer and problems with brain development (in neonatal mice) and neurobehavioral problems (in the same mice in adulthood), and now they’re linked to thyroid disorder in cats. They’re everywhere, in all of us, and they’re bioaccumulative (like PCBs – they build up in bodies and in the food supply).
The article, titled Don’t Bite the Dust (can’t you hear that catchy baseline now?) examines the higher blood-PBDE levels of toddlers and children, which researchers theorize may be due to their higher exposure to PBDE-laden dust (a subject EWG examined back in 2004: In The Dust). They’re crawling around on the floor, chewing on toys made of materials that attract dust, breathing air much closer to the source of the dust. Plus, researchers have also found a positive correlation between PBDE residue in dust and PBDE levels in breast milk.
So. Children are being exposed to PBDEs at higher levels, and PBDEs are linked to serious illness in other mammals. But the human data “just aren’t in,” so what does the Science News article recommend?
You might want to vacuum more often. Oh, and limit your children’s intake of fish and high-fat dairy, which tend to have high PBDE content.
Sound advice, but um, gee… do you think maybe the government ought to do something about a set of chemicals that pose a known health risk to other animals, especially when our most vulnerable population is being exposed at such high levels?
EPA has supported voluntary phase-outs of certain PBDEs by industry, but those same varieties have been outright banned in the EU (and in Washington, as of earlier this year). Other PBDEs go virtually unregulated. The chemical industry should have to prove that their products are safe, but instead the burden of proof is placed on government and environmental health scientists to demonstrate that PBDEs are a health risk.
Ugh. Please note my disgust. But in the meantime, Science News is right – vacuum often, with a HEPA vacuum. And if your coworkers get on your case today for humming Another One Bites the Dust, you can blame me.
How cutting out certain food additives could curb ADHD (and cancer too)
A UK study published today in the Lancet reveals that certain food additives, including sodium benzoate and some colorings, likely play a role in the increasingly frequent diagnosis of ADHD in children. Researchers gave drink mixtures of additives to nearly three hundred children and, sure enough, they got rowdy. The chemicals affected some children more strongly than others, but effects were noted across the board, in the general population as well as in children with diagnosed ADHD.
The UK's Food Standards Agency is issuing revised recommendations for parents, advising that any who notice signs of hyperactivity in their children avoid those additives. Many are angry that the government didn't take it a step further and ban the chemicals -- after all, who has constant control over their children's diets these days? -- but the FSA has passed that responsibility on to the European Food Safety Authority. The article in the Guardian goes into more detail about the study and the government's response.
The guardian misses a couple of points, though. First of all:
Sodium benzoate+ascorbic acid+heat=BENZENE, a human carcinogen.
The FDA asked drink companies to fix that little problem way back in the early '90s, but many of them are just getting around to it now that they're being sued.
Also: this is a social justice issue. Junk food is bad for children, but when money's tight junk food is often the cheapest way to put calories in your kid's belly. Warning parents to avoid foods with certain additives is useless for those who can't afford anything else -- and, of course, for those who live in the food desserts created in certain metro areas. Many in the UK seem to believe that banning the additives is the answer, and it would force junk food manufacturers' hands, but in the end kids would still be eating junk food. The real answer is much simpler: increase access to fresh fruits and veggies. All signs point to that solution. Why is it so hard to accomplish?
"One of the largest human trials in history."
I went through a phase, around second grade, when all I would take for lunch was peanut butter and jelly (creamy, and mint jelly, please. The green kind. Yes, I did get made fun of). My little sister is seven years younger than me, and by the time she was in second grade she and her classmates weren't allowed to bring PB&J for lunch because there were other students with severe peanut allergies.
The story isn't uncommon, as AllergyKids President Robyn O'Brien points out in this Healthy Child, Healthy World blog post.
Today, at least 1 out of every 17 children under the age of three has a food allergy with at least 5 million American children suffering from this condition (though these statistics are from 2002, over five years old).
O'Brien posits that the rise in child allergies may be connected to a decade-old form of genetic engineering which allows for neurotoxins to be engineered into the foods we, and our children, eat. The effects of consuming these neurotoxins have not been subject to long-term study. What studies are being done on childhood food allergies are funded by the processed food industry.
Not only that, but
In the United States, our regulatory agencies do not require these genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled.So, unlike other developed countries, we have not been informed that almost 70% of our corn, 90% of our soy and 75% of our processed food now contain
neurotoxins, novel proteins and allergens.
O'Brien's post is a compelling call to action to stop what she calls "one of the largest human trials in history." Go have a read, and when you're done there, go snack on something organic -- because in this country, that's the only way you can be sure your food isn't genetically modified.
Ask EWG: Arsenic on my new house's deck?
Question: My husband and I are thinking of buying this great old house with a big back deck, but I remember reading something about how wood used on decks can be dangerous. We've got a two year old. Should I be worried?
Answer: There are reasons to be concerned, but if you’re set on the house, there are a couple of steps you can take to minimize exposures. First, however, a quick recap of the problem. Wood destined to remain outside faces harsh elements and can succumb to insect damage and rot. Pressure treated wood is injected with chemicals in order to protect it from the elements and the insects, and one of those chemicals is chromated copper arsenate (CCA), an insecticide that is 22 percent arsenic. Arsenic is a carcinogen, and EWG research indicates that little ones crawling across a deck or playing on an old wooden swing set may ingest potentially hazardous levels of CCA leached out of the wood.
In part because of EWG’s advocacy and research, EPA banned arsenic-treated wood for decks and playsets in 2004. But because the pesticide was the standard in outdoor lumber for 30 years, 70 percent of all homes in the U.S. still have old, arsenic-treated wood porches and decks. You can learn if your wood contains arsenic by using a simple test kit available on our website.
If your wood contains arsenic, the best solution would be to rebuild your deck with materials naturally resistant to rot and insects, or wood treated with arsenic-free preservatives. If that’s not in your budget right now there are other ways to minimize your family’s risk of exposure:
- Seal the wood at least every six months with standard penetrating deck treatments.
- Replace sections of potential high exposure like handrails, steps, or deck boards with non-arsenic alternatives.
- Wash your hands and your children’s hands after every exposure to arsenic-treated wood, especially before eating.
- Keep children and pets away from the soil beneath and immediately surrounding arsenic-treated wood structures.
- Cover arsenic-treated picnic tables with a tablecloth before using.
- Do not pressure wash to clean the surface of arsenic-treated wood. Instead use a soap and water solution, with disposable cleaning supplies. Pressurized water will blast off the upper surface of the wood and spray arsenic-contaminated particles over your yard.
- Do not allow children to play on rough wood surfaces. Arsenic-treated wood splinters can be dangerous.
- Never sand arsenic-treated lumber. If wood is smooth enough that splinters are not a risk, avoid sanding a deck to prepare the surface for sealing—use a simple soap and water wash instead. Wood dust formed by sanding contains arsenic that is easily ingested by a child, or can wash off the surface to contaminate the soil below.
- Do not store toys or tools under the deck. Arsenic leaches from the wood when it rains and may coat things left there.
- Do not use commercial “deck washing” solutions. These solutions can convert chemicals on the wood to a more toxic form.
Got a question for our researchers? Send it in! We'll select one (or a few) for next month's edition of Ask EWG.
Want Ask EWG sent to your inbox? Sign up for our monthly bulletin.
Problem toys: A personal perspective
This post from one of the Urban Mamas bloggers really drove home the reality of the Mattel recall for me. I don't have babies of my own (yet -- don't worry, Mom, I'll get there!), so while I was busy being angry from a public health perspective, anxious parents across the country were raiding their children's toy boxes and wondering how to protect their precious progeny. From the post:
While I go around the house collecting these precious objects, I think: is it time to collect everything and switch entirely to wooden and handmade toys? I'm certainly about ready to throw up my hands in distress. My heart aches when I think of the fallout should I discover that the die-cast Thomas trains from Target have lead paint, too (my worst nightmare). If only I'd never developed the love affair my sons have with these dangerous things.
I don't know what I'll do when I have children (please, it's after 1 p.m. and I don't even know what I'm having for lunch), but the comments thread at Urban Mamas is full of ideas for where to find safer, more sustainable toys. That is, if you can afford them. Which, once again, is why we need to reform our nation's chemical laws and ensure that chemicals and products are safe for everybody's children.
Toxic children's toys signal time for reform
As though we needed it, here's further evidence that the status quo of chemical regulation is not sufficient:
In what is only the nation's second largest toy recall this year, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a recall of more than one million lead-painted toys. The Mattel products were manufactured in a Chinese factory, and although two-thirds of the toys were pulled directly from retail shelves, 300,000 have already made their way into consumer homes.
Lead paint on children's toys. It's just ludicrous, especially when you consider that Americans have spent nearly 30 years trying to keep lead paint as far from their children as possible.
The CPSC and the Toy Industry Association have been working together to create more stringent regulations, and we think that's a good start. But we want to keep lead and other harmful and under-researched chemicals out of our children's systems, and what we need to make that happen is massive reform of US toxics regulation. It's time -- in fact, it's well past time -- for an overhaul.