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.
STAY CONNECTED
Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]
Big-box muscles push for greener packaging
Down and dirty: WVE on household hazards
Sunscreen: what about nanoparticles?
Ask EWG: Do flame-retardant chemicals on furniture accumulate in breast milk?
FEATURED
Fire up yer ovens, people, it's a recipe contest (that can benefit EWG)!
Please don't disrupt my endocrines!
Consumers to FDA: Be there or be square
Lead: Celebrate its ban, but don't cross it off your list
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
Don't mess with my milk!
Last week I met one of the co-founders and current director of Make our Milk Safe (aka M.O.M.S.), an inspiring Oakland-based grassroots group that is fighting hard around the country to get toxic chemicals out of breast milk. This group strikes a real chord with me because they are motivated by the outrageous fact that human breast milk is loaded with chemicals. Chemicals that nursing mothers transfer directly into their tiny, new babies. Of course EWG firmly believes that breast milk is still the best milk, despite its contamination.
I can still recall the day when I first learned about this, long before working for EWG. I was nursing my first child, who is now 5. I've rarely been angrier than the moment I read in the New York Times Magazine about Swedish studies showing that PBDE's in human breast milk had doubled every five years since the 1970's (when they had taken samples), and that levels in the U.S. were 10 to 100 times higher than women in Europe and Japan. And to my amazement, no-one appeared to be doing anything about it. How could this first, amazing food of human life be toxic and we weren't marching on Washington? If not that, I wondered, then what?
Continue reading "Don't mess with my milk!" »
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.
Bisphenol A in your body: How it got there and how to minimize your exposure
The common plastic additive bisphenol A has been getting a lot of press lately. It's a hormone disruptor that can be found in almost everybody, and animal studies have linked it to breast and prostate cancer, and infertility. Knowing all that won't help you avoid the chemical, but we've got some information here that might. Knowing how you're exposed is among the best ways to minimize further exposure.
How'd it get there?
Studies show canned foods are a common source of daily BPA exposure in our lives. Cans of soda generally contain less BPA than canned pasta or soup. The worst foods tested contain enough BPA to put pregnant women and formula-fed infants much closer to dangerous levels than the government typically allows. Even some liquid infant formula is packed in cans lined with BPA, which seems ludicrous given the special vulnerabilities of children's developing systems.In addition to canned food, certain plastics are often made with BPA. Called polycarbonate, these plastics are rigid and clear or translucent and usually marked with a recycling label #7. Not all #7 containers are made with BPA, but it makes for a reasonable and useful guideline for avoiding a category of plastics. Some reusable polycarbonate water bottles (we won't name names), marketed as non-leaching because they minimize plastic taste and odor, may still leach trace amounts of BPA. But hold on before you run out and buy a metal water bottle -- make sure you know what you're getting. Many reusable metal water bottles are lined with the same BPA-leaching plastic found in cans of food.
How do you get rid of it?
Unfortunately, BPA is so widely used and manufactured that you're not likely to eliminate it from your system altogether. There are some steps you can take to minimize your exposure, though:- When possible, and especially if you’re pregnant and when feeding a young child, limit the amount of canned food in your diet.
- Avoid using old or scratched polycarbonate bottles. If you're in the market for a new water bottle, look for stainless steel water bottles that do not have a plastic liner.
- Don't use plastic containers to heat food in the microwave. Opt for ceramic, glass, or other microwavable dishware.
- Soft or cloudy-colored plastic does not contain BPA.
- If you're formula feeding your infant, consider using powdered formulas packaged in non-steel cans. Also, choose baby bottles made from glass or plastics that don't leach BPA (like polypropylene or polyethylene).
Clothing, preserved
Formaldehyde may bring back fragrant memories of dissecting frogs in high school, but you wouldn't want to rub the stuff onto your skin -- or your children's. But a New Zealand study found that clothing made in China and shipped overseas may effectively be doing precisely that:
New Zealand's government is investigating clothing imports from China after some were found to contain dangerously high levels of the chemical formaldehyde, officials said Monday...."Target" producer Simon Roy said scientists from government agency AgriQuality had tested a variety of new children's and adult's clothes.
"Our results were shocking, ranging from 230 ppm (parts per million) to 18,000 ppm," he said. "Some of the clothes tested have a reading of 900 times the level that actually causes harm."
For the sake of comparison: the study found levels as high as 18,000 ppm, but research supported by the World Health Organization demonstrates that concentrations of just 20 ppm can cause eye and skin irritation, respiratory problems, and cancer. Formaldehyde is added to lend garments a "wrinkle-proof" finish.
Big-box muscles push for greener packaging
When a retailer with $60 billion in annual sales says jump, manufacturers ask how high, and in this case that's great news for the environment.
An initiative by Target to persuade its private-label packaging companies to eliminate excess packaging has resulted in more sensible packaging for more than 500 products so far, and Director of Packaging John Butcher implies that we can expect the process to continue. Wal-Mart has instituted a similar program, vowing to eliminate all private-label PVC packaging by 2009.
PVC (polyvinyl chloride) is of particular importance to us here at Enviroblog, since the perennial plastic packaging favorite contains vinyl chloride (classified by the EPA as a human carcinogen) and phthalates (which are linked to hormone disruption). And, as Izzy points out,
"so much of that stuff we use comes ONLY in plastic, regardless of the brand. And while makers claim this plastic or that plastic is safe, I’ve heard that too many times only to find out later that it’s not safe at all."
Critics call it greenwashing, and certainly the move to minimize packaging makes good business sense for the retailers -- it will not only improve their image with environmentally-conscious consumers, but reduce shipping costs and increase shelf-space at retail outlets. But short of a massive consumer movement to eliminate excess packaging (which, unfortunately, still seems far-fetched), requests from big-box retailers are the most effective way to influence manufacturers.
So good for Target and Wal-Mart for using their considerable economic muscle for the greater good. Hopefully positive consumer response will make it profitable for them to move on to even bigger environmental initiatives.
Down and dirty: WVE on household hazards
You mop your floors, clean the tub, and scrub your toilet until it shines. Or, if you're like me, you make your significant other do it for you. But have you ever stopped to think about why we spend so much time keeping our living spaces clean?
If you answered "because otherwise it's gross," you're on the right track. Dirt is... well, dirty, and we all figure that by keeping clean and keeping bacteria and vermin at bay we're doing what's safe for ourselves and our families.
While they certainly wouldn't recommend that you give up cleaning altogether (can't win 'em all I guess), a new report from Women's Voices for the Earth questions the safety of many conventional cleaning products. From the Executive Summary of the report, titled Household Hazards: Potential Hazards of Home Cleaning Products:
Household Hazards was written to provide information on certain chemicals in cleaning products which may pose health hazards. Specifically, it looks at the research on cleaning chemicals such as monoethanolamine (MEA) and ammonium quaternary compounds linked to asthma, and glycol ethers, alkyl phenol ethoxylates and phthalates linked to reproductive harm (e.g. birth defects and fertility problems).
WVE also formed a national coalition -- the Safe Cleaning Products Initiative -- which asks companies to clearly list the ingredients of their products on the packaging and to replace potentially hazardous chemicals with safer ones. Want to take action? Sign their petition for safe cleaning products.
In my apartment we've switched to homemade cleaners and environmentally friendly products for everything but the toilet. What are your cleaning techniques?
Sunscreen: what about nanoparticles?
Kate at Grist did a great write-up on EWG's sunscreen investigation -- if you haven't seen it yet, you should check it out.
Some concerns have been raised over our decision to recommend products that may contain nanoparticles. We certainly didn’t start off on this project thinking that a product with nanoparticles in it would be among our top recommendations. No one has looked at nano tech in cosmetics more expansively than EWG has to date, or pressed FDA harder or more consistently to do something about. We’ve made clear our view that the FDA's lack of regulation on nano is unacceptable, including for sunscreens. We haven’t changed our view.
But here’s the deal, as we see it: nano particles in eye shadow, blush, body glitter and other purely cosmetic products is beyond dumb. Suncreens? Different stakes. When moms and dads are asking what product they should put on their kids to protect them from the sun today, they need an answer, not campaign rhetoric. Our review of the science led us to the top choices you see on our site.
Yes, as FOE reminds us, Consumer Reports testing of eight products showed
that you can get sun protection without nano. We agree, but we took our
study two steps farther. We looked at which sunscreens break down in the
sun, and which products contain hazardous ingredients that absorb through
the skin and into the body to pose other risks. Our answers changed.
The science leads you to a different place than the knee-jerk anti-nano FOE
response when it comes to sunscreen. This isn't eye shadow or mascara we're
talking about - this is a product meant to help protect us from exposure to
a known human carcinogen, UV radiation, responsible for a huge fraction of
the more than one million cases of skin cancer diagnosed in this country
every year.
If you go zinc- and titanium-free when it comes to sunscreen, chances are,
you'll be left with more UV exposure and more hazardous ingredients. Is that
what we want in our sunscreens? Are you willing to take those risks? We're
not.
You can read all of the science behind our investigation in the report, or take a look at how some best-selling sunscreens rate in the database.
Ask EWG: Do flame-retardant chemicals on furniture accumulate in breast milk?
Question: 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?
Answer:
Yes, it is true that foam used in pre-2005 upholstered furniture, mattresses, and carpet padding may contain neurotoxic flame retardants called PBDEs. These chemicals have been shown to impair attention, learning, memory, and behavior at low levels in laboratory studies. Studies worldwide have found them to be building up rapidly in people, animals, and the environment, and levels in the United States and Canada are by far the highest compared to levels in other countries. EWG's nationwide study found high levels of PBDEs in the breast milk of every American mother tested. PBDEs are still used in electronics like computers and televisions, which may be an ongoing source of exposure for people.
But breast feeding is important for many health reasons. Health professionals advise that women always breast feed when they can. Simple steps to reduce your exposures to PBDEs include using a vacuum equipped with a HEPA filter, and avoiding direct contact with the foam in older furniture and mattresses. There are some regulatory proposals being considered across the country that would get PBDEs out of the few remaining types of products in which they are used, including TVs and computers. Check out our report for more information and related news.
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.
Ask EWG: Why is there Teflon in clothes? Is it safe?
Question: 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?
Answer:
The Teflon fabric protector on your child’s shirts likely contains PFCs, and may break down into the common, toxic blood contaminant called PFOA. We aren't yet sure which sources cause us to be most exposed to these pernicious chemicals, but it is best to opt out of stain/water/oil repellants whenever possible.
Both Scotchgard and Teflon are in a family of chemicals called perfluorochemicals (PFCs). 3M reformulated Scotchgard in 2000, under pressure from EPA following a series of alarming company-sponsored studies surfaced linking the Scotchgard chemical (PFOS) to birth defects and showing it to be a ubiquitous contaminant in human blood. The Teflon-related chemical called PFOA has since been linked to similar concerns, and DuPont and other manufacturers are under intense regulatory and legal pressure to reduce their use of this chemical and to clean up PFOA pollution around the country. Nevertheless, PFCs that are made from or that break down to PFOA in the body or the environment are still widely used in coatings that make products ranging from food packaging to household furniture water-repellant, grease-proof, and stain-resistant.
PFCs like Scotchgard and Teflon are now in the rogues gallery of toxic, extraordinarily persistent chemicals that contaminate human blood and wildlife the world over (over 90% of Americans are showing PFOA in our bloodstream). As more studies pour in, PFCs seems destined to join DDT, PCBs, dioxin and other chemicals that are among the most notorious, global chemical contaminants ever produced. Thanks in part to EWG's hard work, in 2006 major manufacturers signed a voluntary phaseout of PFOA by 2015, but the chemical is still on the market for now.
Here's some more information on Teflon, Scotchgard, and PFCs
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.
Sunscreen woes? We've got a solution.
Yesterday EWG launched a database containing the safety and effectiveness ratings of over 700 sunscreen products — just in time for summer. The site helps consumers select the best possible sunscreen, but what do you do if you just stockpiled Neutrogena Healthy Skin Face Lotion (SPF15) or Coppertone Sunblock Lotion 2006, which were among the worst sunscreens? Never fear, ill-fated consumer, I have already thought of some creative and healthy ways to use that sunscreen.
- Protect your grape crop like these Californian farmers. Of course, that farmer is using organic sunscreens, so if you're going to use your stockpile make sure you wash thoroughly before consuming. After all, if you don't want those chemicals on you, you sure don't want them in you.
- Remove scuff marks from shoes, remove tar spots from car finishes, clean grease/dirt on surfaces and other household uses this writer claims work with Coppertone. He also recommends using it on chapped lips. We wouldn't go that far.
- Glaze your homemade pottery. (Err... actually, you'd have to use the good stuff for that — titanium dioxide, the main ingredient, is one of the more safe and effective sunscreens.)
- Gel and shape your hair. It might not hold as well as traditional hair products, or smell as nice, but at least your hair won't get a sunburn!
- On second thought, maybe you should just throw it out. Check EWG's list of best sunscreens for a replacement!
No bottled water at this fine restaurant
You won't find San Pellegrino or any other fancy imported water at Incanto, an Italian restaurant in San Francisco. In fact, you won't find any bottled water at all. Despite significant profit loss, Incanto's owner, Mark Pastore, refuses to pollute the oceans and air by shipping heavy glass water bottles across the ocean. Water bottled in plastic, produced domestically, is also out of the question for Pastore because of the plastic building up in our landfills and the large amount of petroleum needed to make it. But his customers need not be deprived of clean, bubbly water: Pastore has equipment to filter and carbonate his tap water. Some other prominent Bay Area restaurants, including Chez Panisse in Berkeley, have also stopped selling bottled water.
Good for them. Bottled water undermines consumers' confidence in their local water systems, allowing those with the resources the illusion of buying themselves out of "dirty" water. Illusion? Despite what water marketers would have us believe, bottled water faces less stringent regulation than tap water because it’s regulated as a food product, falling under the jurisdiction of FDA rather than the EPA.
EWG is currently working on a bottled water project. Tell us what you're drinking and help us build our database.
Paper or plastic? Never mind
It's a question that may soon be irrelevant in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Last week San Francisco became the first city in the U.S. to ban plastic checkout bags at large grocery and pharmacy chains, starting next year. The stores will have the option of using either recycled paper bags or compostable corn starch bags.
Not to be outdone, this week the LA County supervisors directed the public works department to study the problem of plastic bags and within three months recommend an option, including the possibility of an outright ban.
The San Francisco Chronicle's Charlie Goodyear says:
Fifty years ago, plastic bags -- starting first with the sandwich bag -- were seen in the United States as a more sanitary and environmentally friendly alternative to the deforesting paper bag. Now an estimated 180 million plastic bags are distributed to shoppers each year in San Francisco. Made of filmy plastic, they are hard to recycle and easily blow into trees and waterways, where they are blamed for killing marine life. They also occupy much-needed landfill space.
Continue reading "Paper or plastic? Never mind" »
Health references worth owning
Today, Wall Street Journal health reporter Tara Parker-Pope discloses her favorite home health references worth buying in print. I wish I could repost Tara’s descriptions of each book, but WSJ gets a little upset about that sort of thing—instead I’ll link you to the Amazon description of each of her top picks.
Mayo Clinic Book of Alternative Medicine
Prevention Magazine's Nutrition Advisor by Mark Bricklin
The Johns Hopkins Complete Home Guide to Symptoms & Remedies
Human Body: A Visual Guide by Beverly McMillan
Good Housekeeping Family First Aid by Andy Jagoda, M.D.
Oh, Yuck! The Encyclopedia of Everything Nasty by Joy Masoff
For those priveleged enough to have a WSJ subscription, go read Tara's full reviews for yourself.
Products banned elsewhere still pervasive in U.S.
Marla Cone of the Los Angeles Times has writtten a brilliant (albeit disturbing) article on the many products for sale in the US which have been banned in most other countries as toxic. The piece leads with an example of formaldehyde-laden plywood, sold throughout the US, but illegal even in China, where it is manufactured.
Some of the other big offenders are plastic softeners called phthalates, often found in cosmetics, and lead, which caused Palm's Treo 650 smart phone and Apple's iSight camera to be pulled from the shelves in Europe this summer.
Kudos to Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Mattel, Revlon and Orly International, for declaring that all their products, no matter where they are made or sold, will comply with EU standards, the most stringent chemical laws in the world. [ Link : LA Times ]
Nanotechnology risks unknown
From The Washington Post:
The United States is the world leader in nanotechnology -- the newly blossoming science of making incredibly small materials and devices -- but is not paying enough attention to the environmental, health and safety risks posed by nanoscale products, says a report released yesterday by the independent National Research Council.
Continue reading "Nanotechnology risks unknown" »
FDA is faulted for drug-safety process
The nation’s system for approving and monitoring the safety of medicines is inadequate and needs far-reaching reforms, and the Food and Drug Administration is plagued with poor management and persistent internal squabbling, according to a long-anticipated study of the agency. The study, requested by the FDA, was carried out by the Institute of Medicine, a nonprofit organization created by Congress to advise the federal government on health issues. The report is likely to intensify a debate about the safety of the nation’s drug supply and the adequacy of the F.D.A.’s oversight. The debate began in earnest in September 2004 when Merck withdrew its popular arthritis drug, Vioxx.
[ Source : New York Times ]
See? You Do Make a Difference
Every time I fly I notice that just before we land, the attendant acknowledges over the loudspeaker that they know I had many choices when booking my flight, and they are glad I gave them my business. I like that.
Every product we buy is an endorsement, and companies know it. Check out the story in today's Christian Science Monitor, which gives examples of how consumers have demanded more environmentally-sound products -- and got them.
EWG can help you make healthier, more environmentally friendly decisions when shopping: check out http://www.ewg.org/shopping/, and as your Grandma says, Use/Eat/Wear it in good health.
Has Coke Become the New McDonald's?
Coca-Cola is hit by a hunger strike and college boycotts prostesting environmental and human rights abuses.
Coca-Cola says it is a target only because it is the market leader. Funny--that reminds me of the McDonald's sign Seth Godin posted to his blog Wednesday:
BIG COMAPANIES ARE EASY TARGETS SO THEY NEED HIGHER STANDARDS.
**Title of this stolen post verbatim from The Guradian.
Toxics
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on mercury in dental fillings:
...Mercury in its many forms is poisonous, especially to children and pregnant women. The most heinous problems are neurological ones, which can hurt children's ability to learn, even before they're born.
[...]
many dentists and all of the associations that back them say the fillings are safe. But some medical practitioners, holistic adherents and even the World Health Organization say mercury shouldn't be considered totally safe under any conditions.
Here's the best part:
The answer as to whether you should fear your silver fillings falls to your own comfort level, dentists say.
A health study at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) finds that certain deodorising products including air fresheners, toilet-bowl cleaners, and mothballs may be harmful for your lungs.
“Because people spend so much time indoors where these products are used, it’s important that we understand the effects that even low levels might have on the respiratory system,” said researcher Leslie Elliott.
The bottle-versus-the-tap debate
Today, The L.A. Times reveals that consumers spend 10 billion dollars annually on bottled water which undergoes a far less scrupulous testing regimen than big-city tap water systems. Municipalities are required to test for fecal coliform bacteria over 100 times per month and to make their results public, while bottled water facilities are only required to perform these tests once weekly and do not have to publicize their findings. This information--coupled with a June United Nations Environmental Program report finding an average of 46,000 pieces of plastic debris floating near the surface of every square mile of ocean--may be good encouragement to stick with tap water.
Sally Squires, author of the LA Times piece, suggests drinking your water--whether bottled or tap-- cold, for improved taste.
Oregon Mail Tribune: How pure is bottled water?
Consumers Willing to Pay for Greener PCs
The BBC reports that a study commissioned by Greenpeace reveals consumers want more environmentally friendly PCs. What's so bad about computers? Well--they contain, among other nasty chemicals: lead, arsenic, fire retardants, cadmium, chromium, and mercury. And that's only in the final product--making the machine requires 10 times its weight in chemicals and fossil fuels.
The study reveals that consumers in the UK were prepared to spend an extra $117 while people in China were willing to pay $197 more for a cleaner PC. Could this have something to do with China being a world-wide dumping ground for obsolote electronics?
Related posts: Cell Phone Recycling : That "New Car" Smell :
Something In The Air
As Reported in the L.A. Times, a recent study of teeneagers in Los Angeles and New York found that contaminants in indoor air made up 40-50% of particiapants' cancer risk. The two main culprits cited were Formaldehyde, from shelving, cabinets, and pressed-wood furnishings, and dichlorobenzene used in solid toilet deodorizers and mothballs.
And while on the topic of indoor air, check out this San Francisco Chronicle piece about "that new car smell." Marian Keeler reports that the smell we so fondly associate with new cars is indicative of the slurry of toxic chemicals airborne inside them. It's no surprise that, among other things, new cars are creeping with fire retardants and plasticizers.
Aparrently even our computers have a suspiciously alluring smell when new.
The Green House
Enviro-Friendly Furniture
If you're particularly interested in harmful fire retardants in everything from your mattress and computer or TV to your kids' toys (and you live in Washington), take heart: the state is considering the nation's first ban on a fire retardant that has been found to break down into other banned chemicals in the environment.
EWG's work on fire retardants is here.
DuPont Employee Union Maps Company’s Toxic Legacy