By: Margot Pagan and Senior Scientist Rebecca Sutton, PhD

Did you think you were eating a carcinogen along with your favorite chicken sandwich last week? Probably not, but a new Food and Drug Administration study has found arsenic in chickens treated with 3-Nitro® (also known as Roxarsone), a commonly used, arsenic-based animal drug.

Don't let that completely ruin your appetite -- as a result of FDA's tests, Alpharma, a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., is voluntarily suspending U.S. sales of Roxarsone for chickens within 30 days.

Last Thanksgiving we discussed how industrial and agricultural uses of arsenic products leads to contaminated poultry.

Keep in mind - arsenic is a widespread contaminant in water, air, soil and other foods. Yes, that's a bit daunting, but it shouldn't deter us from seeking to eliminate unnecessary pollution sources, such as arsenic-laced chicken feed.

Roxarsone has been a major contributor to arsenic pollution. It has been used to kill intestinal parasites, artificially promote growth and stain chicken flesh pink since 1944 when FDA approved its use. Recent research prompted the agency to update its position after finding inorganic arsenic, a known human carcinogen, in edible parts of the birds. The findings prompted Pfizer to pull Roxarsone off the market in the U.S. (the European Union banned arsenic in poultry feed in 1999).

Unfortunately, Roxarsone is just one of the animal drugs and antibiotics routinely used in factory-produced chicken. Alpharma also produces another arsenic-based drug, Nitarsone, which remains on the market.

We stand by our previous advice to minimize your exposure to antibiotics in chicken by seeking out certified organically-fed, humanely raised, antibiotic- and hormone-free poultry.

Still curious? FDA has an FAQ page to learn more.

Chicken image: Copyright © Fir0002/Flagstaffotos, GNU Free Documentation License.

The science may not yet be decided on the effects of cell phone radiation on human health, but recent research is unsettling enough that Environmental Working Group (and government safety agencies around the world) recommends reducing your exposure where you can.

This blog series breaks down EWG's recent report on cell phone radiation - so far we've talked about the science of cell phone radiation and simple steps to limit your exposure.

By now you may be wondering where the government is in all this - shouldn't they be making sure that products on the market are safe for everyone? Read on to learn about current US cell phone standards, how they stack up (not well) and what you can do to make them stronger.

How the government regulates cell phone radiation
Mobile phones are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which established rules on how much radiation cell phones can legally emit back in 1996 (did you have a cell phone 13 years ago?). These limits are based on specific absorption rate (SAR) values, which measure the rate at which energy is absorbed by your body's tissue.

Phone manufacturers use plastic models of the head to test how much radiation their phones emit and then submit the data to either the FCC or an FCC-approved certifier for authorization.

The permissible amount of radiation depends on the part of the body:

• Head: up to 1.6 W/kg


• Whole body: up to 0.08 W/kg


• Hands, wrists, feet, and ankles: up to 4 W/kg

Federal rules aren't strong enough - and have never been updated
Public agencies set many kinds of safety standards for public health; we have rules for the maximum levels of contaminants in tap water, pesticide residues on food, etc. Officials begin by assuming a certain level of pollutants/residue/radiation is safe and then reduce that level to create a margin of safety. By setting a maximum allowed amount lower than what the research indicates is safe, regulations account for uncertainty about how contaminants might affect humans and for the extra vulnerability of certain groups, such as children.

The FCC based its cell phone regulations on suggestions made in 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), an industry body. These dated standards rely on data from animal studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s that assume a SAR value of 4 W/kg as the highest permissible exposure level before adverse health effects may begin to take place.

17 years later, we see a few problems with these assumptions:

1. There's no margin of safety

   Generally a margin of safety is between 50 and 100 times lower than the point at which health problems might occur. But for cell phone radiation exposures to the head, the standard for cell phones allows a SAR value up to 1.6 W/kg - a margin of safety of only 2.5 times. And for exposures to hands, wrists, feet and ankles, cell phones can legally have a SAR value of 4 W/kg - no margin of safety.

   Because of their thinner skulls, SAR values can be twice as high for children as for adults - and though younger and younger kids are using cell phones, current standards do not account for children's extra risk.

2. The assumed "safe" SAR level may be too high
   The growing body of research on cell phone radiation indicates that even 4 W/kg may be too high to be considered a safe amount of exposure - more and more studies show biological effects at SAR levels far below.


3. They don't consider long-term exposure

   The studies on which the 4 W/kg threshold is based only focused on short-term exposure to radiation. Recent research shows long-term cell phone use associated with a higher risk of health effects, so the current standard may not adequately take into account the potential effects of a lifetime of cell phone talking, especially for those who begin at a young age.

The US lags behind
Government agencies of the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, Israel, Finland and the European Parliament have all recommended limiting cell phone exposure, particularly for children. The French government is even considering legislation to restrict advertising of cell phones to children under 14 and to require all cell phones be sold with accompanying headsets.

The strongest recent statement by a US agency comes from an FDA Office of Women's Health publication saying "more studies on cell phone radiation are needed" and "people who use cell phones need to be told of any bad effects." So much for proactively protecting public health.

What should our government be doing?
It's time for the FCC to bring its regulations into the 21st century by taking all of the most recent research into account to create a standard that is protective for all Americans, especially the youngest and most vulnerable.

A recent Capitol Hill hearing on cell phone radiation, at which EWG testified, shows some renewed interest on the part of Congress in funding more cell phone research. But your government officials need to hear from you: use EWG's easy form to send an email telling the FCC and FDA to modernize cell phone safety standards.

In the meantime, take steps to reduce your exposure to radiation by following EWG's 8 simple steps to reduce cell phone radiation exposure. And come back for the next installment in our cell phone series: finding a low-radiation phone.

By Lisa Frack

As you might imagine, I read labels before I buy pretty much anything. But when they don't tell me a thing, why bother? Take, for example, bottled water.

Labels disclose very little. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Our new research into 200 popular brands of bottled water shows that less than 2 percent disclose the water's source, how the water has been purified and what chemical pollutants each bottle of water may contain. Just 2 of the 188 individual brands EWG analyzed disclosed these three very basic - and arguably essential - facts about their water. You can easily find your brand with our searchable (and embeddable) widget.

Some brands are better than others
Somewhat surprisingly, mainstream brands such as Sam's Club and Walgreen's scored relatively high marks, while waters marketed as elite, including Perrier, S. Pellegrino and the Whole Foods store brand, flunked because they provided almost no meaningful information for consumers. Ahhhh, marketing.

Speaking of marketing...
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the non-profit consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch explains the industry's marketing scam:

The Bottled water industry's strategy has been to market bottled water as the safe and clean alternative to tap water. This myth has been used to trick consumers into paying thousands times more for a product that is the same or even more polluted than the water available from our faucets.

Tap water in the United States undergoes rigorous testing for contaminants--as often as 480 times a month, far more than the once-a-week test for bottled water.

Why the glaring lack of disclosure?
When EWG's Jane Houlihan testified in Congress yesterday, she reported that bottled water companies enjoy a regulatory holiday under the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which give beverage corporations complete latitude to choose what, if any, information about their water they divulge to customers.

In contrast, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- the federal agency that oversees the nation's municipal water utilities -- requires all 52,000 community tap water suppliers nationwide to produce an annual water quality report: The utilities' reports detail water source and pollutant testing results for customers, as required under the Safe Drinking Water Act. An estimated 58 percent of these reports also describe water treatment methods. Houlihan notes:

Many people assume bottled water is healthier and safer to drink than ordinary tap water. But some companies have lured consumers away from the tap with claims of health and purity that aren't backed by public data. The ugly truth is that under lax federal law, consumers know very little about the quality of bottled water on which they spend billions every year.

You can hear it for yourself on the Today Show:

PS - Thanks a million to our fans who provided us with the bottled water labels - we couldn't have done it without you.

By Amy Rosenthal

Worried about your cantaloupe catching fire?
You might not have to anymore! Your fruits and veggies may be doused in Deca, a flame retardant chemical and known neurotoxin.

How could a flame retardant get on my apples?
The food industry uses plastic pallets made with the toxic chemical Deca to store certain fruits and vegetables. These pallets may go through a process called "hydrocooling," where they're submerged or water is sprayed over them to keep the produce fresh. As the water is reused, Deca leaching from the pallets can build up, eventually leaving residue on the food itself.

(Fun fact: two of the fruits likely to be hydrocooled - apples and peaches - are the two with the most pesticide residues, according to EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides. How's that for your daily serving of chemicals?)

What are the risks of Deca?
Deca is a member of the family of flame retardants known as PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers). PBDEs, which accumulate in the blood and tissue of people and wildlife, have been associated with disruptions in brain development and hormone systems. Two other types of PBDEs have been pulled from the market due to health dangers, and 10 state legislatures have proposed bans on Deca.

Is anyone checking that my food is toxic-free?
The FDA has said that pallets made with Deca are "not authorized" for hydrocooling and that food with Deca residue would be considered "adulterated." Last week, EWG Senior Vice President Richard Wiles sent a letter to the FDA Commissioner urging her to investigate to see what's actually happening. No one knows for sure what these food companies are up to, but as Richard writes on EWG's Kid-Safe blog, "It's the FDA's job to find out."

This post was written by EWG's Jovana Ruzicic and Alex Formuzis

Beginning last weekend, the food and chemical industries began what could only be described as a "week from hell." An email that included the minutes from a May 28 strategy meeting of their respective Washington lobbyists and spin doctors on how to burnish the image of BPA in the media and kill efforts to move BPA legislation in California somehow wound up in articles in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the Washington Post. Bummer.

Success in CA Senate - despite industry's underhanded tactics
And, to make matters worse, yesterday the California State Senate passed legislation that would actually protect future generations of babies from further exposure to the toxic hormone disrupting chemical by removing it as an ingredient in baby bottles, sippy cups, formula and food containers for children 3 and younger. That's a shame.

It seems the plans to implement "fear tactics" and targeting pregnant women, young children and minorities with the specter of 'no more baby food' and sky high food prices if BPA wasn't part of the daily diet didn't have the sway industry had hoped on the majority of the California Senate. The upper chamber ultimately stood on the side of California's families and passed the Toxics-Free Babies and Toddlers Act (SB 797), authored by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) and sponsored by Environmental Working Group (EWG).

If this measure becomes the law of California not only will future generations of babies born and raised in the state be safe as a result, but California's actions will make it almost impossible for the federal government not to take action to impose a nationwide restriction on the how the chemical can be used.

Congress puts the heat on industry
As if both of these defeats weren't enough for the chemical and food guys, yesterday Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee's oversight subcommittee, announced plans to investigate the skullduggery of the food and chemical lobbyists and called on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reassess its previous decision that low-dose exposure to BPA posed no health risks.

It must be nice to be The Chairman.

Less than 24 hours after Chairman Waxman and Rep. Stupak sent their letters to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg and the Chairman John Rost of The North American Metal Packaging Alliance (NAMPA), who attended the now infamous gathering at DC's Cosmos Club when industry hatched its "fear tactics" strategy, we're seeing action.The FDA has announced plans for a top-down review of the agency's previous deliberations on BPA with a goal to be finished within weeks, and Mr. Rost and NAMPA have hired a crisis consultant, according to today's article by Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Regarding the fate of Senator Pavley's BPA bill in California: it now must be considered by the General Assembly, where last year the chemical industry was able to kill a similar measure, afterward throwing a big shindig to celebrate another year of BPA-laced baby bottles available on store shelves in California.

As the sponsor of the bill, I can assure readers that EWG will not stop our efforts to see it signed by the Governor, nor will we let up on industry's shenanigans. It's important that any lawmakers on the fence about this bill understand just who they'll be standing with when it comes time to vote.

Photo credit: GETTY

Last week I took my kids for a haircut. We go to a terrific woman in our neighborhood who runs a hair salon out of her house, and she's cut my kids hair since their very first cut. She's warm, patient and loves my kids. While my 6-year-old son was squirming in her chair, she offered to have her daughter paint my 3-year old's toenails.

Since I'm hardly a fan of carcinogenic ingredients and am unsure which nail polishes contain them and which have removed them, I said no.

Saying "no" can be hard.
Saying no, of course, is far easier said than done. Oh, I can say no to my 3-year-old (do it all the time), but I also had to say no to this super nice woman who made a generous offer to please my daughter. Slightly trickier, right?

So I explained to my crying daughter that we can't paint her toe nails because the polish might have toxic ingredients that "aren't healthy for her body" (my kids hear this all too often). All said, of course, in front of our friendly hairdresser whose judgment I was insulting. Ugh.

How it should be.
What was running through my mind during this noisy, teary, confusing conversation was how great it would be if I could have said,

Sure, Ana, that sounds fun. You're really nice to offer. Georgia, would you like to have your toenails painted?

But I couldn't. And I won't until I can be confident that the personal care products being sold in this country are safe. Safe for me, super safe for my growing kids. But there's no way to be sure, because our laws are far too weak.

What can you do?
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics offers this practical advice:

Look for less-toxic brands and formulations of nail polishes and treatments in Skin Deep, and practice BYOP -- bring your own polish -- on salon visits. Try buffing nails instead of lacquering, skip the mani and just get a pedi, limit polish use by children and pregnant women and always apply and remove polish in a well-ventilated area.

And be sure to read our Enviroblog post, "Making Makeup Safe for Kids." It covers nailpolish and more.

Be safe out there. There's a lot of unknowns.

Special to Enviroblog by Amy Rosenthal, EWG's Farm & Food Outreach Coordinator.

Here at EWG we spend a lot of time investigating the failure of the Federal Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to keep our food, water and consumer goods safe. We focus on toxic chemicals, but, as it turns out, the FDA works pretty much the same no matter what "innovation" is getting pushed onto the market without labeling or testing.

Take genetically modified (GM) foods. The new documentary The World According to Monsanto takes an in-depth look at the billion dollar, multi-national corporation Monsanto and its push to spread its bio-engineered seeds. Though Monsanto is the main villain of this story, the FDA, with its failure to regulate this new and controversial technology comes across as its unquestioning ally.

The beginning of GM seeds. In the mid 90's, when Monsanto wanted to start selling its genetically engineered seeds, the FDA decided to treat GM foods just like their conventional counterparts. If they look and taste and smell the same, they must be the same, right? In an on-camera interview, a former FDA official involved with the evaluation of genetic engineering recounts that the agency found no reason to be worried about any potential risks of the new technology.

Industry studies...again. The rationale? FDA staff had reviewed all of the studies provided by Monsanto! (Incidentally, the largest of these studies had been deemed flawed by several scientists.) FDA felt no need to consider, for example, a Scottish study showing potential complications from the use of bioengineering technology, or the case of L-tryptophan, a supplement made using genetic engineering that sickened thousands and killed two dozen in 1989.

Hard for consumers to avoid FDA has never officially approved genetically engineered foods as safe. But silence is assent. Today, genetically modified seed varieties make up over 80% of soybeans and over 40% of corn planted in the U.S. And even if you want to avoid them, you can't: there are absolutely no requirements for special labeling of products with genetically engineered ingredients.

It's the same game at FDA, no matter which industry: pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, toxic chemicals. Avoid independent testing, describe your products as identical to those already on the market, fight any attempts to label them. At least the FDA is consistent!