What are they?

Here's a partial list of the thousands of products which may release VOCs:

• paints, lacquers, varnishes and paint strippers
  
• pesticides
  
• household cleaning supplies
  
• building and upholstery materials
  
• copiers and printers
  
• certain cosmetic products, including nail polish remover
  
• permanent markers
  
• certain craft glues and adhesives
  
• certain dry-cleaning chemicals
  
• fuel and automobile emissions
  

What are the potential health effects?

How can I minimize my exposure?

1. Follow your nose. If something gives off a strong smell, it's likely releasing VOCs. Avoid using these products altogether, or, if you must...
2. Ventilate, ventilate, ventilate. Throw open the windows, and the door if you can. Point a fan out the window to get those VOCs cycling out of the room, or turn on the exhaust fan if you've got one.
3. Follow the instructions. If the packaging of a product tells you not to use it without proper ventilation, don't.
4. Don't keep 'em around. Buy products known to release VOCs in small quantities, keep them tightly closed, and use them as quickly as possible.
5. When possible, use low-VOC products. No-VOC paint contains less than 5 grams of VOCs per liter; low-VOC paint contains more, but still less than regular paint. Vinegar and baking soda are, as usual, a good alternative cleaner. Use water-based adhesives when possible. Ask your dry-cleaner about the solvents they use.

Where can I learn more?

• Treehugger's Green Basics: VOCs
• EPA: Volatile Organic Compounds
• Minnesota Department of Health: VOCs in your home
• Enviroblog: Breathing easier with Enviro-Paint

Original photo by Bree Bailey.

This year’s Goldman Environmental Prizes were awarded to 7 outstanding individuals from across the globe. A secret group of over 150 environmental experts selected the 7 courageous people from the 6 continental regions of the world and presented each with a $150,000 prize. The annual ceremony ensures that the work of everyday citizens to enact positive change does not go unnoticed.

Marina Rikhvanova is working to protect Lake Baikal, the world’s largest source of freshwater. Affectionately called the Galapagos of Russia, it holds roughly 20% of the world’s unfrozen freshwater and is home to numerous diverse species not found elsewhere in the world. She has rallied the people to stand up to the government and fight against plans to create a petroleum pipeline and an uranium enrichment plant near the watershed.

Ignace Schops raised over $90 million to build Belgium’s first and only national park. While entrance to the park is free, the 6,000 hectare land is projected to bring over $48 million a year in revenue for the region.

Despite death threats and the murder of a family member, Luis Yanza and Pablo Fajardo continue to organize the 30,000 members of their northern Ecuadorian Amazon region to file a class action lawsuit against Texaco to clean up the chemical waste (created by oil mining) that the company dumped in the region. The people of the region would be entitled to receive from $8.3 to $16 billion at the end of the trial.

As Marla Cone reports in the Los Angeles Times, California's peregrine falcons were "once driven to the edge of extinction by DDT," which thinned their eggshells so severely their offspring could not survive. In the 1970s, the total number of peregrines in North America dropped as low as 300, including just two in California. Today, 36 years after DDT was banned, the falcon has been removed from the Endangered Species List, and there are believed to be 3,000 nesting pairs, including 300 in California. Now, according to the study, they're under a new chemical assault from fire retardants, known as PBDEs, which are potent neurotoxins used in dozens of everyday products.

Kim Hooper, a scientist with the state Department of Toxic Substances Control's environmental chemistry laboratory who led the study, said the PBDE levels in the peregrines have doubled every 10 years, and might still be increasing. . . . "We think urban wildlife are sentinels for exposure to indoor pollutants in big cities," Hooper said.

And not just any old PBDEs, but the kind known as Deca. That's significant, because two years ago California banned two other kinds of flame retardants, spurring several other states to follow suit and pressuring the manufacturer to pull those two PBDEs of the market. But the chemical industry has fought fiercely to keep the use of Deca, despite evidence of its toxicity.

EWG has published several groundbreaking studies about fire retardants: in San Francisco Bay sportfish, in household dust and in mother's milk.

Recent EWG research highlighted how conflicts of interest among members of EPA review panels have weakened governmental safety standards on toxic chemicals in the environment and in everyday consumer products. Outrage over long-standing reliance on “science for hire” by the chemical industry has prompted Congress to investigate EPA’s procedures for reviewing toxic chemicals, including PBDE flame retardants and bisphenol A.

These examples are just a small window into how great the tampering and influence of the chemical industry has been over EPA regulation of toxic chemicals. A new book by David Michaels, an epidemiologist and the director of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, documents a seemingly endless list of examples of mercenary scientists misleading the general public and the regulatory community about the true dangers of chemical exposures, starting from lead, asbestos, and tobacco, and continuing to chromium, berillium, perchlorate, benzene, plastics chemicals, and various other environmental and occupational health hazards.

The book is a must-read for anyone who cares about the best application of science in the interests of promoting public health. For a great review, readers can go to the article by Newsweek's Sharon Begley, “Whitewashing Toxic Chemicals.”

One stunning quote from the book describes the tricks of the trade that industry lobby and product defense firms use to derail the regulatory process:

They profit by helping corporations minimize public health and environmental protection and fight claims of injury and illness. In field after field, year after year, this same handful of individuals and companies comes up again and again… They have on their payrolls (or can bring in on a moment’s notice) toxicologists, epidemiologists, biostatisticians, risk assessors, and any other professionally trained, media-savvy experts deemed necessary. They and the larger, wealthier industries for which they work go through the motions we expect of the scientific enterprise, salting the literature with their questionable reports and studies. Nevertheless, it is all a charade. The work has one overriding motivation: advocacy for the sponsor’s position in civil court, the court of public opinion, and the regulatory arena [where these studies benefit their sponsors] not because they are good work that the regulatory agencies have to take seriously but because they clog the machinery and slow down the process. Public health interests are beside the point. Follow the science wherever it leads? Not quite. This is science for hire, period, and it is extremely lucrative.

Only by discovering the facts behind the scene and by bringing to light the true motivation of profit-driven public relations campaigns can we promote and defend the health of the environment and the safety of consumer products. For a veteran in the subject who may have participated in some of the struggles described in Defending Science, or for a new member of the environmental and occupational health community, this book is a great introduction to the state of the field – and the battles ahead that still need to be fought.

Anyway, flash forward to the present day: many of the world's major oil companies have settled a lawsuit brought by 153 public water utilities. In settling, companies like BP, Citgo and Sunoco agreed to pay $423 million in damages. They also agreed to cough up 70 percent of future cleanup costs those water utilities incur because of MTBE contamination.

MTBE was phased out entirely (and voluntarily) in 2005, but not before 23 states had the chance to ban the failed chemical. It has been replaced as a fuel additive by ethanol. Six major companies, including Exxon-Mobil, refused the settlement.

Deals like this always make me uncomfortable. After all, if the oil companies were willing to shell out $423 million without being told to by a judge, how much more did they expect to lose if they went to court?

In March of 2007, EWG created a state-by-state breakdown of MTBE contamination reports.

Photo by Olivier Jules.

Allie's running a series on greening your wedding plans, which I am filing neatly away in the back of my head for future use (not any time soon, Mom, don't worry).

Congrats are in order for Katy, who reports that legislation limiting lead, phthalates, and mercury have passed the Vermont legislature! Katy, your hard work has been rewarded -- and the entire state of Vermont will benefit.

When was the last time you thought about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? Mark takes an in-depth look at the problem with plastic trash, and what we could do to solve it.

Mixed Greens is EWG's environmental health podcast. You can subscribe in iTunes or in a reader, or listen right here in your browser. Check out previous episodes for more Mixed Greens goodness!

Miss something? Check out the transcript after the jump.

What is it?

What are the possible health effects?

How can I minimize my exposure?

1. Nail polish: Dibutyl phthalate is often used to make nail polish chip-resistant. Look for it on the ingredients list, where it may be shortened to DBP.
2. Plastics in the kitchen: Take a critical eye to your cupboards. Phthalates may be more likely to leach out of plastic when it's heated, so avoid cooking or microwaving in plastic.
3. Vinyl toys: Phthalates are what make vinyl (PVC) toys soft, so don't give them to children. Opt instead for wooden and other phthalate-free toys, especially during that age when they put everything in their mouths!
4. Paint: Paints and other hobby products may contain phthalates as solvents, so be sure to use them in a well-ventilated space.
5. Fragrance: Diethyl phthalate (DEP) is often used as part of the "fragrance" in some products. Since DEP won't be listed separately, you're better off choosing personal care products, detergents, and cleansers that don't have the word "fragrance" on the ingredients list.
6. Vinyl: Vinyl shows up in a lot of different products; lawn furniture, garden hoses, building materials, and items of clothing (like some raincoats) are often sources. Aside from carefully choosing materials when you're making purchases, there is one easy change you can make: switch to a non-vinyl shower curtain. That "new shower curtain" smell (you know the one) is a result of chemical off-gassing, and it means your shower curtain is a source of phthalates in your home.
7. Air Fresheners: Just like fragrances in personal care products, most air fresheners contain phthalates.

Where can I learn more?

1. Here's a link to Phthalates in the Chemical Index.
2. Phthalates were just one of the hormone-disrupting chemicals we found contaminating the San Francisco Bay.
3. NRDC has the low-down on phthalates in air fresheners.
4. EWG's Jane Houlihan discusses phthalates in children's personal care products.
5. Olga explains a recent study linking phthalates to asthma and allergies.

Orginal photo by Felix63.

The group claims to want to present a more balanced view of global warming. The materials claim that there's no consensus that climate change has been caused by human activities, and that we can actually attribute it to -- wait for it -- the sun. Conveniently, the group's propaganda makes no reference at all to the IPCC's 2007 report on climate change -- you know, that study that won the Nobel Peace Prize. Is it just me, or does that sound like the opposite of balanced?

My guess is that they're getting desperate. Unfortunately, not everyone can smell the desperation on them -- their recent propaganda campaign also went out to Canadian politicians, who've adopted policies thought to be soft on the oil and gas industry.

Photo by Sonya.

Bad news, too, though: the proposed limits, although stronger than what exists now, are weaker than the limits suggested by both an independent panel and EPA's own scientists.

Although the amount of lead in the air has decreased drastically since leaded gasoline was banned in the '70s (from 74,000 tons year to 1,300, according to The Washington Post), even small amounts of lead can have harmful effects on children's development.

Both the independent panel and EPA's scientists said the maximum air-lead content ought to be no higher than ,20 micrograms per cubic foot, and the independent panel also suggested that polluters record their emissions for a single month. EPA's proposal would allow for a range of lead emissions up to .30 micrograms per cubic foot, averaged over three months. It miight not sound like a big difference, but when you're talking about lost IQ points in children, it is.

EPA could have taken a stronger stance on air-lead content. Baby-steps are fine for babies, but when it comes to protecting children's health, we should expect giant leaps from our government. If you live in or near St. Louis, MI or Baltimore, MD, EPA is holding public hearings [pdf] on this proposal in your neck of the woods on June 12th. Once the proposed rule is published in the federal register, EPA will accept comment for 60 days -- I'll keep you posted.

Photo by Sean Dreilinger.

Recently, the governor of a Brazilian farming province was quoted saying that more of the Amazon rain forest should be cut down to provide farmland for food production. Brazil's largest producer of soy, Blairo Maggi, went even further by saying there is no way to produce more food without taking down more trees.

In recent years, Brazil became a major food supplier, especially of foods like soybean and beef. However, the demand for food that Brazil has been trying to fill has lead to the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. The rainforest represents over half of the planet's remaining rainforests and is the largest and most species-rich region of tropical rainforest in the world.

Maybe I am an old-fashioned environmentalist, but I do believe in alternatives. While technology is not always good for the planet we live on, this is one of the cases where technology can play a positive role. It can help recover the degraded part of the forest, instead of cutting down more trees. Technology can also help farmers around the world to farm sustainably in the areas that don’t have forests in them and have not been used for farming in the past.

The destruction of Amazon rainforest will result in the loss of biodiversity, as well as accelerate global warming. Its presence is beneficial for the whole world, not just Brazil and in this globalized world all must work together.

New research suggests that atrazine, a possible carcinogen and the second most common herbicide used in America, is present in greater amounts in average Americans than previously thought.

The good people over at the Centers for Disease Control came to this conclusion after they upgraded their atrazine monitoring method to look for traces of certain types of atrazine byproducts that their older measurements did not account for. CDC’s new research shows that the old method underreported the average level of atrazine in Americans so severely that 98 percent of the atrazine byproducts found in volunteers who said they did not know if they were exposed to atrazine would not have been accounted for under the previous method.

These new findings strengthen the case for taking serious action against the use of atrazine in America. The European Union banned the use of atrazine in its member nations in 2003 after it found traces of atrazine in some of its drinking water supplies. In America, people are mostly exposed to atrazine through drinking water that has been contaminated as a result of using the herbicide to control weeds on farms and golf courses.

The government must take action beyond asking Syngenta, the main manufacturer of atrazine used in America, to monitor atrazine levels in streams with more than three times the amount of atrazine that the EPA considers harmful to humans. Continued failure to raise regulations on atrazine will continue to hurt Americans.

In a previous post, we briefly mentioned that overexposure to atrazine has been linked to breast cancer development. Syngenta’s own research shows there may be a link between atrazine overexposure and prostate cancer. Cardiovascular problems, muscle spasms, damage to the retinas and adrenal gland damage may also result from overexposure to atrazine.

Now that we know there’s even more atrazine in us than we care to have, we have all the more reason to advocate for our health and restrict its use.

Photo by Toby M.

What is it?

What are the possible health effects?

How do I minimize my exposure?

• Forgo the optional stain treatment on new carpets and furniture, and find products that haven't been pre-treated.
• Choose clothing that doesn't carry Teflon or Scotchgard tags and isn't labeled stain- or water-repellent.
• Avoid non-stick pans if you can. Opt for stainless steel or cast iron instead.
• Cut back on greasy packaged and fast foods, which often come in treated wrappers.
• Some personal care products contain PFCs. Check ingredient labels for anything beginning with perfluoro.

Where can I learn more?

• Learn more about PFCs as global contaminants.
• Ask EWG takes on Scotchgard in clothes and Stainmaster treatments on carpets.
• PFCs have been associated with lowered birth weight and immune suppression.
• California may ban the use of PFCs on food packaging.
• PFCs may concentrate in breastmilk.

Photo by Jenny P.

But the state's solution – dive-bombing the 7 million-plus residents of the Bay Area with a synthetic moth pheromone that hasn't been adequately tested – threatens public health. The warning label for the pesticide, CheckMate, says: "Harmful if inhaled. Avoid breathing vapor or spray mist. . . . Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift." After a first round of spraying last fall in Monterey and Santa Cruz, hundreds of people reported respiratory problems.

The standoff has led to packed town hall meetings and public hearings, protests, petitions and no less than 5 bills from state lawmakers to stop or postpone the spraying. Last week there was finally a victory for common sense, as a Santa Cruz County judge ordered a halt to any more spraying there, and Gov. Schwarzenegger put the scheme on hold until safety tests are conducted.

The judge rejected the state's arguments that the moth infestation is an emergency. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Schwarzenegger said "he remains convinced the chemicals used for spraying are safe but called for the temporary halt to allow for a series of tests on possible eye, inhalation, respiratory and other potential irritants."

"I am confident that the additional tests will reassure Californians that we are taking the safest, most progressive approach to ridding our state of this very real threat to our agriculture, environment and economy," Schwarzenegger said.

Safest? Progressive? We went through this a decade ago, fighting the state over the spraying of a toxic nerve gas, methyl bromide, on strawberry fields near hundreds of schools. When people got sick from methyl bromide exposure, too often state and local officials' response was to assure folks that their symptoms were imaginary or not related to the pesticide. The precautionary principle would argue that even if you're "confident" the chemical is safe, when people are getting sick, something's causing it. Hey, who are you going to believe, the state's studies or your own wheezing lungs?

If you'd like to learn more about the apple moth and the spraying plan, check out Play Not Spray. And if you want to let the governor know what you think of the plan, you can e-mail him here.

Angry Toxicologist posted on Monday about a report showing that PFOA PFOS (a chemical in the PFC family, related to Teflon) acts as an immune suppressant. I haven't read the report myself yet, but I'm very interested in the mechanism by which that might work, so I'll keep you posted. Other studies have found related PFCs to be immune suppressants, as well. [Edit: Accidentally misidentified the chemical studied -- thanks to a reader for pointing that out!]

Vanity Fair has a really interesting in-depth report on Monsanto. Whatever the potential benefits of GM crops, the way that company does business is just shameful. The article is a fascinating, if frustrating, read.

We talk a lot about making better food choices 'round this corner of the blogosphere. It's true that buying local, organic or biodynamic food has a positive impact on the environment as well as the local economy, but how lucky are we to be able to make that choice? Especially now, with food prices on the rise internationally. Lynn at Organic Mania has more to say about that, and about how you can help.

Last but not least: Beth of Fake Plastic Fish has given Enviroblog the Blog of Distinction award! Here are the nice things she said:

[...]I've decided to pass it on to the blogger and organization who refuse to pull their punches but give us the gritty details time after time about chemicals in our air and water, the scrubs on our faces and coatings in our pans. Amanda Hanley is the blogger and EWG's Enviroblog is that blog. So please, Amanda, accept this award for all the hard work you and the group do.

Now it's our turn to pass it along. I'm tagging Katy, whose blog Non-Toxic Kids tirelessly analyzes, sorts and distills the most important information on environmental health into a format that even tired parents can handle. And let me tell you -- that's no easy task! So thanks, Katy, for your wit and your wisdom and for helping to spread the word about toxic chemicals in our everyday lives.