You know the one, where teachers tell you exactly what to bring on the first day to fill the new classroom with the necessities that don't last from year to year and aren't provided by the school. Sometimes they even specify brand names!

But that doesn't stop some of us from asking whether the items on the list are safe for our children, or how we can pick the safest - and greenest - options.

Which is exactly why EWG put together some back-to-school shopping tips this year. To make it easier on us parents to make safer choices, without spending every waking minute doing product research! We focused on these 11 common product types that children often use (and parents are asked to buy) at school:

1. Art supplies
Many contain toxic chemicals that are not suitable for children -- especially younger ones. Pay special attention to these: Paints should be water-based to avoid solvents and colored with natural, non-metal pigments.

Don't buy polymer clays that stay soft at room temperature or can be hardened in a home oven -- they're made from PVC (polyvinyl chloride) and often contain phthalates. Consider making your own "clay" out of common baking ingredients instead. Note: A label that says "Conforms to ASTM D-4236" simply means the product is labeled as required, not necessarily safe.

2. Crayons & markers
Common crayons often contain paraffin wax, which is made from crude oil. Look for alternatives like soy and beeswax. Don't buy dry-erase and permanent markers, which contain solvents. Be wary of plastic-encased crayons or scented markers -- scents encourage kids to sniff them, and the chemicals used in the fragrances are not listed on the label. Try a pencil highlighter instead of the familiar plastic ones.

3. Glue
Try to minimize kids' exposures to extra-strong or instant adhesives like epoxies, model and "super" glues; they contain toxic solvents. Water-based glues are safer bets, though most are made from petrochemicals. Some better options are: glue sticks, white/yellow/clear "school" glue. Stock up today. Children should not use rubber cement.

4. Hand washing
Choose sanitizers with ethanol (ethyl alcohol) but no fragrance, and liquid hand soaps without triclosan, triclocarban or fragrance. Check this product list in EWG's Cosmetics Database. And remember: Plain soap and water is often just as effective! Learn more in our Healthy Home Tip.

5. Backpacks
If it's time for a new one, look for natural fibers and skip those made with PVC. If natural fibers aren't an option, polyester and nylon are better than PVC. (Check the label for #3, the symbol for PVC, or look for "no PVC" on the label.) Labels don't always list the material, so you may need to contact manufacturers or visit their websites.

6. Lunch boxes
Because they hold food, it's especially important that lunch boxes be made from non-toxic materials with NO lead paint, PVC, BPA and antimicrobial chemicals. Some options are: cotton lunch bags, BPA-free plastic or unpainted stainless steel. Reuse utensils from home and pack food in reusable, rather than disposable, containers (such as lightweight stainless steel or #1, 2, 4 or 5 plastics).

7. Beverage bottles
Skip commercial bottled water -- it's expensive, wastes resources and the water quality isn't necessarily better than tap. Instead, send your child to school with filtered water and other beverages in a reusable bottle made from BPA-free plastic, BPA-free aluminum or stainless steel, such as Klean Kanteen. Click here to order yours on Amazon. Take a minute to learn more about the downsides of bottled water.

8. Pencils and pens
Pick plain wooden pencils (no paint or glossy coating) made from sustainable wood or recycled newspaper. Skip the scented ones. Try to use recycled ballpoint pens. Find recycled pencils on Amazon.

9. Notebooks and binders
Avoid plastic covers on binders and spiral notebooks; they're usually made from PVC (#3 plastic). Opt for recycled cardboard or natural fibers instead, or look for "no PVC" on the label.

10. Paper products Look for recycled paper, available here, made from at least 30 percent post-consumer waste (PCW) that isn't whitened with chlorine bleach. Or consider virgin paper made from alternative fibers or sustainably managed forests. Choose 100 percent recycled tissues and paper towels made with PCW and without chlorine bleach. Avoid added lotion, fragrance and dyes.

11. Cell phones
A lot of kids have cell phones. If purchasing a new phone, choose one with lower radiation ("SAR" value) by searching EWG's cell phone database. Teach your child that when she's not using it, she should turn it off, store it in her backpack or somewhere else away from the body, and text instead of talking. Get our eight cell phone safety tips.

Get the guide.
You can download these tips, too, 'cause they're mighty handy when you're staring at all those crayons, notebooks, and markers in the store!

But how aware are we of the just plain gross ingredients in our personal care products? Find out on this ABC News segment with EWG's Senior Vice-President for Research, Jane Houlihan.

Teaser: There is most certainly beetle juice in your....

In July, the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act was introduced into Congress and Annie Leonard's videoThe Story of Cosmetics was released.

This recent conversation on Democracy Now - with Stacy Malkan of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (and author of Not Just a Pretty Face) and John Bailey of the Personal Care Products Council - will bring you up to speed on what's going on, and who thinks what about it all.

Not surprisingly, they don't all agree.

EWG is a founding member of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

When the nurse came to take my blood, I winced, I moaned, and was generally a big fat baby. It was 10 vials, after all. Then they cut out a chunk of my hair, and I peed in a cup.

Honestly, it was the least I could do. Having written about toxins in toys, vitamins, children's products, and food for two years on my blog, Non-Toxic Kids, well, I needed to put up or shut up, to say it simply.

Because this is personal.

The River Network and the Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Vermont launched a Body Burden Study: A Study of Toxic Chemicals in Residents of the Green Mountain State. Six volunteers (myself included) were tested for several known environmental toxins:

• Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE). These flame-retardants and are associated with affects on thyroid hormones and neurological problems. They are in electronics, mattresses, and furniture. Read EWG's tips to reduce your exposure here.
• Bisphenol-a (BPA): You must have heard of this one. BPA is a chemical found in water bottles, canned food, packaged food linings, canned beverages, food containers and other plastics. In low doses, it has been linked to multiple cancers, obesity, heart disease, disruption of reproductive systems and the process of chemotherapy. Read EWG's tips to reduce your exposure here.
• Organichlorine pesticides: These are insecticides and pesticides. They break down slowly and can remain in the environment and in people for years. DDT is the most well know organichlorine insecticide, which caused damage to wildlife and has been banned worldwide. But there are others still in use and accumulating in our bodies. Learn more on Enviroblog.
• Mercury: The greatest exposure to mercury is caused by ingestion of fish, and mercury is a neurotoxin and may affect the development of the fetus and newborns.

I knew enough about the pollution in people not to be surprised - I grew up in the 80s, when we microwaved everything in plastic, ate conventional produce, and massive amounts of Velveeta and other food-like items. I still had hopes because I spent the last 15 years eating organic (mostly), using safer products, and eating a vegetarian diet. I wanted this to matter. Badly.

And it did, and it didn't.

You see, the folks at EWG are right on when they say we can't shop our way out of this problem. Because despite my commitment to healthy living I had the highest amount of flame retardant chemicals in my blood out of anyone else in the study - 3 to 4 times higher. The chemicals are linked to cancers, brain abnormalities, and other troubling health conditions.

The most troubling?

My two daughters, 3 and 5, live with the same exposures I do, and this level of contamination is unacceptable. We saw it in EWG's umbilical cord studies. No high level of organic and healthy living can leave our children without a heavy chemical load. That is why we must support the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010. There is no logical reason why manufacturers should be able to dump whatever chemicals they want into products without any safety testing, like they've been doing for years.

We've got to pass legislation that shifts the responsibility of safety testing back to the manufacturers and demands safety testing for the 80,000 chemicals that were never tested.

You can read more from Katy on her blog, Non-Toxic Kids. Her first book, Why Great Teachers Quit, was just published in July.

Images by Kurt Budliger Photography.

What will the Safe Cosmetics Act DO?
The recently introduced Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 (H.R. 5786 for the wonks) will greatly expand the powers of the FDA to regulate the ingredients in cosmetics. How?

The agency will be able to prohibit the use of certain ingredients, including carcinogens and reproductive and developmental toxins; recall products that fail to meet safety standards; and require product labels to name each ingredient, including fragrance. Yes, it's ludicrous that none of this is happening now.

We need this legislation - urgently.
Currently, manufacturers may use almost any ingredient or raw material in your soap, shampoo or makeup without government review or approval. According to EWG's research, 22 percent of all personal care products, including children's products, may contain a cancer-causing ingredient, 1,4-Dioxane, and 60 percent of sunscreens contain oxybenzone, a potential hormone disruptor. Other studies have raised alarms about lead in lipstick, secret chemicals in fragrance and preservatives in personal care products.

The status quo is simply unacceptable. We need the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 to ensure that we are able to protect ourselves and our families from potentially harmful ingredients.

If this bill becomes law, Americans will be able to go to the store and buy shampoo, moisturizers, body wash and other grooming products with full confidence they aren't laced with chemicals whose effects on health are unknown or downright dangerous. As it should be.

Read more about the bill here and check your own personal care products for safety here.

Drillers inject these substances into rock under extremely high pressure in a process called hydraulic fracturing that energy companies use to extract natural gas and oil from underground formations.

Private wells and public waterworks are affected
The process, known as "fracking," fractures the rock to allow additional gas and oil to flow to the surface. Fracking is currently used in 90 percent of the nation's oil and natural gas wells and has been instrumental in accessing huge new natural gas deposits trapped in underground shale formations. It's a threat not just for people who have their own wells, but also for major cities such as New York, where everyone is supplied by public waterworks.

They're drilling around the law
Federal and state regulators, meanwhile, have largely looked the other way. See, in 2005 Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing, except fracturing with diesel fuel, from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Yes, exempted.

Get the story in this short video - then send it to every New Yorker you know. Because if New York gets fracked, it won't be pretty. And the water won't be drinkable.

The risks of fracking aren't just theoretical. Drinking water contamination and property damage have been linked to hydraulic fracturing in four states - Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wyoming. In one incident that polluted a Colorado creek, nearby groundwater is still contaminated with benzene - six years later.

The conclusion is inescapable: the petroleum distillates used in hydraulic fracturing pose a serious threat to the nation's water supplies, but those risks have been largely ignored by federal and state regulators, including New York.

This morning I relied on a dozen grooming and beauty products to help me face the day.

I used soap, shampoo and conditioner in the shower, and gel and mousse when I dried my hair. I slathered on moisturizer and dabbed my face with sunscreen. I applied foundation, blush and eye shadow. I rolled on deodorant. And I used toothpaste, of course, when I brushed my teeth.

Adults in the United States use an average of 10 personal-care products a day. That translates to exposures to more than 126 unique chemicals, not counting the untold number of chemicals used in any "fragrance" listed on a label, according to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

While some of these chemicals are perfectly safe, others may cause cancer, and problems with brain development and reproduction. This worrisome situation is why three Congressional Democrats -- Reps. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin -- introduced on the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 on July 21.

The bill aims to give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the authority to ensure cosmetics and personal-care products are free from harmful ingredients -- authority most Americans probably believe the agency already has.

Yet, under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, the FDA can't require cosmetics and personal-care companies to substantiate product safety and performance claims. In fact, the FDA can't even require beauty-products makers to register their operations or products, though some do it voluntarily. Indeed, the FDA's legal authority over cosmetics is different from other products it regulates, such as drugs and medical devices, in that cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to pre-market approval (with the exception of color additives).

While the FDA's mandate when it comes to cosmetics and personal-care products is to ensure that these products are safe, it does not have the statutory power or the resources to complete this important public-health mission.

I was shocked when I learned, through a Freedom of Information Act request submitted while I was writing The Body Toxic, that only 30 employees worked in the FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors, which oversees the $60 billion annual U.S. cosmetics business. The office's annual budget of $3.4 million had not increased in some two decades, and did not include funding for safety assessments.

"From lipstick to lotion, our medicine cabinets are filled with cosmetics that may contain potentially dangerous chemicals," said Sen. Markey. "This important bill closes a gaping hole in our federal laws that allows potentially dangerous chemicals to remain in the cosmetic products we use every day."

Even the Personal Care Products Council, the industry's leading trade association and lobbying group, acknowledges the regulatory landscape needs updating. It has lobbied for the last several years to obtain additional funding for FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors, said Lezlee Westine, president and CEO.

Predictably, though, the industry does not support the Safe Cosmetics Act as written. And if history is an indicator, it can be expected to fight -- gleaming tooth and polished nail -- against regulatory reforms that would truly give the FDA the broader authority it needs to protect the public.

Nevertheless, as we learn about cancer-causing chemicals in baby shampoo, hormone disruptors in fragrance and lead in lipstick, it becomes hard to accept the lack of safety requirements that gives manufacturers leeway to put harmful ingredients into beauty and personal-care products.

If the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 becomes law, we won't have to.

This post originally appeared on Huffington Post.

You can get a copy of The Body Toxic on Amazon. It's a very worthwhile read.

The (very) good news is the U.S. House of Representatives just introduced a bill to fix all that. But in the meantime (until they pass it!), make sure you don't fall prey to these common myths:

1. Myth: If products are for sale at a supermarket, drugstore, or department store cosmetics counter, they must be safe.

Fact: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has no authority to require companies to assess ingredients or products for safety. FDA does not review or approve the vast majority of cosmetic products or ingredients before they go on the market. The agency conducts pre-market reviews only for certain color additives and active ingredients in cosmetics classified as over-the-counter drugs.

2. Myth: The cosmetics industry effectively polices itself, making sure all ingredients meet a strict standard of safety.

Fact: In its more than 30-year history, the industry's safety panel (the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, or CIR) has assessed fewer than 20 percent of cosmetics ingredients and found only a handful of ingredients or chemical groups to be unsafe. Its recommendations are not binding on companies.

3. Myth: The government prohibits dangerous chemicals in personal care products, and companies wouldn't risk using them.

Fact: Cosmetics companies may use any ingredient or raw material, except for color additives and a few prohibited substances (such as vinyl chloride and cow parts), without government review or approval.

• More than 500 products sold in the U.S. contain ingredients banned in cosmetics in Japan, Canada or the European Union.


• Nearly 100 products contain ingredients considered unsafe by the International Fragrance Association.


• A wide range of nanomaterials whose safety is in question may be common in personal care products.


• 22% of all personal care products may be contaminated with the cancer-causing impurity


• 1,4-dioxane, including many children's products.


• 60% of sunscreens contain the potential hormone disruptor oxybenzone that readily penetrates the skin and contaminates the bodies of 97% of Americans.


• 61% of tested lipstick brands contain residues of lead.

4. Myth: Cosmetic ingredients are applied to the skin and rarely get into the body. When they do, levels are too low to matter.

Fact: People are exposed by breathing in sprays and powders, swallowing chemicals on the lips or hands or absorbing them through the skin. Studies find evidence of health risks. Biomonitoring studies have found cosmetics ingredients - like phthalate plasticizers, paraben preservatives, the pesticide triclosan, synthetic musks, and sunscreens - inside the bodily fluids of men, women, children and even the cord blood of newborn babies.

Many of these chemicals are potential hormone disruptors that may increase cancer risk. Products commonly contain penetration enhancers to drive ingredients deeper into the skin. Studies find health problems in people exposed to common fragrance and sunscreen ingredients, including elevated risk for sperm damage, feminization of the male reproductive system, and low birth weight in girls.

5. Myth: Products made for children or bearing claims like "hypoallergenic" are safer choices.

Fact: Most cosmetic marketing claims are unregulated, and companies are rarely if ever required to back them up, even for children's products. A company can use a claim like "hypoallergenic" or "natural" "to mean anything or nothing at all," and while "[m]ost of the terms have considerable market value in promoting cosmetic products to consumers, dermatologists say they have very little medical meaning."

An investigation of more than 1,700 children's body care products found that 81 percent of those marked "gentle" or "hypoallergenic" contained allergens or skin and eye irritants.

6. Myth: FDA would promptly recall any product that injures people.

Fact: FDA has no authority to require recalls of harmful cosmetics. Furthermore, manufacturers are not required to report cosmetics-related injuries to the agency. FDA relies on companies to report injuries voluntarily.

7. Myth: Consumers can read ingredient labels and avoid products with hazardous chemicals.

Fact: Federal law allows companies to leave many chemicals off labels, including nanomaterials, contaminants, and components of fragrance. Fragrance may include any of 3,163 different chemicals, none of which are required to be listed on labels. Fragrance tests reveal an average of 14 hidden compounds per formulation, including potential hormone disruptors and diethyl phthalate, a compound linked to sperm damage.

8. Myth: Cosmetics safety is a concern for women only.

Fact: Surveys show that on average, women use 12 products containing 168 ingredients every day, men use 6 products with 85 ingredients, 35 and children are exposed to an average of 61 ingredients daily. The large majority of these chemicals have not been assessed for safety by the industry-funded CIR safety panel.

References are available when you download the pdf here.

The 2009 President's Cancer Panel report, "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk, What We Can Do Now," confirms what Rachel Carson articulated in Silent Spring and what Sandra Steingraber argued in her book, Living Downstream.

Toxic chemicals in our bodies, in random combinations based on exposures starting before we're born, are "linked to genetic, immune and endocrine dysfunction that can lead to cancer and other diseases."

Translation: many toxics cause cancer. The authors of the latest President's Cancel Panel Annual Report cannot say this outright because of the way scientific studies work and because our country has not invested nearly enough money in studying the relationship of toxics to human health (cancer specifically). We don't yet have complete enough national databases and precise enough methods of measurement to draw definitive conclusions.

But the authors of the President's Cancer Panel report certainly come up with a clear case, and they offer many examples of how and where we exposed to dangerous toxics and what needs to be changed. We do know enough, they suggest, we've studied enough, to be able to say that the evidence all points to the fact that our bodies are full of toxic junk that can cause cancer and, often, premature death.

Women's bodies tend to have larger amounts of these toxins, and they are passed to their unborn children through the placenta and later through breast milk. Children are born with their bodies already full of toxics. Their umbilical cord blood tells us this. Their little bodies are at special risk because of their smaller body mass and rapid physical growth, both of which make them more vulnerable to carcinogens.

I have waited for this official report for years.

There is a whole lot of cancer in my family on both sides. None of it seems to make sense. In 1994, I was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease. I was 35. My mother was diagnosed with lymphoma when I was 32, and my father died from melanoma when I was 28. My paternal first cousin, who never smoked, died from lung cancer at 45. Two of my maternal first cousins have had early stage melanomas. My mother's younger sister died from breast cancer.

Recently, I was diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma. The latter is a minor cancer, but it is cancer nonetheless, and with my father's fatal melanoma history, I don't go outside much in the daylight anymore. These cancers seem unrelated and random, and thus potentially a result of environmental rather than genetic history: melanoma is on opposite sides of my family (father and maternal cousins), and lung cancer is on opposite sides of my family as well (paternal cousin, maternal aunt)--so there does not appear to be a genetic connection there, and in my own immediate nuclear family--my mother, father, and I had three different types of cancer.

To top it all off, I am at high risk for secondary cancers because I have had more than 11 CAT scans as part of my Hodgkin's treatment and follow-up. The President's Cancer Panel report tells us:

"People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors. It is believed that a single large dose of ionizing radiation and numerous low doses equal to the single large dose have much the same effect on the body over time."

Let me repeat, I have had 11 of these tests. Did the benefits of that many tests outweigh the dangers posed? Was I informed about the dangers of such tests at the time they were given to me? Would I have had so many CAT scans had I known what I know now?

No, no and no.

Unfortunately, I'm not the only one -- that's for sure. Forty-one percent of all Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. Twenty-one percent will die from it. My neighbor across the street -- a 40-something father of two -- is dying of lung cancer. I used to hear him playing basketball with his 12-year-old daughter. He has tried every cancer treatment available, including experimental protocols, but the prognosis is grim. I don't hear the sounds of basketball anymore.

Two women in my immediate neighborhood have had their breasts removed. Several other immediate neighbors have passed away from breast and other cancers. These people are all in their mid-40s and younger. The story of my neighborhood is the story of every neighborhood, and cancer doesn't just strike adults. I know several children who have had it. Some survived, some did not. Today, this is everyone's story.

So the report is out. It comes from on high. We can fight the invasion of the body-snatcher toxins and radiation as individuals to some degree -- if we have the knowledge and economic means -- by eating organic food, using nontoxic cosmetics and cleaning products, avoiding unnecessary X-rays and CAT scans and working in relatively safe environments. Still, private and individual acts of prevention are not enough.

The authors of the President's Cancer Panel report argue that our nation needs a comprehensive strategy for eliminating cancer-causing environmental exposures. Poison often knows no borders -- it can travel and bio-accumulate -- wreaking havoc on the health of all species. Cancer strikes people of all genders, classes, ethnicities, and races. The poor, people working and living in environments with toxic and hazardous materials, and women and children are the hardest it, but we are all vulnerable to carcinogenic pollution.

Will our government (and all governments) make the radical changes called for in this study? Senator Frank Lautenberg's proposed Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 is an important first step.

As Americans, we need to ensure this act passes, and many more like it. It is time for us to follow the wise precautionary principle that has been adopted by the European Union.

As citizens, we must mobilize to ensure that our government enacts preventative measures to protect the health of our children and all living beings.

Will we do so? We must.

Ms. Hutner teaches and writes about ecofeminism, environmentalism, women writers and film. She is a mother and a cancer survivor who blogs here.

If you're familiar with her wildly successful Story of Stuff, you know what you'll get in this 8-minute video: the startling facts, delivered in a way that makes sense to all of us.

So if you've ever read a label in the cosmetics aisle and, brow furrowed, wondered whether anyone out there (like the government, perhaps) is making sure all those ingredients are good for you, this short video is for you.

Cause, by the way, they're not. Check it out:

Now that you're in the know, you'll probably want to take a little action. We suggest you:

• Check EWG's Cosmetics Database to find safer products.


• Host a screening party to spread the word.


• Get the story about the new cosmetics safety bill in Congress.

Do policy makers really care that you fervently believe that chemicals should be kid-safe, not hazardous to their health?

YES. YES. YES.

And when we speak together, we're even more effective.

Tell Congress to put toxics on its "to do" list NOW
Join 90,000 other concerned Americans who have already signed this historic petition.

Let's make it crystal clear that you want an effective national chemicals policy that protects human health, especially our children who are most affected by toxic chemicals. We know you're frustrated by the current system. So let's change it.

Numbers talk: 100,000 signatures is our goal
We will tell key lawmakers on Capitol Hill that 100,000 of their constituents - including you - want reform now because we've waited too long already. We must show them how BIG and PASSIONATE this kid-safe movement has become. Can you help us reach our goal in the next two weeks? It's easy to sign and share - and extremely important to our success.

The time is right now
There is a political window of opportunity to move chemicals policy reform forward in 2010, but in the current political climate, windows close quickly and unpredictably. We must give it our absolute all NOW, to maintain that political momentum. Or we may lose this chance.

Sign it, share it
This issue is far too important to let Congress do nothing. We need your help - by signing and sharing the petition - to get chemicals policy reform on the Congressional "to-do" list. Preferably at the top.

And chances are good that they include shampoo, toothpaste, soap, deodorant, hair conditioner, lip balm, sunscreen, body lotion, shaving products if you're a man, and cosmetics if you are a woman.

And what about your children? On any given day you might rub, spray, or pour some combination of sunscreen, diaper cream, shampoo, lotion, and maybe even insect repellent on their skin.

Most people use these products without a second thought, and believe that the government must certainly be policing the safety of the mixtures in these myriad containers. But they're wrong.

The government does not require health studies or pre-market testing for these products before they are sold. And as people apply an average of 126 unique ingredients on their skin daily, these chemicals, whether they seep through the skin, rinse down the drain, or flush down the toilet in human excretions, are causing concerns for human health, and for the impacts they may have to wildlife, rivers and streams.

So go ahead, take 2 minutes and 29 seconds to get the story behind cosmetics. Then take the important step to find out what's lurking in YOUR cosmetics, and find safer options in EWG's Cosmetics Database - it's easy to search.

PS - Grab the embed code and post it on your site.

Since last year, we've sent 12, ranging from picking better personal care products to greener cleaning and drinking clean water).

In May, we focused on giving kids a green and healthy start in 4 ways. Here are the basics - for the full story, visit EWG's Healthy Home Tip web page.

1. Reduce Mom's chemical exposures while pregnant
Pregnancy is a critical time. A mother's chemical exposures can adversely affect her baby in many ways. Talk to your doctor about lifestyle changes that are critical -- stopping smoking, cutting out alcoholic beverages, and eating right.

Beyond that, here are some simple, but important steps, you can take to further reduce risks during pregnancy -- and beyond:

• Go organic and eat fresh foods.
• Drink safer water.
• Eat low-mercury seafood.
• Get your iodine.
• Choose better body care products.
• Wash maternity clothes before wearing.
• Identify lead sources and avoid them.
• Avoid painting and other chemical-intensive jobs when you are getting your nursery ready.
• Clean greener.
• Avoid gasoline fumes.
• Pick plastics carefully.

Use a safe bottle:

• Start with a clear silicone nipple.
• Use glass. Avoid clear, hard plastic bottles marked with a 7 or "PC."
• Don't use plastic bottle liners.
• Warm bottles in a pan of hot water.

Make safe infant formula:

• Choose powdered formula.
• Use filtered tap water.

3. Create an eco-healthy home
We created a short Healthy Home Checklist for you to use as you walk through your home -- and open your bathroom cabinet, look under your sink, and check those laundry supplies.

It's an easy, hands-on way to create a less toxic environment for your family. When you're done, you'll breathe easier (literally!) knowing that you've tackled the toxics that matter most in your home.

4. Clean greener at home
Cleaning might be a chore, but it doesn't have to be toxic, too! Safer products and practices are available and easy. Children accidentally exposed to harsh, corrosive cleaners can suffer burns to skin and eyes, and inhaling the fumes can cause lung damage.

Exposure to low levels of these chemicals over a lifetime may increase the risk of developing serious health conditions, such as cancer or reproductive problems.

Some simple steps to green your cleaning routine:

• Less is more. Dilute your cleaning supplies according to instructions and use only what's needed to get the job done.


• Open the window. Clean with windows and doors open so you don't trap air pollution inside your home.


• Use gloves and other precautions. Cleaning chemicals may harm or penetrate skin and eyes -- check warning labels.


• Keep kids away. Children are more vulnerable to toxic chemicals. If they like to help, let them clean with soap and water, not toxic cleaners.


• Avoid "antibacterial." If your family is generally healthy, there's no need to use potentially toxic "antibacterial" products, according to the American Medical Association. Wash your hands with plain soap and water.


• Never mix bleach with ammonia, vinegar, or other acids. These combinations can produce deadly gases.


• Don't be fooled by labels -- buy certified green products. Label claims aren't always true. Cleaning supplies certified by Green Seal or EcoLogo meet green standards.


• Try natural alternatives. Experiment with non-toxic options like vinegar and baking soda.


• Take care with pine and citrus oil cleaners. Avoid using these cleaners especially on smoggy days, when the ingredients can react with ozone to produce cancer-causing formaldehyde.


• Skip the biggest hazards. Avoid air fresheners, use a baking soda and water paste to clean the oven and tackle toilet stains, and use a mechanical snake to unclog the drain.

Get details on all four tips on EWG's Healthy Home Tips page.

It opened my eyes to the critical importance of timing when it comes to chemical exposures, and spurred me to make some behavioral changes to reduce my exposures to toxic chemicals while pregnant (more organics, fewer and less toxic personal care products, and greener cleaning supplies, among them. For more ideas, see EWG's 11 Healthy Pregnancy Tips).

But for those among us with little reading time (parents in general!), this new video about environmental health during pregnancy covers a lot of ground on four topics in a mere 20 minutes:

• Environmental tobacco smoke,


• Beauty treatments and personal care products,


• Exposures in the home, and


• Food safety and healthy eating.

The video was designed to help prenatal healthcare providers and educators teach women how to reduce their risk of exposure to environmental toxins during pregnancy. The cast is diverse, the language is accessible (middle-school level), it's available in Spanish and there are home and classroom options (the classroom option is more expensive, but comes with a Workshop Leader's Guide, flyers, evaluation forms, a computer slide show presentation and full color printable handouts).

You'll get a sense of its tone in this trailer:

Your Green Guide to Pregnancy is an excellent introduction to the idea of an environmentally healthy pregnancy - that explains the importance of it along with simple how-tos.

So it's a relief to find out that there is at least one furniture maker who frees you from having to ask all those questions or fret over all those worries, because they're thinking about your health and the environment for you.

Introducing the Q Collection, a furniture line out of New York City that EWG President Ken Cook likes to joke he'd be happy to eat with a little mango salsa.

The Q Collection has a mission
This company's mission has to do with your home and the environment (how refreshing): Be people safe and planet safe. How? By designing and manufacturing long-lasting furniture that doesn't rely on harmful materials typically used in furniture and fabrics. That means making eco-healthy choices like:

• No formaldehyde
  Formaldehyde is used in most furniture adhesives, but the Q Collection uses only water-based adhesives.
• No polyurethane, no dacron
  Polyurethane, a known carcinogen, is used as a topcoat and in the manufacturing of foam and dacron (part of foam padding) contains toluene. This company uses only water-based stains, topcoats and natural latex foam rubber.
• No brominated flame retardants
  Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) are banned in Europe but are still being used extensively in US upholstery manufacturing.
• No heavy metals
  Leather tanning is the most harmful of all fabric production processes because it relies on harmful heavy metals like chromium 6.
• No toxic stain resistant chemicals
  Fabrics often contain dioxin (typically as a byproduct of the dyeing and finishing processes), a powerful carcinogen that is also known to damage the human immune system. Dioxins are also on the "dirty dozen" list of persistent environmental pollutants (POPs).
• Sustainably harvested wood, 100% certified
  The source of most wood used to make furniture today is unknown. Unfortunately, it can come from some of the world's most threatened ecosystems, such as old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest or the Amazon rain forest. The U.S. is by far the largest importer of virgin timber from the Amazon.
• Organic or European ecological cotton
  Cotton is the world's most polluting crop because of enormous levels of pesticides and herbicides used in growing it.
• Non-toxic, low-impact fabric dyes
  Fabric dyes often contain toxic chemicals that are suspected to cause cancer, reproductive or developmental damage.

Where to get Q Collection furniture
The Q Collection Junior (see nursery photo, right) is available online and in these stores in the US, Canada, Australia and the Cayman Islands. The studio line (all ages!) is available online or in their NYC Flagship store.

Beyond the sheer joy of knowing that it really is possible to find safe furniture for you and your children, there's a larger, important message here: making safe, environmentally friendly furniture is possible, and it doesn't have to break the bank. Thank you, Jesse Johnson & Anthony Cochran, for showing the way with the Q Collection.

[Gorgeous photo is of the Q Collection Junior line.]