Special to Enviroblog by Katy Farber of Non-Toxic Kids (that's her hair being sampled to the right)

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.

Special to Enviroblog by Heidi Hutner, Associate Professor of English and Women's Studies at SUNY Stony Brook.

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.

Ever wonder if you can really, truly make a difference in an effort for national policy reform? I mean, it's a big country, right?

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.

CNN's chief medical correspondent for its Health, Medical & Wellness unit, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, has put together an impressive 2-part investigative report on toxic chemicals in America. It airs this week, on June 2 & 3 @ 8 PM (EDT). He frames the series with a critical, timely question: Is enough being done to protect us from chemicals that could harm us?

Of course at EWG we know the answer is a resounding no. If you agree, sign our petition to Congress asking for a strong national chemicals law.

Join us on Enviroblog for an Open Thread during the June 3 show
We'll be watching live and hope you will be, too. Please share your thoughts with us and other Enviroblog readers as you watch. What did you learn? What changes might you make in your own life going forward? What did you think of the show?

In the June 3 broadcast, EWG President Ken Cook debates the head of a chemicals industry-funded front group, which should be interesting! Also included in the hour-long segment will be an interview with Healthy Child Healthy World founders Nancy and Jim Chuda.

Learn more about toxic chemicals from CNN Online
In addition to the 2-part TV series, CNN has put together excellent online information, such as:

• Toxic Chemicals Finding Their Way into the Womb
• 5 Chemicals that are Everywhere: Protect Yourself
• Fragrance Companies Withhold Chemical Information
• Presidential Panel: Cancer Risks Underestimated
• 'Dirty Dozen' Produce Carries more pesticide residue, group says

Millions of American consumers participate every day as unwitting human lab rats in one of the biggest experiments ever conducted (or, more appropriately, perpetrated) on the human race. For many, their entrance into the "lab" starts in their 'tweens and continues through high school and on into adulthood. Of course, I'm talking about those who wear perfumes, cologne or the ever-popular "body sprays."

A word about fragrance labels
In 1973 Congress passed the federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, and attached it to the workload of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The law, which required companies to list cosmetics ingredients on the product labels, conveniently left off fragrance. Since then, the vague word "fragrance" is all you'll find on the label, leaving it to you to guess what toxic brew they mean. If there's anything to be grateful for in this, it's that it's a recognizable word that, which vague, is easily avoided by label readers (which we should all be).

A whole lot of secret, untested chemicals in the fragrance aisle
A new study from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and Environmental Working Group revealed 38 secret chemicals in 17 name brand fragrance products, topped by American Eagle Seventy Seven with 24, Chanel Coco with 18, and Britney Spears Curious and Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio with 17.

The average fragrance product tested contained 14 secret chemicals not listed on the label. Among them are chemicals associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety in personal care products. This complex mix of clandestine compounds in popular colognes and perfumes makes it impossible for consumers to make informed decisions about the products they consider buying.

Who knows what about fragrance anyway?
The short answer is: No-one really knows much, because most secret chemicals revealed in fragrance testing have not been assessed for safety. The federal government, which is in charge of cosmetics safety, is equally uninformed.

The longer answer is: A review of government records shows that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not assessed the vast majority of these secret fragrance chemicals for safety when used in spray-on personal care products such as fragrances. Nor have most been evaluated by the safety review panel of the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) or any other publicly accountable institution.

Fragrance secrecy is legal due to a giant loophole in the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1973, which requires companies to list cosmetics ingredients on the product labels but explicitly exempts fragrance. By taking advantage of this loophole, the cosmetics industry has kept the public in the dark about the 3,100 ingredients in fragrance, even those that present potential health risks or build up in people's bodies.

Get the full story in the new report
Download it or read it online. Here's what you'll read about inside:

1. Allergic sensitivity to fragrances: A growing health concern


2. Hormone-disrupting chemicals in fragrance


3. Secret chemicals, hidden health risks


4. The self-policing fragrance industry


5. The need for full disclosure and stronger regulations


6. The health risks of secret chemicals in fragrance

So we're asking Jennifer Lopez, Britney Spears, Halle Berry and Miley Cyrus - whose fragrance products we tested - to stand up for our health and urge their fragrance manufacturers to remove chemicals linked to cancer, reproductive harm and allergies from their fragrances. Please read and sign on to this letter, then spread the word!

You deserve it. We all do, right?

By Jane Houlihan, EWG Senior V-P for Research

Four of every 10 Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes, and two of every 10 will die of it.

But there are some things you can do to reduce the risk. First, talk to your doctor about lifestyle changes that are known to make a difference - stopping smoking, reducing drinking, losing weight, exercising and eating right.

But according to a new report from the President's Cancer Panel, environmental toxins also play a significant and under-recognized role in cancer, causing "grievous harm" to untold numbers of people. Environmental Working Group's own research has found that children are born "pre-polluted" with up to 200 industrial chemicals, pesticides and contaminants that have been found to cause cancer in lab studies or in people.

Here are some simple things you can do to reduce your exposures:

1. Filter your tap water. Common carcinogens in tap water include arsenic, chromium, and chemical byproducts that form when water is disinfected. A simple carbon filter or pitcher can help reduce the levels of some of these contaminants. If your water is polluted with arsenic or chromium, a reverse osmosis filter will help. Learn about your tap water and home water filters at EWG's National Tap Water Database.
2. Seal outdoor wooden decks and play sets. Those built before 2005 are likely coated with an arsenic pesticide that can stick to hands and clothing. Learn more from EWG.
3. Cut down on stain- and grease-proofing chemicals. "Fluorochemicals" related to Teflon and Scotchgard are used in stain repellants on carpets and couches and in greaseproof coatings for packaged and fast foods. To avoid them, avoid greasy packaged foods and say no to optional stain treatments in the home. Download EWG's Guide to PFCs and learn more about PFCs.
4. Stay safe in the sun. More than one million cases of skin cancer are diagnosed in the United States each year. To protect your skin from the sun's cancer-causing ultraviolet (UV) radiation, seek shade, wear protective clothing and use a safe and effective sunscreen from EWG's sunscreen database.

5. Cut down on fatty meat and high-fat dairy products. Long-lasting cancer-causing pollutants like dioxins and PCBs accumulate in the food chain and concentrate in animal fat.
6. Eat EWG's "Clean 15." Many pesticides have been linked to cancer. Eating from EWG's Clean 15 list of the least contaminated fruits and vegetables will help cut your pesticide exposures. (And for EWG's Dirty Dozen, buy organic.) Learn more at EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides.
7. Cut your exposures to BPA. Bisphenol-A (BPA) is a synthetic estrogen found in some hard plastic water bottles, canned infant formula, and canned foods. Some of these chemicals cause cancer in lab studies. To avoid them, eat fewer canned foods, breast feed your baby or use powdered formula, and choose water bottles free of BPA. Get EWG's tips to avoid it.
8. Avoid carcinogens in cosmetics. Use EWG's Skin Deep cosmetic database to find products free of chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer. When you're shopping, don't buy products that list ingredients with "PEG" or "-eth" in their name.
9. Read the warnings. Some products list warnings of cancer risks - read the label before you buy. Californians will see a "Proposition 65" warning label on products that contain chemicals the state has identified as cancer-causing.

Read EWG's news release about the President's Cancer Panel report.

Chanda Chevannes has made an important documentary film about Sandra Steingraber's work, based largely on her first book, Living Downstream. The trailer below will give you a sense of Steingraber's belief that our focus should not be downstream, where we see only symptoms, but rather upstream, where we can see causes. And prevent them.

If you're not familiar with Steingraber's work, you should be. She's an internationally renowned expert on the connections between the environment and reproductive health and cancer (which she calls a "serial killer"), and a beautiful writer who can explain science in a way that makes sense to the rest of us.

Her willingness and ability to raise public awareness about the science of toxic chemicals and how it affects human health is a critical addition to the growing movement to enact strong laws that protect human health from dangerous chemicals.

And her experiences as a cancer survivor and mother add a uniqueness to her scientific lens that makes her work even richer.

Interested in seeing the film? Find a showing near you.