The following information came from www.foxnews.com
In light of the recall of nearly 1 million Chinese-produced toys tainted with lead paint, below is a list of toys made in the USA:
• Battleship
• Bicycle Playing Cards
• Boggle Jr.
• Candyland
• Chutes and Ladders
• Clue
• Connect Four
• Crayola Crayons *
• Life
• Louisville Slugger
• Monopoly
• Mouse Trap
• Operation
• Parcheesi
• Play-Doh *
• Pop-O-Matic Trouble
• Radio Flyer Discovery Wagon
• Scrabble
• Sorry
• Stratego
• Tri-ominos
• Trivial Pursuit
• Yahtzee
• Melissa and Doug U.S.A. Floor Puzzle (Most puzzles are made in the USA!)
* Note: Not all packages of Crayola Crayons and Play-Doh are made in the USA -- please check the label.
Also, anything you buy from the American Plastic Toy Company is made in America.
You can also find American-made toys on these Web sites:
• www.ShopForAmerica.com
• www.ZebulonUSA.com
• www.usmadetoys.com
• www.unclegoosetoys.com
• www.holgatetoy.com
• www.maplelandmark.com
Finally, for more information on how to buy American, visit: www.howtobuyamerican.com
Monday, November 12, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Get your Kids Involved
There is a wonderful website www.epa.gov/kids. It contains activities, projects and information on what your children can do to conserve and protect the earth. There is alot of information for homeschoolers as well as supplimental information for those attending traditional school settings. The activities are fun and informative. It's never too early to start protecting our planet!
Kids and Conservation
The following information came from www.clarkswcd.org.
Welcome to our Kids & Conservation page!
Why should conservation be important to kids? Well, because conservation is all about protecting and managing our natural resources and environment so that they are here for future generations (you!) to use and enjoy.
A conservationist is someone who works to save (conserve) things in nature. For example, some conservationists work to protect wild animals or plants. Others care about wild places, such as deserts or wetlands. Still others work to make sure we don't run out of things like clean air and water, minerals, soil for farming, and trees for lumber.
Some conservationists do scientific research, while others work with governments or companies. Many work right out in the wilderness. But some prefer to teach or write. They help other people learn about natural resources and how to conserve them.
Anyone can be a conservationist, even you! For example, if you recycle pop bottles, throw your empty McDonald's bags in the trash instead of on the ground, or turn off lights when you leave a room, you're already conserving. Every little bit helps!
The information and links below will help you learn more about conservation.
The Truth About Water
Have you ever heard people say that "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink?" We shouldn't get mad at the horse because he won't drink; he may be smarter than we think. Horses can smell things that we can't see, and maybe he can tell that there is something in the water that is not good for him to drink.
Water Questions and Answers
Can you tell if your drinking water is o.k. by looking at it?
No. None of the chemicals and other things that can make you sick can be seen.
If you travel to other countries, should you drink their water?
The water is generally safe to drink in Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. In other countries, you should drink only carbonated bottled water.
Is it O.K. to take a drink from the garden hose when you are hot and sweaty from playing in the yard?
No. Hoses are made with special chemicals that keep them flexible, and these chemicals can get into the water when it goes through the hose. The opening on the end of the hose could also be covered with germs from laying in the grass or from just being outside.
I've heard that my drinking water contains fluoride and chlorine - are they safe to drink?
Yes. Fluoride can even help your teeth stay healthy (Look on your tube of toothpaste to see if it has fluoride in it.) Chlorine is safe but some people say they can taste it in the water.
Why does the water look cloudy sometimes when it comes out of your faucet and then clears up in your glass?
The cloudy water is caused by tiny air bubbles in the water like the bubbles you see when you pour a soft drink into a glass. They rise to the top and then disappear just like they do in a soft drink.
What is "hard" water?
Believe it or not, the water is called "hard" because it is "hard" to make lather or suds for washing with it. The reason is that the water has too much calcium and magnesium in it. Water that doesn't have enough calcium and magnesium is called "soft" water.
Why is ocean water salty?
Rainwater doesn't have any salt in it, but when if falls on the ground, it picks up salt from the ground as it flows back down to the ocean. When this water evaporates from the ocean, it leaves the salt behind. The ocean is very salty because this has been going on for over a billion years!
Interesting Facts About Water
Even though you think you use water "up" every day, we have the same amount of water on Earth now as we did 3 billion years ago when the Earth was formed. Because we can't get more water than what we already have, we need to learn to conserve (save) it. If we conserve it, we'll be sure to have plenty to drink (or swim in!) for many, many more years.
Using a "purifier (filter)" on your water at home doesn't always make it safer and healthier to drink. People use filters on their water to make it taste, smell or look better, but filters don't kill germs.
Bottled water is not always safer to drink than tap water. The quality of bottled water is not monitored by the government like tap water is, and studies have shown that germs can grow in bottled water while it sits on the grocery shelf. Bottled water also costs much more than tap water. However, if there is an emergency, bottled water is an important source of drinking water.
If you have lead pipes in the plumbing in your house, the lead can get into the water. Lead is very harmful to young children. There are a couple of things you can do if you have lead in the plumbing: 1) Since warm water absorbs more lead than cold, always use cold water for cooking or drinking. 2) Because water standing in pipes tends to absorb lead, clear the pipes before drinking by letting the faucet run until the water is cold.
Welcome to our Kids & Conservation page!
Why should conservation be important to kids? Well, because conservation is all about protecting and managing our natural resources and environment so that they are here for future generations (you!) to use and enjoy.
A conservationist is someone who works to save (conserve) things in nature. For example, some conservationists work to protect wild animals or plants. Others care about wild places, such as deserts or wetlands. Still others work to make sure we don't run out of things like clean air and water, minerals, soil for farming, and trees for lumber.
Some conservationists do scientific research, while others work with governments or companies. Many work right out in the wilderness. But some prefer to teach or write. They help other people learn about natural resources and how to conserve them.
Anyone can be a conservationist, even you! For example, if you recycle pop bottles, throw your empty McDonald's bags in the trash instead of on the ground, or turn off lights when you leave a room, you're already conserving. Every little bit helps!
The information and links below will help you learn more about conservation.
The Truth About Water
Have you ever heard people say that "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink?" We shouldn't get mad at the horse because he won't drink; he may be smarter than we think. Horses can smell things that we can't see, and maybe he can tell that there is something in the water that is not good for him to drink.
Water Questions and Answers
Can you tell if your drinking water is o.k. by looking at it?
No. None of the chemicals and other things that can make you sick can be seen.
If you travel to other countries, should you drink their water?
The water is generally safe to drink in Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. In other countries, you should drink only carbonated bottled water.
Is it O.K. to take a drink from the garden hose when you are hot and sweaty from playing in the yard?
No. Hoses are made with special chemicals that keep them flexible, and these chemicals can get into the water when it goes through the hose. The opening on the end of the hose could also be covered with germs from laying in the grass or from just being outside.
I've heard that my drinking water contains fluoride and chlorine - are they safe to drink?
Yes. Fluoride can even help your teeth stay healthy (Look on your tube of toothpaste to see if it has fluoride in it.) Chlorine is safe but some people say they can taste it in the water.
Why does the water look cloudy sometimes when it comes out of your faucet and then clears up in your glass?
The cloudy water is caused by tiny air bubbles in the water like the bubbles you see when you pour a soft drink into a glass. They rise to the top and then disappear just like they do in a soft drink.
What is "hard" water?
Believe it or not, the water is called "hard" because it is "hard" to make lather or suds for washing with it. The reason is that the water has too much calcium and magnesium in it. Water that doesn't have enough calcium and magnesium is called "soft" water.
Why is ocean water salty?
Rainwater doesn't have any salt in it, but when if falls on the ground, it picks up salt from the ground as it flows back down to the ocean. When this water evaporates from the ocean, it leaves the salt behind. The ocean is very salty because this has been going on for over a billion years!
Interesting Facts About Water
Even though you think you use water "up" every day, we have the same amount of water on Earth now as we did 3 billion years ago when the Earth was formed. Because we can't get more water than what we already have, we need to learn to conserve (save) it. If we conserve it, we'll be sure to have plenty to drink (or swim in!) for many, many more years.
Using a "purifier (filter)" on your water at home doesn't always make it safer and healthier to drink. People use filters on their water to make it taste, smell or look better, but filters don't kill germs.
Bottled water is not always safer to drink than tap water. The quality of bottled water is not monitored by the government like tap water is, and studies have shown that germs can grow in bottled water while it sits on the grocery shelf. Bottled water also costs much more than tap water. However, if there is an emergency, bottled water is an important source of drinking water.
If you have lead pipes in the plumbing in your house, the lead can get into the water. Lead is very harmful to young children. There are a couple of things you can do if you have lead in the plumbing: 1) Since warm water absorbs more lead than cold, always use cold water for cooking or drinking. 2) Because water standing in pipes tends to absorb lead, clear the pipes before drinking by letting the faucet run until the water is cold.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
What MAkes A Product Green
The following information came from www.green.yahoo.com
The products and materials in Global Green USA’s Green Building Resource Center save energy, conserve water, protect natural resources, contribute to a healthy indoor environment, and reduce buildings’ impact on the community.
Because each project is different and each person’s reasons for building green are different, priorities need to be set when selecting specific products. It is important to carefully compare the characteristics of the products displayed in the Center. The choices you make will be the result of these comparisons and often priorities differ depending on the specific environmental issues in your community.
For example, in one place the most pressing concern might be overflowing landfills while in another it could be contaminated stormwater runoff. For children and some individuals, limiting exposure to toxic chemicals in the home is a major priority. Understanding these differing priorities is key in determining what green material is right for your project.
Green building is as much about design strategy as about selecting green materials. Integrated design -- thinking about how a building works as a system and designing that system to be environmentally-friendly -- is a key part of green building. Certain products, particularly those that deal with energy, are not inherently green but can used in ways that enhance the environmental performance of a building.
For example, a dual-pane, low-E window may not be green in terms of its material components or manufacturing process, but if used strategically it can reduce energy use by maximizing the collection of winter sunlight and blocking out the summer sun. Some design considerations that will help you choose the right materials include building orientation, use patterns, durability, and local availability.
There is no perfect green material. Trade-offs are inevitable! Building materials have multiple impacts on the environment, both positive and negative. One common way to assess these impacts is through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which considers the full range of a product’s environmental impacts, from resource extraction to manufacture and then through installation and ultimate disposal. This type of analysis allows for comprehensive and multidimensional product comparisons. With flooring for example, LCA weighs the resource-extraction impacts and durability of hardwoods with the manufacturing impacts, emissions during use and potential recyclability of carpet.
Defining whether a building material is “green” is not an exact science. But there is still a role for objective analysis and testing. Most of the materials in the Center are included in GreenSpec, a database of approximately 2000 environmentally-friendly building products published by the Environmental Building News. GreenSpec screens its products based on standards and testing procedures established by third-party groups with an interest in green building. This scientific analysis helps to separate green products from “greenwashed” products.
Within the Center, those products which have made it through this filter are divided into five basic green building categories.
Save Energy
Products that either reduce heating and cooling loads, such as building orientation, high-quality windows, and insulation.
Products that use less energy, such as Energy Star-rated appliances, efficient heating and cooling systems and florescent lamps.
Products that produce energy, such as solar electricity generation systems.
Conserve Water
Products that conserve water above and beyond what is required by law, such as dual-flush toilets and under-sink flow restrictors
Products that consume less water, such as native landscaping and drought-tolerant plantings.
Contribute to a Safe, Healthy Indoor Environment
Products that don’t release significant pollutants into the building, such as no-VOC paints, formaldehyde-free cabinets, and non-toxic caulks, sealers and adhesives, CRI Green Label carpets and pads.
Products that block the spread of or remove indoor pollutants, such as duct mastic, effective ventilation equipment, and air and water filters.
Products that warn occupants of health hazards, such as Carbon Monoxide detectors and humidity sensors.
Protect Natural Resources
Products with recycled content, such as carpet, tile, wallboard, and wood replacements made from polystyrene.
Products made from agricultural waste material, such as wheat straw, sunflower stalks, and rice hulls.
Products that reduce material use, such as drywall clips and concrete pigments that turn concrete slabs into finished floors.
Products made from rapidly renewable materials, such as bamboo flooring, natural linoleum, cork and textiles made from wool, sisal, hemp and organic cotton.
Wood products from sustainably managed forests, certified according to the principles of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
Salvaged products, such as bricks, lumber and plumbing fixtures.
Reduce Buildings’ Impact on the Community
Products that mitigate the effects of stormwater runoff, such as permeable pavers, green roofs and cisterns.
Products that provide easy access to alternative modes of transportation such as bike racks and storage units.
Products that do not require chemical pesticides or treatment, such as plastic lumber, physical termite barriers and native vegetation.
Products that contain no dioxin-producing polyvinylchoride (PVC) or ozone-depleting HCFCs.
Independent Certification Programs: Third-party certification and screening programs related to green building.
Carpet and Rug Institute Green Label -- A testing and labeling program for "low-emitting" carpet, underlayment, adhesives, and vacuum cleaners.
Energy Star -- A labeling program for energy-efficient homes, building products, and appliances.
Environmentally Preferable Products Database -- A database of "preferred products" under development by the California State Architect; focused on commercial and school buildings.
Forest Stewardship Council -- A certification program for wood products that come from forests that are managed in an "environmentally responsible, socially beneficial, and economically viable way."
Greenguard -- An independent testing and labeling program for "low-emitting" furniture and finish materials.
Greenseal -- a life cycle assessment based labeling program for building products and green operations and maintenance procedures.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design -- A certification program for buildings that achieve performance targets in the five green building categories.
Scientific Certification Systems -- Independently certifies that products meet the EPA's environmentally preferable standards for federal government purchases; also certifies manufactures specific claims on product content and emissions levels.
New Global Warming Evidence Found
Can Mutant Plants End Climate Change?
ADVERTISEMENT
adx_U_623="http://clk.atdmt.com/DEN/go/yhxxxtms0010000274den/direct/01/";
adx_D_623="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12k5f9v3d/M=603906.11723995.12194095.10373920/D=green/S=398940055:LREC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1194368419/A=4934648/R=0/*";
adx_I_623="";
adx_data_623="A=4,AN=Toms_of_Maine_300Exp,AC=,AV=,PB=1/SIG=14iufq662,X=1194361219,B=4934648,C=603906.11723995.12194095.10373920,D=LREC,Z=,R=green,P=nPij_EWTf1eydsVPRxvE1A6pRFCXfUcwgYMACVey,E=398940055,Y=YAHOO,V=1.0";
if(c.indexOf("adx_fc_623")==0c.indexOf("adx_lom_623_js")==0)eval(c)
setTimeout('document.getElementById("adl_S_623").src="http://richmedia.yimg.com/customer/04/4/Toms_of_Maine_300Exp.js?adxq=1190401423"',1)
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['su13HNgnMt0-']='&U=13cq0clpn%2fN%3dsu13HNgnMt0-%2fC%3d603906.11723995.12194095.10373920%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d4934648';
Featured Articles
Can PB&J help save the world?
The Amazing Mumford may have been right: Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are magic.
Olympics events delayed?
Official suggests poor air quality could postpone some of the 2008 Games.
What 'In Rainbows' means for the Earth
Radiohead releases its new record digitally, and shakes up a recording industry that still relies on antiquated slabs of plastic.
Share your ideas for Y! Green
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! All rights reserved. Copyright/IP Policy Terms of Service Help
Notice: We collect personal information on this site. To learn more about how we use this information, see our Privacy Policy
var rt_page="398940055:FRTMA"; var rt_ip="68.80.151.125"; if ("function" == typeof(rt_AddVar) ){ rt_AddVar("ys", escape("457F9345"));}
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['s.13HNgnMt0-']='&U=13cqqsjm4%2fN%3ds.13HNgnMt0-%2fC%3d289534.10705826.11331386.10368362%2fD%3dFOOT%2fB%3d4591304';
The products and materials in Global Green USA’s Green Building Resource Center save energy, conserve water, protect natural resources, contribute to a healthy indoor environment, and reduce buildings’ impact on the community.
Because each project is different and each person’s reasons for building green are different, priorities need to be set when selecting specific products. It is important to carefully compare the characteristics of the products displayed in the Center. The choices you make will be the result of these comparisons and often priorities differ depending on the specific environmental issues in your community.
For example, in one place the most pressing concern might be overflowing landfills while in another it could be contaminated stormwater runoff. For children and some individuals, limiting exposure to toxic chemicals in the home is a major priority. Understanding these differing priorities is key in determining what green material is right for your project.
Green building is as much about design strategy as about selecting green materials. Integrated design -- thinking about how a building works as a system and designing that system to be environmentally-friendly -- is a key part of green building. Certain products, particularly those that deal with energy, are not inherently green but can used in ways that enhance the environmental performance of a building.
For example, a dual-pane, low-E window may not be green in terms of its material components or manufacturing process, but if used strategically it can reduce energy use by maximizing the collection of winter sunlight and blocking out the summer sun. Some design considerations that will help you choose the right materials include building orientation, use patterns, durability, and local availability.
There is no perfect green material. Trade-offs are inevitable! Building materials have multiple impacts on the environment, both positive and negative. One common way to assess these impacts is through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which considers the full range of a product’s environmental impacts, from resource extraction to manufacture and then through installation and ultimate disposal. This type of analysis allows for comprehensive and multidimensional product comparisons. With flooring for example, LCA weighs the resource-extraction impacts and durability of hardwoods with the manufacturing impacts, emissions during use and potential recyclability of carpet.
Defining whether a building material is “green” is not an exact science. But there is still a role for objective analysis and testing. Most of the materials in the Center are included in GreenSpec, a database of approximately 2000 environmentally-friendly building products published by the Environmental Building News. GreenSpec screens its products based on standards and testing procedures established by third-party groups with an interest in green building. This scientific analysis helps to separate green products from “greenwashed” products.
Within the Center, those products which have made it through this filter are divided into five basic green building categories.
Save Energy
Products that either reduce heating and cooling loads, such as building orientation, high-quality windows, and insulation.
Products that use less energy, such as Energy Star-rated appliances, efficient heating and cooling systems and florescent lamps.
Products that produce energy, such as solar electricity generation systems.
Conserve Water
Products that conserve water above and beyond what is required by law, such as dual-flush toilets and under-sink flow restrictors
Products that consume less water, such as native landscaping and drought-tolerant plantings.
Contribute to a Safe, Healthy Indoor Environment
Products that don’t release significant pollutants into the building, such as no-VOC paints, formaldehyde-free cabinets, and non-toxic caulks, sealers and adhesives, CRI Green Label carpets and pads.
Products that block the spread of or remove indoor pollutants, such as duct mastic, effective ventilation equipment, and air and water filters.
Products that warn occupants of health hazards, such as Carbon Monoxide detectors and humidity sensors.
Protect Natural Resources
Products with recycled content, such as carpet, tile, wallboard, and wood replacements made from polystyrene.
Products made from agricultural waste material, such as wheat straw, sunflower stalks, and rice hulls.
Products that reduce material use, such as drywall clips and concrete pigments that turn concrete slabs into finished floors.
Products made from rapidly renewable materials, such as bamboo flooring, natural linoleum, cork and textiles made from wool, sisal, hemp and organic cotton.
Wood products from sustainably managed forests, certified according to the principles of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
Salvaged products, such as bricks, lumber and plumbing fixtures.
Reduce Buildings’ Impact on the Community
Products that mitigate the effects of stormwater runoff, such as permeable pavers, green roofs and cisterns.
Products that provide easy access to alternative modes of transportation such as bike racks and storage units.
Products that do not require chemical pesticides or treatment, such as plastic lumber, physical termite barriers and native vegetation.
Products that contain no dioxin-producing polyvinylchoride (PVC) or ozone-depleting HCFCs.
Independent Certification Programs: Third-party certification and screening programs related to green building.
Carpet and Rug Institute Green Label -- A testing and labeling program for "low-emitting" carpet, underlayment, adhesives, and vacuum cleaners.
Energy Star -- A labeling program for energy-efficient homes, building products, and appliances.
Environmentally Preferable Products Database -- A database of "preferred products" under development by the California State Architect; focused on commercial and school buildings.
Forest Stewardship Council -- A certification program for wood products that come from forests that are managed in an "environmentally responsible, socially beneficial, and economically viable way."
Greenguard -- An independent testing and labeling program for "low-emitting" furniture and finish materials.
Greenseal -- a life cycle assessment based labeling program for building products and green operations and maintenance procedures.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design -- A certification program for buildings that achieve performance targets in the five green building categories.
Scientific Certification Systems -- Independently certifies that products meet the EPA's environmentally preferable standards for federal government purchases; also certifies manufactures specific claims on product content and emissions levels.
New Global Warming Evidence Found
Can Mutant Plants End Climate Change?
ADVERTISEMENT
adx_U_623="http://clk.atdmt.com/DEN/go/yhxxxtms0010000274den/direct/01/";
adx_D_623="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12k5f9v3d/M=603906.11723995.12194095.10373920/D=green/S=398940055:LREC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1194368419/A=4934648/R=0/*";
adx_I_623="";
adx_data_623="A=4,AN=Toms_of_Maine_300Exp,AC=,AV=,PB=1/SIG=14iufq662,X=1194361219,B=4934648,C=603906.11723995.12194095.10373920,D=LREC,Z=,R=green,P=nPij_EWTf1eydsVPRxvE1A6pRFCXfUcwgYMACVey,E=398940055,Y=YAHOO,V=1.0";
if(c.indexOf("adx_fc_623")==0c.indexOf("adx_lom_623_js")==0)eval(c)
setTimeout('document.getElementById("adl_S_623").src="http://richmedia.yimg.com/customer/04/4/Toms_of_Maine_300Exp.js?adxq=1190401423"',1)
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['su13HNgnMt0-']='&U=13cq0clpn%2fN%3dsu13HNgnMt0-%2fC%3d603906.11723995.12194095.10373920%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d4934648';
Featured Articles
Can PB&J help save the world?
The Amazing Mumford may have been right: Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are magic.
Olympics events delayed?
Official suggests poor air quality could postpone some of the 2008 Games.
What 'In Rainbows' means for the Earth
Radiohead releases its new record digitally, and shakes up a recording industry that still relies on antiquated slabs of plastic.
Share your ideas for Y! Green
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! All rights reserved. Copyright/IP Policy Terms of Service Help
Notice: We collect personal information on this site. To learn more about how we use this information, see our Privacy Policy
var rt_page="398940055:FRTMA"; var rt_ip="68.80.151.125"; if ("function" == typeof(rt_AddVar) ){ rt_AddVar("ys", escape("457F9345"));}
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['s.13HNgnMt0-']='&U=13cqqsjm4%2fN%3ds.13HNgnMt0-%2fC%3d289534.10705826.11331386.10368362%2fD%3dFOOT%2fB%3d4591304';
20 Things To Do To Conserve Energy
The following information came from www.ecomall.com
Whenever you save energy, you not only save money, you also reduce the demand for such fossil fuels as coal, oil, and natural gas. Less burning of fossil fuels also means lower emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary contributor to global warming, and other pollutants.
You do not have to do without to achieve these savings. There is now an energy efficient alternative for almost every kind of appliance or light fixture. That means that consumers have a real choice and the power to change their energy use on a revolutionary scale.
The average American produces about 40,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per year. Together, we use nearly a million dollars worth of energy every minute, night and day, every day of the year. By exercising even a few of the following steps, you can cut your annual emissions by thousands of pounds and your energy bills by a significant amount!
Home appliances
Turn your refrigerator down. Refrigerators account for about 20% of Household electricity use. Use a thermometer to set your refrigerator temperature as close to 37 degrees and your freezer as close to 3 degrees as possible. Make sure that its energy saver switch is turned on. Also, check the gaskets around your refrigerator/freezer doors to make sure they are clean and sealed tightly.
Set your clothes washer to the warm or cold water setting, not hot. Switching from hot to warm for two loads per week can save nearly 500 pounds of CO2 per year if you have an electric water heater, or 150 pounds for a gas heater.
Make sure your dishwasher is full when you run it and use the energy saving setting, if available, to allow the dishes to air dry. You can also turn off the drying cycle manually. Not using heat in the drying cycle can save 20 percent of your dishwasher's total electricity use.
Turn down your water heater thermostat. Thermostats are often set to 140 degrees F when 120 is usually fine. Each 10 degree reduction saves 600 pounds of CO2 per year for an electric water heater, or 440 pounds for a gas heater. If every household turned its water heater thermostat down 20 degrees, we could prevent more than 45 million tons of annual CO2 emissions - the same amount emitted by the entire nations of Kuwait or Libya.
Select the most energy-efficient models when you replace your old appliances. Look for the Energy Star Label - your assurance that the product saves energy and prevents pollution. Buy the product that is sized to your typical needs - not the biggest one available. Front loading washing machines will usually cut hot water use by 60 to 70% compared to typical machines. Replacing a typical 1973 refrigerator with a new energy-efficient model, saves 1.4 tons of CO2 per year. Investing in a solar water heater can save 4.9 tons of CO2 annually. Home Heating and Cooling
Be careful not to overheat or overcool rooms. In the winter, set your thermostat at 68 degrees in daytime, and 55 degrees at night. In the summer, keep it at 78. Lowering your thermostat just two degrees during winter saves 6 percent of heating-related CO2 emissions. That's a reduction of 420 pounds of CO2 per year for a typical home.
Clean or replace air filters as recommended. Energy is lost when air conditioners and hot-air furnaces have to work harder to draw air through dirty filters. Cleaning a dirty air conditioner filter can save 5 percent of the energy used. That could save 175 pounds of CO2 per year. Small investments that pay off
Buy energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs for your most-used lights. Although they cost more initially, they save money in the long run by using only 1/4 the energy of an ordinary incandescent bulb and lasting 8-12 times longer. They provide an equivalent amount of bright, attractive light. Only 10% of the energy consumed by a normal light bulb generates light. The rest just makes the bulb hot. If every American household replaced one of its standard light bulbs with an energy efficient compact fluorescent bulb, we would save the same amount of energy as a large nuclear power plant produces in one year. In a typical home, one compact fluorescent bulb can save 260 pounds of CO2 per year.
Wrap your water heater in an insulating jacket, which costs just $10 to $20. It can save 1100 lbs. of CO2 per year for an electric water heater, or 220 pounds for a gas heater.
Use less hot water by installing low-flow shower heads. They cost just $10 to $20 each, deliver an invigorating shower, and save 300 pounds of CO2 per year for electrically heated water, or 80 pounds for gas-heated water.
Weatherize your home or apartment, using caulk and weather stripping to plug air leaks around doors and windows. Caulking costs less than $1 per window, and weather stripping is under $10 per door. These steps can save up to 1100 pounds of CO2 per year for a typical home. Ask your utility company for a home energy audit to find out where your home is poorly insulated or energy inefficient. This service may be provided free or at low cost. Make sure it includes a check of your furnace and air conditioning. Getting around
Whenever possible, walk, bike, car pool, or use mass transit. Every gallon of gasoline you save avoids 22 pounds of CO2 emissions. If your car gets 25 miles per gallon, for example, and you reduce your annual driving from 12,000 to 10,000 miles, you'll save 1800 pounds of CO2.
When you next buy a car, choose one that gets good mileage. If your new car gets 40 miles per gallon instead of 25, and you drive 10,000 miles per year, you'll reduce your annual CO2 emissions by 3,300 pounds. Reduce, reuse, recycle
Reduce the amount of waste you produce by buying minimally packaged goods, choosing reusable products over disposable ones, and recycling. For every pound of waste you eliminate or recycle, you save energy and reduce emissions of CO2 by at least 1 pound. Cutting down your garbage by half of one large trash bag per week saves at least 1100 pounds of CO2 per year. Making products with recycled materials, instead of from scratch with raw materials, uses 30 to 55% less for paper products, 33% less for glass, and a whopping 90% less for aluminum.
If your car has an air conditioner, make sure its coolant is recovered and recycled whenever you have it serviced. In the United States, leakage from auto air conditioners is the largest single source of emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which damage the ozone layer as well as add to global warming. The CFCs from one auto air conditioner can add the equivalent of 4800 pounds of CO2 emissions per year. Home Improvements.When you plan major home improvements, consider some of these energy saving investments. They save money in the long run, and their CO2 savings can often be measured in tons per year.
Insulate your walls and ceilings. This can save 20 to 30 percent of home heating bills and reduce CO2 emissions by 140 to 2100 pounds per year. If you live in a colder climate, consider superinsulating. That can save 5.5 tons of CO2 per year for gas-heated homes, 8.8 tons per year for oil heat, or 23 tons per year for electric heat. (If you have electric heat, you might also consider switching to more efficient gas or oil.)
Modernize your windows. Replacing all your ordinary windows with argon filled, double-glazed windows saves 2.4 tons of CO2 per year for homes with gas heat, 3.9 tons of oil heat, and 9.8 tons for electric heat.
Plant shade trees and paint your house a light color if you live in a warm climate, or a dark color if you live in a cold climate. Reductions in energy use resulting from shade trees and appropriate painting can save up to 2.4 tons of CO2 emissions per year. (Each tree also directly absorbs about 25 pounds of CO2 from the air annually.)Business and community
Work with your employer to implement these and other energy-efficiency and waste-reduction measures in your office or workplace. Form or join local citizens' groups and work with local government officials to see that these measures are taken in schools and public buildings.
Keep track of the environmental voting records of candidates for office. Stay abreast of environmental issues on both local and national levels, and write or call your elected officials to express your concerns about energy efficiency and global warming.
Whenever you save energy, you not only save money, you also reduce the demand for such fossil fuels as coal, oil, and natural gas. Less burning of fossil fuels also means lower emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary contributor to global warming, and other pollutants.
You do not have to do without to achieve these savings. There is now an energy efficient alternative for almost every kind of appliance or light fixture. That means that consumers have a real choice and the power to change their energy use on a revolutionary scale.
The average American produces about 40,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per year. Together, we use nearly a million dollars worth of energy every minute, night and day, every day of the year. By exercising even a few of the following steps, you can cut your annual emissions by thousands of pounds and your energy bills by a significant amount!
Home appliances
Turn your refrigerator down. Refrigerators account for about 20% of Household electricity use. Use a thermometer to set your refrigerator temperature as close to 37 degrees and your freezer as close to 3 degrees as possible. Make sure that its energy saver switch is turned on. Also, check the gaskets around your refrigerator/freezer doors to make sure they are clean and sealed tightly.
Set your clothes washer to the warm or cold water setting, not hot. Switching from hot to warm for two loads per week can save nearly 500 pounds of CO2 per year if you have an electric water heater, or 150 pounds for a gas heater.
Make sure your dishwasher is full when you run it and use the energy saving setting, if available, to allow the dishes to air dry. You can also turn off the drying cycle manually. Not using heat in the drying cycle can save 20 percent of your dishwasher's total electricity use.
Turn down your water heater thermostat. Thermostats are often set to 140 degrees F when 120 is usually fine. Each 10 degree reduction saves 600 pounds of CO2 per year for an electric water heater, or 440 pounds for a gas heater. If every household turned its water heater thermostat down 20 degrees, we could prevent more than 45 million tons of annual CO2 emissions - the same amount emitted by the entire nations of Kuwait or Libya.
Select the most energy-efficient models when you replace your old appliances. Look for the Energy Star Label - your assurance that the product saves energy and prevents pollution. Buy the product that is sized to your typical needs - not the biggest one available. Front loading washing machines will usually cut hot water use by 60 to 70% compared to typical machines. Replacing a typical 1973 refrigerator with a new energy-efficient model, saves 1.4 tons of CO2 per year. Investing in a solar water heater can save 4.9 tons of CO2 annually. Home Heating and Cooling
Be careful not to overheat or overcool rooms. In the winter, set your thermostat at 68 degrees in daytime, and 55 degrees at night. In the summer, keep it at 78. Lowering your thermostat just two degrees during winter saves 6 percent of heating-related CO2 emissions. That's a reduction of 420 pounds of CO2 per year for a typical home.
Clean or replace air filters as recommended. Energy is lost when air conditioners and hot-air furnaces have to work harder to draw air through dirty filters. Cleaning a dirty air conditioner filter can save 5 percent of the energy used. That could save 175 pounds of CO2 per year. Small investments that pay off
Buy energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs for your most-used lights. Although they cost more initially, they save money in the long run by using only 1/4 the energy of an ordinary incandescent bulb and lasting 8-12 times longer. They provide an equivalent amount of bright, attractive light. Only 10% of the energy consumed by a normal light bulb generates light. The rest just makes the bulb hot. If every American household replaced one of its standard light bulbs with an energy efficient compact fluorescent bulb, we would save the same amount of energy as a large nuclear power plant produces in one year. In a typical home, one compact fluorescent bulb can save 260 pounds of CO2 per year.
Wrap your water heater in an insulating jacket, which costs just $10 to $20. It can save 1100 lbs. of CO2 per year for an electric water heater, or 220 pounds for a gas heater.
Use less hot water by installing low-flow shower heads. They cost just $10 to $20 each, deliver an invigorating shower, and save 300 pounds of CO2 per year for electrically heated water, or 80 pounds for gas-heated water.
Weatherize your home or apartment, using caulk and weather stripping to plug air leaks around doors and windows. Caulking costs less than $1 per window, and weather stripping is under $10 per door. These steps can save up to 1100 pounds of CO2 per year for a typical home. Ask your utility company for a home energy audit to find out where your home is poorly insulated or energy inefficient. This service may be provided free or at low cost. Make sure it includes a check of your furnace and air conditioning. Getting around
Whenever possible, walk, bike, car pool, or use mass transit. Every gallon of gasoline you save avoids 22 pounds of CO2 emissions. If your car gets 25 miles per gallon, for example, and you reduce your annual driving from 12,000 to 10,000 miles, you'll save 1800 pounds of CO2.
When you next buy a car, choose one that gets good mileage. If your new car gets 40 miles per gallon instead of 25, and you drive 10,000 miles per year, you'll reduce your annual CO2 emissions by 3,300 pounds. Reduce, reuse, recycle
Reduce the amount of waste you produce by buying minimally packaged goods, choosing reusable products over disposable ones, and recycling. For every pound of waste you eliminate or recycle, you save energy and reduce emissions of CO2 by at least 1 pound. Cutting down your garbage by half of one large trash bag per week saves at least 1100 pounds of CO2 per year. Making products with recycled materials, instead of from scratch with raw materials, uses 30 to 55% less for paper products, 33% less for glass, and a whopping 90% less for aluminum.
If your car has an air conditioner, make sure its coolant is recovered and recycled whenever you have it serviced. In the United States, leakage from auto air conditioners is the largest single source of emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which damage the ozone layer as well as add to global warming. The CFCs from one auto air conditioner can add the equivalent of 4800 pounds of CO2 emissions per year. Home Improvements.When you plan major home improvements, consider some of these energy saving investments. They save money in the long run, and their CO2 savings can often be measured in tons per year.
Insulate your walls and ceilings. This can save 20 to 30 percent of home heating bills and reduce CO2 emissions by 140 to 2100 pounds per year. If you live in a colder climate, consider superinsulating. That can save 5.5 tons of CO2 per year for gas-heated homes, 8.8 tons per year for oil heat, or 23 tons per year for electric heat. (If you have electric heat, you might also consider switching to more efficient gas or oil.)
Modernize your windows. Replacing all your ordinary windows with argon filled, double-glazed windows saves 2.4 tons of CO2 per year for homes with gas heat, 3.9 tons of oil heat, and 9.8 tons for electric heat.
Plant shade trees and paint your house a light color if you live in a warm climate, or a dark color if you live in a cold climate. Reductions in energy use resulting from shade trees and appropriate painting can save up to 2.4 tons of CO2 emissions per year. (Each tree also directly absorbs about 25 pounds of CO2 from the air annually.)Business and community
Work with your employer to implement these and other energy-efficiency and waste-reduction measures in your office or workplace. Form or join local citizens' groups and work with local government officials to see that these measures are taken in schools and public buildings.
Keep track of the environmental voting records of candidates for office. Stay abreast of environmental issues on both local and national levels, and write or call your elected officials to express your concerns about energy efficiency and global warming.
Mercury and Autism
The following information came from www.ewg.org
Summary
Scientists have identified a signature metabolic impairment or "biomarker" in autistic children that strongly suggests that these children would be susceptible to the harmful effects of mercury and other toxic chemical exposures (James 2004a).
This impairment manifests as a severe imbalance in the ratio of active to inactive glutathione, the body's most important tool for detoxifying and excreting metals. Glutathione works as an antioxidant, keeping in check the potentially destructive process of oxidative stress caused both by normal metabolism and environmental contaminants. Autistic children showed a significant impairment in every one of five measurements of the body's ability to maintain a healthy glutathione defense.
These findings raise serious concerns about children's overall exposure to environmental contaminants. Mercury is of particular concern, however, because of its proven toxicity to the developing brain and nervous system, and documented high exposures from a variety of sources.
One of every six pregnancies is exposed to methyl mercury above EPA's safe level from maternal consumption of contaminated seafood (CDC 2002, Mahaffey 2004). Thimerosal, a preservative in vaccines that is 49 percent ethyl mercury, was a major source of mercury exposure from 1988 through 2002 when it was removed from childhood immunizations at the urging of the Public Health Service and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Elemental mercury from dental amalgams is another potentially important source, but its contribution to overall mercury exposure is less well studied.
The incidence of autism increased 10-fold from 6 in 10,000 in the 1980s (Blaxill 2004), to about 60 in 10,000 today (Autism Alarm, PDF file). These new findings significantly strengthen the possibility that mercury could cause or contribute to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders by identifying a metabolic imbalance common to nearly all autistic children that would make these children poorly equipped to mount a defense against a number of neurotoxic compounds, including mercury.
These findings could have major implications for public health protections from toxic chemicals in the environment. They identify a subgroup of people at increased risk of harm, and provide important new evidence that policies designed to protect the average person, or even the average child, from chemical exposure, are insufficient to fully protect the public health. Environmental and health officials must evaluate the adequacy of current laws and policies to protect individuals with a heightened sensitivity to chemical exposure.
Finally, these findings raise serious concerns about the studies that have allegedly proven the safety of mercury in vaccines. The epidemiologic studies used to dismiss a causal relationship between autism and thimerosal have assumed that all children have the same resistance to chemical exposure. To properly investigate the potential harm from mercury-containing shots researchers would have to compare autism rates in children with the same type of vulnerability.
Background
In 1988, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended important new additions to the nation's infant immunization program, including three Hepatitis B immunizations (one injected at birth), and three Haemophilis B shots-all delivered by six months of age. Drug companies responded with vaccinations supplied in multiple dose containers preserved with the mercury-based antibacterial thimerosal. Neither the CDC, nor the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which monitors the safety of vaccinations, expressed concerns at that time about the relatively high doses of mercury that newborn babies and infants would be exposed to through these shots.
A dramatic nationwide increase in autism followed directly on the heels of the abrupt rise in thimerosal exposure (Blaxill 2001). Rates rose from 6 in 10,000 children in the 1980s to 60 in 10,000 today (Blaxill 2004a, American Academy of Pediatrics 2004). In 2003, the Autism Society of America estimated the cost of treating and caring for 1.5 million autistic children at $90 billion per year (Autism Society of America 2003).
To better understand whether or not the dramatic increase in autism was related to the abrupt nationwide increase in exposure to mercury in vaccinations, the CDC conducted its own epidemiologic study, and then convened a panel of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences to review the issue independently. On May 17, 2004, the IOM published its final report on the possible link between thimerosal and autism. The IOM rejected "a causal relationship" between the two, and then took the unusual step of recommending the termination of additional research into the subject, stating clearly that, "Further research to find the cause of autism should be directed toward other lines of inquiry" (IOM press release 2004a). Or as put by the chair of the IOM committee, "Available funding for autism research should be channeled to the most promising areas, of which the link with vaccines does not appear to be one" (Barclay 2004). The chief of the national immunization program at the Centers for Disease Control went even further, declaring that only "junk scientists and charlatans" support research into the potential link between thimerosal exposure and autism (Levin 2004).
The IOM's recommendation that research into the potential link between mercury and autism be abandoned is highly unusual coming from an institution built on the notion of free scientific inquiry. Not surprisingly, the statement was cause for concern in some scientific quarters. In spite of these and other concerns, however, the committee's findings remain, on balance, an accurate reflection of the published epidemiologic studies at the time of its release.
What is more important, but largely overlooked, was the committee's own admission that it did not adequately address the leading theory among independent scientists - that autism could be triggered by environmental exposures, including mercury in vaccines, in a subset of vulnerable children. As the IOM panel stated in its final report:
"...the committee cannot rule out, based on the epidemiological evidence, the possibility that vaccines contribute to autism in some small subset or very unusual circumstances" (IOM 2004b).
Or as put by the Chair of the IOM committee, Dr. Marie McCormick, of the Harvard School of Public Health:
"Some children could be particularly vulnerable or susceptible to mercury exposure because of genetic or other differences" (McCormick 2001).
Findings
An eighteen-month investigation by Environmental Working Group concludes that scientists have identified a signature metabolic profile or "biomarker" in autistic children that may indeed characterize a "small subset" of susceptible children. These findings represent a potential milestone in our understanding of individual vulnerability to toxic substances, including, but not limited to, mercury. This science turns on its head the IOM's judgment that research into the thimerosal/autism link be abandoned, and instead strengthens significantly the case for additional research in this area. We found that:
Newly published research and follow-up testing by former FDA senior research scientist Dr. Jill James, now of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, has uncovered a unique and consistent metabolic imbalance in autistic children when compared to normal healthy children (James 2004a, 2004b). This impairment manifests as a severe deficit in the body's most important antioxidant and metals detoxifier, glutathione. When compared to normal health children, autistic children showed a significant impairment in every one of five measurements of the body's ability to maintain a healthy glutathione defense. These findings are strong evidence that if these children were exposed to a potentially toxic dose of mercury or other compound they would be much less able to mount an effective defense.
Source: James 2004b
The finding of a significant glutathione deficit in autistic children provides a biological basis for integrating many facets of autism that have baffled researchers attempting to pin the autism epidemic on a single gene or chemical exposure.
The implications of these findings extend well beyond thimerosal and autism. Reduced antioxidant defense may characterize a group of individuals who are demonstrably more sensitive to the effects of a range of toxic chemical exposures, and shed light on increasing rates of related learning and behavioral disorders.
These findings raise serious concerns about the studies that have allegedly proven the safety of mercury in vaccines. While Dr. James' results do not prove that mercury causes autism, they significantly strengthen this possibility. The epidemiologic studies used to dismiss a causal relationship between mercury and autism assumed that all children have the same resistance to chemical exposure. Given James' finding that autistic children would be much more sensitive to certain chemical contaminants, studies that do not acknowledge these vulnerabilities cannot be used to dismiss the relationship between environmental chemicals, including mercury, and the disease.
When James' results are considered together with the existing body of science, including other recently published research, the weight of the evidence now strongly supports increased research into the relationship between thimerosal and autism as well as other neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders.
Recommendations
>Research
The findings by James significantly strengthen the science supporting a connection between mercury and autism. Contrary to the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine, that research on the relationship between mercury and autism essentially be abandoned, the weight of the evidence in the basic biological sciences now supports accelerated funding and research into the biological pathways and genetic mechanisms that may make some individuals more vulnerable to mercury and a host of other environmental toxins. We recommend increased federal support for research in this area.
A small follow-up group of children in this study have benefited markedly when their impaired antioxidant defense was restored. This provides important clues about treatments that could derive from increased funding for research in this area.
Source: James, 2004a
Several studies are underway to explore the relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism in greater detail—including a follow-up study underway by the CDC (Verstraeten 2004). The power of these studies would be dramatically enhanced if they included Dr. James' simple blood test to examine the antioxidant capacity of autistic and healthy children as a factor that modifies an individual's sensitivity to mercury toxicity.
Policy Reform: Environmental Health
James' findings also have major implications for public health protections and pollution control. They potentially identify a subgroup of people with dramatically increased risk of harm from industrial chemicals, and provide important new evidence that policies designed to protect the average person, or even the average child, from chemical exposure, are insufficient to fully protect the public health. Children with the metabolic profile James has identified may be more susceptible to a vast number of common pollutants, from arsenic in drinking water and pressure-treated wood, to air pollution from cars and power plants. Environmental and health officials must evaluate the adequacy of current laws and policies to protect individuals with a heightened sensitivity to chemicals exposure.
Policy Reform: Immunizations
The Environmental Working Group strongly supports the standard battery of childhood immunizations recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC. Clearly, vaccinations have led to many major advances in public health. At the same time, EWG recommends the removal of thimerosal and all mercury-based preservatives from all vaccines in the United States, as is currently required by law in California and Iowa.
As individual states and many industrialized countries have phased out or banned the use of the mercury-based preservative in vaccines, the use of immunizations preserved with thimerosal continues unabated in the developing world. Precisely because of the clear public health benefits of vaccinations, the limited access to refrigeration, and the need to deliver vaccines in multiple dose containers in these countries, we urge the World Health Organization and multinational drug companies to move quickly to develop and adopt an alternative, low cost, effective preservative that is safer than mercury-based thimerosal.
Summary
Scientists have identified a signature metabolic impairment or "biomarker" in autistic children that strongly suggests that these children would be susceptible to the harmful effects of mercury and other toxic chemical exposures (James 2004a).
This impairment manifests as a severe imbalance in the ratio of active to inactive glutathione, the body's most important tool for detoxifying and excreting metals. Glutathione works as an antioxidant, keeping in check the potentially destructive process of oxidative stress caused both by normal metabolism and environmental contaminants. Autistic children showed a significant impairment in every one of five measurements of the body's ability to maintain a healthy glutathione defense.
These findings raise serious concerns about children's overall exposure to environmental contaminants. Mercury is of particular concern, however, because of its proven toxicity to the developing brain and nervous system, and documented high exposures from a variety of sources.
One of every six pregnancies is exposed to methyl mercury above EPA's safe level from maternal consumption of contaminated seafood (CDC 2002, Mahaffey 2004). Thimerosal, a preservative in vaccines that is 49 percent ethyl mercury, was a major source of mercury exposure from 1988 through 2002 when it was removed from childhood immunizations at the urging of the Public Health Service and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Elemental mercury from dental amalgams is another potentially important source, but its contribution to overall mercury exposure is less well studied.
The incidence of autism increased 10-fold from 6 in 10,000 in the 1980s (Blaxill 2004), to about 60 in 10,000 today (Autism Alarm, PDF file). These new findings significantly strengthen the possibility that mercury could cause or contribute to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders by identifying a metabolic imbalance common to nearly all autistic children that would make these children poorly equipped to mount a defense against a number of neurotoxic compounds, including mercury.
These findings could have major implications for public health protections from toxic chemicals in the environment. They identify a subgroup of people at increased risk of harm, and provide important new evidence that policies designed to protect the average person, or even the average child, from chemical exposure, are insufficient to fully protect the public health. Environmental and health officials must evaluate the adequacy of current laws and policies to protect individuals with a heightened sensitivity to chemical exposure.
Finally, these findings raise serious concerns about the studies that have allegedly proven the safety of mercury in vaccines. The epidemiologic studies used to dismiss a causal relationship between autism and thimerosal have assumed that all children have the same resistance to chemical exposure. To properly investigate the potential harm from mercury-containing shots researchers would have to compare autism rates in children with the same type of vulnerability.
Background
In 1988, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended important new additions to the nation's infant immunization program, including three Hepatitis B immunizations (one injected at birth), and three Haemophilis B shots-all delivered by six months of age. Drug companies responded with vaccinations supplied in multiple dose containers preserved with the mercury-based antibacterial thimerosal. Neither the CDC, nor the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which monitors the safety of vaccinations, expressed concerns at that time about the relatively high doses of mercury that newborn babies and infants would be exposed to through these shots.
A dramatic nationwide increase in autism followed directly on the heels of the abrupt rise in thimerosal exposure (Blaxill 2001). Rates rose from 6 in 10,000 children in the 1980s to 60 in 10,000 today (Blaxill 2004a, American Academy of Pediatrics 2004). In 2003, the Autism Society of America estimated the cost of treating and caring for 1.5 million autistic children at $90 billion per year (Autism Society of America 2003).
To better understand whether or not the dramatic increase in autism was related to the abrupt nationwide increase in exposure to mercury in vaccinations, the CDC conducted its own epidemiologic study, and then convened a panel of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences to review the issue independently. On May 17, 2004, the IOM published its final report on the possible link between thimerosal and autism. The IOM rejected "a causal relationship" between the two, and then took the unusual step of recommending the termination of additional research into the subject, stating clearly that, "Further research to find the cause of autism should be directed toward other lines of inquiry" (IOM press release 2004a). Or as put by the chair of the IOM committee, "Available funding for autism research should be channeled to the most promising areas, of which the link with vaccines does not appear to be one" (Barclay 2004). The chief of the national immunization program at the Centers for Disease Control went even further, declaring that only "junk scientists and charlatans" support research into the potential link between thimerosal exposure and autism (Levin 2004).
The IOM's recommendation that research into the potential link between mercury and autism be abandoned is highly unusual coming from an institution built on the notion of free scientific inquiry. Not surprisingly, the statement was cause for concern in some scientific quarters. In spite of these and other concerns, however, the committee's findings remain, on balance, an accurate reflection of the published epidemiologic studies at the time of its release.
What is more important, but largely overlooked, was the committee's own admission that it did not adequately address the leading theory among independent scientists - that autism could be triggered by environmental exposures, including mercury in vaccines, in a subset of vulnerable children. As the IOM panel stated in its final report:
"...the committee cannot rule out, based on the epidemiological evidence, the possibility that vaccines contribute to autism in some small subset or very unusual circumstances" (IOM 2004b).
Or as put by the Chair of the IOM committee, Dr. Marie McCormick, of the Harvard School of Public Health:
"Some children could be particularly vulnerable or susceptible to mercury exposure because of genetic or other differences" (McCormick 2001).
Findings
An eighteen-month investigation by Environmental Working Group concludes that scientists have identified a signature metabolic profile or "biomarker" in autistic children that may indeed characterize a "small subset" of susceptible children. These findings represent a potential milestone in our understanding of individual vulnerability to toxic substances, including, but not limited to, mercury. This science turns on its head the IOM's judgment that research into the thimerosal/autism link be abandoned, and instead strengthens significantly the case for additional research in this area. We found that:
Newly published research and follow-up testing by former FDA senior research scientist Dr. Jill James, now of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, has uncovered a unique and consistent metabolic imbalance in autistic children when compared to normal healthy children (James 2004a, 2004b). This impairment manifests as a severe deficit in the body's most important antioxidant and metals detoxifier, glutathione. When compared to normal health children, autistic children showed a significant impairment in every one of five measurements of the body's ability to maintain a healthy glutathione defense. These findings are strong evidence that if these children were exposed to a potentially toxic dose of mercury or other compound they would be much less able to mount an effective defense.
Source: James 2004b
The finding of a significant glutathione deficit in autistic children provides a biological basis for integrating many facets of autism that have baffled researchers attempting to pin the autism epidemic on a single gene or chemical exposure.
The implications of these findings extend well beyond thimerosal and autism. Reduced antioxidant defense may characterize a group of individuals who are demonstrably more sensitive to the effects of a range of toxic chemical exposures, and shed light on increasing rates of related learning and behavioral disorders.
These findings raise serious concerns about the studies that have allegedly proven the safety of mercury in vaccines. While Dr. James' results do not prove that mercury causes autism, they significantly strengthen this possibility. The epidemiologic studies used to dismiss a causal relationship between mercury and autism assumed that all children have the same resistance to chemical exposure. Given James' finding that autistic children would be much more sensitive to certain chemical contaminants, studies that do not acknowledge these vulnerabilities cannot be used to dismiss the relationship between environmental chemicals, including mercury, and the disease.
When James' results are considered together with the existing body of science, including other recently published research, the weight of the evidence now strongly supports increased research into the relationship between thimerosal and autism as well as other neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders.
Recommendations
>Research
The findings by James significantly strengthen the science supporting a connection between mercury and autism. Contrary to the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine, that research on the relationship between mercury and autism essentially be abandoned, the weight of the evidence in the basic biological sciences now supports accelerated funding and research into the biological pathways and genetic mechanisms that may make some individuals more vulnerable to mercury and a host of other environmental toxins. We recommend increased federal support for research in this area.
A small follow-up group of children in this study have benefited markedly when their impaired antioxidant defense was restored. This provides important clues about treatments that could derive from increased funding for research in this area.
Source: James, 2004a
Several studies are underway to explore the relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism in greater detail—including a follow-up study underway by the CDC (Verstraeten 2004). The power of these studies would be dramatically enhanced if they included Dr. James' simple blood test to examine the antioxidant capacity of autistic and healthy children as a factor that modifies an individual's sensitivity to mercury toxicity.
Policy Reform: Environmental Health
James' findings also have major implications for public health protections and pollution control. They potentially identify a subgroup of people with dramatically increased risk of harm from industrial chemicals, and provide important new evidence that policies designed to protect the average person, or even the average child, from chemical exposure, are insufficient to fully protect the public health. Children with the metabolic profile James has identified may be more susceptible to a vast number of common pollutants, from arsenic in drinking water and pressure-treated wood, to air pollution from cars and power plants. Environmental and health officials must evaluate the adequacy of current laws and policies to protect individuals with a heightened sensitivity to chemicals exposure.
Policy Reform: Immunizations
The Environmental Working Group strongly supports the standard battery of childhood immunizations recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC. Clearly, vaccinations have led to many major advances in public health. At the same time, EWG recommends the removal of thimerosal and all mercury-based preservatives from all vaccines in the United States, as is currently required by law in California and Iowa.
As individual states and many industrialized countries have phased out or banned the use of the mercury-based preservative in vaccines, the use of immunizations preserved with thimerosal continues unabated in the developing world. Precisely because of the clear public health benefits of vaccinations, the limited access to refrigeration, and the need to deliver vaccines in multiple dose containers in these countries, we urge the World Health Organization and multinational drug companies to move quickly to develop and adopt an alternative, low cost, effective preservative that is safer than mercury-based thimerosal.
Monday, November 5, 2007
10 ways to Save Our Earth
The following information came from www.ewg.com
10 Everyday Pollution Solutions
1
Use cast iron pans instead of nonstick. EWG finds heated Teflon pans can turn toxic faster than DuPont claims
In two to five minutes on a conventional stovetop, cookware coated with Teflon and other non-stick surfaces can exceed temperatures at which the coating breaks apart and emits toxic particles and gases linked to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pet bird deaths and an unknown number of human illnesses each year, according to tests commissioned by Environmental Working Group (EWG).
In new tests conducted by a university food safety professor, a generic non-stick frying pan preheated on a conventional, electric stovetop burner reached 736°F in three minutes and 20 seconds, with temperatures still rising when the tests were terminated. A Teflon pan reached 721°F in just five minutes under the same test conditions (See Figure 1), as measured by a commercially available infrared thermometer. DuPont studies show that the Teflon offgases toxic particulates at 446°F. At 680°F Teflon pans release at least six toxic gases, including two carcinogens, two global pollutants, and MFA, a chemical lethal to humans at low doses. At temperatures that DuPont scientists claim are reached on stovetop drip pans (1000°F), non-stick coatings break down to a chemical warfare agent known as PFIB, and a chemical analog of the WWII nerve gas phosgene.
For the past fifty years DuPont has claimed that their Teflon coatings do not emit hazardous chemicals through normal use. In a recent press release, DuPont wrote that "significant decomposition of the coating will occur only when temperatures exceed about 660 degrees F (340 degrees C). These temperatures alone are well above the normal cooking range."
These new tests show that cookware exceeds these temperatures and turns toxic through the common act of preheating a pan, on a burner set on high.
In cases of "Teflon toxicosis," as the bird poisonings are called, the lungs of exposed birds hemorrhage and fill with fluid, leading to suffocation. DuPont acknowledges that the fumes can also sicken people, a condition called "polymer fume fever." DuPont has never studied the incidence of the fever among users of the billions of non-stick pots and pans sold around the world. Neither has the company studied the long-term effects from the sickness, or the extent to which Teflon exposures lead to human illnesses believed erroneously to be the common flu.
The government has not assessed the safety of non-stick cookware. According to a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food safety scientist: "You won't find a regulation anywhere on the books that specifically addresses cookwares," although the FDA approved Teflon for contact with food in 1960 based on a food frying study that found higher levels of Teflon chemicals in hamburger cooked on heat-aged and old pans. At the time, FDA judged these levels to be of little health significance.
Of the 6.9 million bird-owning households in the US that claim an estimated 19 million pet birds, many don't know know that Teflon poses an acute hazard to birds. Most non-stick cookware carries no warning label. DuPont publicly acknowledges that Teflon can kill birds, but the company-produced public service brochure on bird safety discusses the hazards of ceiling fans, mirrors, toilets, and cats before mentioning the dangers of Teflon fumes.
As a result of the new data showing that non-stick surfaces reach toxic temperatures in a matter of minutes, EWG has petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to require that cookware and heated appliances bearing non-stick coatings must carry a label warning of the acute hazard the coating poses to pet birds. Additionally, we recommend that bird owners completely avoid cookware and heated appliances with non-stick coatings. Alternative cookware includes stainless steel and cast iron, neither of which offgases persistent pollutants that kill birds.
2
To avoid chemicals leaching into food, go easy on processed, canned or fast foods and never microwave plastic. A Survey of Bisphenol A in U.S. Canned Foods
March 5, 2007
Summary. Independent laboratory tests found a toxic food-can lining ingredient associated with birth defects of the male and female reproductive systems in over half of 97 cans of name-brand fruit, vegetables, soda, and other commonly eaten canned goods. The study was spearheaded by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and targeted the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), a plastic and resin ingredient used to line metal food and drink cans. There are no government safety standards limiting the amount of BPA in canned food.
EWG's tests found:
Of all foods tested, chicken soup, infant formula, and ravioli had BPA levels of highest concern. Just one to three servings of foods with these concentrations could expose a woman or child to BPA at levels that caused serious adverse effects in animal tests.
For 1 in 10 cans of all food tested, and 1 in 3 cans of infant formula, a single serving contained enough BPA to expose a woman or infant to BPA levels more than 200 times the government's traditional safe level of exposure for industrial chemicals. The government typically mandates a 1,000- to 3,000-fold margin of safety between human exposures and levels found to harm lab animals, but these servings contained levels of BPA less than 5 times lower than doses that harmed lab animals.
BPA testing in canned food. We contracted with a national analytical laboratory to test 97 cans of food we purchased in March 2006 in three major, chain supermarkets in Atlanta, Georgia; Oakland, California; and Clinton, Connecticut. The lab tested 30 brands of food altogether, 27 national brands and 3 store brands. Among the foods we tested are 20 of the 40 canned foods most commonly consumed by women of childbearing age (NHANES, 2002), including soda, canned tuna, peaches, pineapples, green beans, corn, and tomato and chicken noodle soups. We also tested canned infant formula. The lab detected BPA in fifty-seven percent of all cans.
BPA is a heavily produced industrial compound that has been detected in more than 2,000 people worldwide, including more than 95 percent of 400 people in the United States. More than 100 peer-reviewed studies have found BPA to be toxic at low doses, some similar to those found in people, yet not a single regulatory agency has updated safety standards to reflect this low-dose toxicity. FDA estimates that 17% of the U.S. diet comprises canned food; they last examined BPA exposures from food in 1996 but failed to set a safety standard.
Recommendations
BPA is associated with a number of health problems and diseases that are on the rise in the U.S. population, including breast and prostate cancer and infertility. Given widespread human exposure to BPA and hundreds of studies showing its adverse effects, the FDA and EPA must act quickly to set safe levels for BPA exposure based on the latest science on the low-dose toxicity of the chemical.
BPA is at unsafe levels in one of every 10 servings of canned foods (11%) and one of every 3 cans of infant formula (33%)
Source: Chemical analyses of 97 canned foods by Southern Testing and Research Division of Microbac Laboratories, Inc., North Carolina.
EWG calculated people's BPA exposures from canned food using the following assumptions: Calculations reflect a single adult serving, using label serving size and body weight of 60 kg (132 lbs); exposures for concentrated infant formula is calculated for exclusively formula-fed infant using average 3-month-old body weight (6 kg/13 lbs) and average daily formula ingestion (840 g/30 oz); formula is assumed diluted with water free of BPA. Estimated single-serving exposures are compared against BPA dose of 2 ug/kg/d linked in lab studies to permanent damage of reproductive system from in utero exposures and referenced as "toxic dose" in figure above (see Section 3 of this report).
Summary of findings
Widespread exposures, no safety standards. In studies conducted over the past 20 years, scientists have detected BPA in breast milk, serum, saliva, urine, amniotic fluid, and cord blood from at least 2,200 people in Europe, North America, and Asia (CERHR 2006). Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently detected BPA in 95% of nearly 400 U.S. adults (Calafat et al. 2005). EWG-led biomonitoring studies have detected BPA in people from four states and the District of Columbia (EWG 2007). BPA ranks in the top two percent of high production volume chemicals in the U.S., with annual production exceeding a billion pounds (TSCA 2006), and is so common in products and industrial waste that it pollutes not only people but also rivers, estuaries, sediment, house dust, and even air nearly everywhere it is tested.
Yet despite its ubiquity and toxicity, BPA remains entirely without safety standards. It is allowed in unlimited amounts in consumer products, drinking water, and food, the top exposure source for most people. The lack of enforceable limits has resulted in widespread contamination of canned foods at levels that pose potential risks. For instance, analysis of our tests reveals that for one of every five cans tested, and for one-third of all vegetables and pastas (ravioli and noodles with tomato sauce), a single serving would expose a pregnant woman to BPA at levels that fall within a factor of 5 of doses linked to birth defects — permanent damage of developing male reproductive organs (Figure 1).
Many studies confirm BPA's low-dose toxicity across a diverse range of toxic effects
Daily BPA exposure (ug/kg body weight-day)
CERHR conclusion*
Toxic effect
Study details
Reference
% cans tested by EWG with single-serving BPA levels within a margin of 10 from harmful dose
0.0001
not included
alterations in cell signalling pathways on the cell surface that control calcium eflux in cells
in-vitro study which compared activity of BPA and other hormone disruptors
Wozniak 2005
56.7 (all cans with detected BPA)
0.025
"very useful"
persistent changes to breast tissue, predisposes cells to hormones and carcinogens
fetal exposure, osmotic pumps, changes noted a 6 months of age
Munoz-de-Toro 2005
55.7
0.025
"useful and shows tissue effects at extremely low dose levels"
permanent changes to genital tract
fetal exposure, osmotic pumps
Markey 2005
55.7
0.2
utility "limited"
decrease antioxidant enzymes
adult exposure, oral
Chitra 2003
47.4
0.25
utility "to be added"
altered growth, cell size and lumen formation in mammary epithelium of mouse fetuses.
exposure during pregnancy w/osmotic pumps
Vandenberg 2007
45.4
2
"useful"
increased prostate weight 30%
fetal exposure, oral route
Nagel 1997
20.6
2
"moderately useful"
increased aggression at 8 weeks of life
fetal exposure, oral route
Kawai 2003
20.6
2.4
"useful", but non-traditional endpoint
Decreased time from vaginal opening to first estrus, possibly earlier puberty
fetal exposure, oral route
Howdeshell 1999
17.5
2.4
"useful"
lower bodyweight, increase of anogenital distance in both genders, signs of early puberty and longer estrus.
fetal exposure, oral route
Honma 2002
17.5
2.4
"adequate"
decline in testicular testosterone
fetal and neonatal exposure, gavage
Akingbemi 2004
17.5
2.5
utility "to be added"
breast cells predisposed to cancer
fetal exposure, osmotic pumps
Murray 2006
16.5
2.5
not included
immune system impacts
oral exposure
Sawai 2003
16.5
10
utility "very useful"
prostate cells more sensitive to hormones and cancer
infant oral exposure, 3 day duration
Ho 2006
2.1
10
utility "very useful"
prostate cells more sensitive to hormones and cancer
fetal exposure, oral route, short duration
Timms 2005
2.1
10
not included
insulin resistance develops in 2 days, chronic hyperinsulinemia at day 4
subcutaneous injection, short duration exposure
Alonso-Magdalena 2006
2.1
10
"very useful"
decreased maternal behaviors
fetal and neonatal exposure, oral route
Palanza 2002
2.1
20
not included
damage to eggs and chromosomes
fetal exposure, osmotic pumps
Hunt 2003
0
20
not included
damage to eggs
fetal exposure, osmotic pumps
Susiajro 2007
0
20
not included
brain effects - disrupted neocortical development by accelerating neuronal differentiation and migration
single injection
Nakamura 2006
0
30
"...adequate for the evaluation process and gives cause for concern"
reversed the normal sex differences in brain structure and behavior
oral during gestation and lactation
Kubo 2001
0
30
"suitable"
hyperactivity
oral
Ishido 2004
0
50
EPA RfD
EPA's 'safe exposure level, based on outdated, high dose studies and a 1000-fold margin of safety
EPA 1998
0
*CERHR conclusion refers to the Center for Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction expert panel assessment of the utility of the study in the panel's review of BPA risks to human reproduction (CERHR 2006).
Statistics on percent cans with single servings that would yield human dose within a margin of 10 of the toxic dose are generated with the following assumptions: BPA calculations reflect a single adult serving, using label serving size and body weight of 60 kg (132 lbs); exposures for concentrated infant formula is calculated for exclusively formula-fed infant using average 3-month-old body weight (6 kg/13 lbs) and average daily formula ingestion (840 g/30 oz); formula is assumed diluted with water free of BPA.
BPA concentrations are expressed in parts per billion (ppb) by weight (micrograms of BPA per kilogram of food).
* Average is the geometric mean. Non-detects considered to be 1/2 the detection limit (1 ppb) for purposes of this calculation.
Government assessments fail to consider BPA low-dose toxicity. As of December 2004, 94 of 115 peer-reviewed studies had confirmed BPA's toxicity at low levels of exposure. At some of the very lowest doses the chemical causes permanent alterations of breast and prostate cells the precede cancer, insulin resistance (a hallmark trait of Type II diabetes), and chromosomal damage linked to recurrent miscarriage and a wide range of birth defects including Down's syndrome (vom Saal and Hughes 2005). Few chemicals have been found to consistently display such a diverse range of harm at such low doses.
Yet all of the most recent government reviews of bisphenol A have failed to set safety standards consistent with the chemical's low-dose toxicity. Each one either preceded the development of the low-dose literature, or heavily weighted industry-sponsored studies that are now known to have fundamental design flaws rendering them incapable of detecting BPA toxicity. U.S. safety reviews are described below:
The U.S. EPA established its generic safety standard for BPA (the reference dose, or RfD) in 1987, a decade before the BPA low-dose literature was established (EPA 1987). The vast majority of studies finding BPA toxic at low doses have been published since 1997, the year that a pivotal study showed BPA's ability to harm the prostate at levels far below what was thought safe (vom Saal et al. 1997). EPA's safety standard is 25 times the dose now known to cause birth defects in lab studies (50 ug/kg/d vs. 2 ug/kg/d), and has not been updated for 20 years.
The U.S. National Toxicology Program's 2001 assessment, which found BPA safe at low doses, relied heavily on industry-sponsored studies showing no low-dose BPA effects (NTP 2001). These studies are now known to have used animals resistant to the effects of estrogen-like chemicals such as BPA (vom Saal and Hughes 2005). The NTP assessment considered studies published in 2000 or earlier. The six years following this review have seen the publication of dozens of low-dose BPA studies that substantially bolster the now near irrefutable evidence for low-dose effects.
FDA published estimates of infant and adult BPA exposures 10 years ago. Even though the Agency did not then and has not since assessed the low-dose toxicity of BPA, in 2005 an FDA official asserted, in response to questions from a California legislator considering a state BPA phase-out bill, that "...FDA sees no reason to change [its] long-held position that current [BPA] uses with food are safe" (FDA 2005). FDA makes this assertion even though the Agency has not yet established an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for BPA, and has not even conducted the Agency's standard, basic toxicology study to determine a safe dose for humans (FDA 2007).
BPA's low dose toxicity. Companies began using BPA in metal can linings in the 1950s and 1960s (Schaefer and Simat 2004), fully twenty years after the chemical was first understood to be toxic (Dodds and Lawson, 1936 and 1938). These early warnings of toxicity were ignored or forgotten while companies steadily increased their reliance on BPA until it reached an annual U.S. production exceeding one billion pounds around 1990. In 1993 the chemical's signature toxic property, its ability to mimic estrogen, was accidentally discovered in a failed lab experiment (Krishnan et al. 1993), and the intervening years have witnessed the development of a body of low-dose science that has transformed our understanding of chemical toxicity.
Bisphenol A demonstrates the fallacy of nearly every long-standing tenet of government-style safety standards and traditional high-dose toxicology:
Low doses and toxicity. Where traditional toxicology asserts that higher doses confer greater harm, bisphenol A tests show that low doses can be the most toxic of all, below the radar screen of the body's compensatory detoxifying mechanisms, or below overtly toxic doses that destroy the tissues under study. In one investigation a low dose of BPA produced a 70% higher growth rate of prostate cancer cells in lab animals than did higher doses (Wetherill et al. 2002). In another study lower doses of BPA resulted in higher rates of breast cell growth that can precede cancer (Markey et al. 2001). ("Low doses" are typically defined as those that produce tissue concentrations at or below those in the typical range of human exposures.)
Timing of the dose. While traditional methods set safety standards to control risks defined in adulthood, bisphenol A studies reveal that exposures at other times can confer far higher risks, especially in the womb and during early childhood. For example, recent studies show that prenatal exposure to BPA causes breast cancer in adult rats (Murray et al. 2006), and causes genetic changes resulting in greater risk of prostate cancer in later life. (Ho et al. 2006). In another study adult rats which had been dosed in the womb developed breast cancer in adulthood (Munoz-de-Toro 2005); these exposure levels during adulthood would not have caused cancer.
Genetic susceptibility. Traditional toxicology holds that a chemical's potency and risks are constant, regardless of who is exposed. Bisphenol A suggests a different truth: A person's genetics plays an important role in defining risks and health outcomes from exposures to toxic chemicals. For instance, studies suggest that for some but not all babies, BPA accumulates in amniotic fluid, suggesting differing innate capacities for excretion that would be defined by genetics (Yamada et al. 2002). A recent study of mammary gland development showed that animals exposed to BPA in utero are more likely to develop mammary tumors when they are exposed to carcinogenic chemicals later in life, compared to animals not previously exposed to BPA (Durando et al. 2007). This study is one of many suggesting that early-life exposures to BPA may alter the expression or strength of genes to dramatically alter disease risk later in life.
Over the past year an average of four new BPA toxicity studies have been published in the peer-reviewed literature every month. New discoveries on BPA surface so routinely that the CERHR review document (CERHR 2006) describes fully 465 studies conducted primarily over the past 14 years. Among recent works:
A study showing that BPA exposures lead to an error in cell division called aneuploidy that causes spontaneous miscarriages, cancer, and birth defects in people, including Down Syndrome (Hunt et al. 2003).
An investigation demonstrating that low doses of BPA spur both the formation and growth of fat cells, the two factors that drive obesity in humans (Masumo et al. 2002).
A study linking low doses of BPA to insulin resistance, a risk factor for Type II diabetes (Alonso-Magdalena et al. 2006).
A preliminary investigation linking BPA exposures to recurrent miscarriage in a small group of Japanese women, made potentially pivotal by its concordance with lab studies of BPA-induced chromosome damage that could well cause miscarriage (Sugiura-Ogasawara 2005).
The unusually broad toxicity of BPA is explained by a prominent scientist as stemming from the fact that BPA can alter the behavior of over 200 genes — more than one percent of all human genes (Myers 2006). These genes control the growth and repair of nearly every organ and tissue in the body. Taken in its totality, the range of toxic effects linked to BPA is startlingly similar to the litany of human health problems on the rise or common across the population, including breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, obesity, infertility, and polycystic ovarian syndrome (Myers 2007).
Studies show that BPA is toxic to lab animals at doses overlapping with or very near to human exposures, and that the chemical causes toxic effects that are on the rise or very common in people. These disturbing facts raise questions about the extent to which current, widespread exposures to BPA are contributing to the burden of human disease.
Were the federal government to develop safety standards reflecting any of the more than 200 low-dose studies of BPA toxicity, the chemical would become the first widespread industrial compound with a government-recognized, harmful dose at such remarkably low levels that in some cases appear to overlap with human exposures. The science would fully justify a strict safety standard and would force industry to change food packaging to dramatically decrease the widespread BPA exposures to which they are currently subjecting the public.
FDA fails to protect the public. FDA is responsible for ensuring that food packaging chemicals like BPA are safe. In the case of BPA, the Agency has deemed the chemical safe even though its own exposure estimates for infants exceed doses shown to permanently harm the developing male reproductive system.
FDA does not restrict BPA levels in food. In the wake of a 1993 experiment proving that BPA disrupts estrogen levels, FDA tested 14 cans of infant formula and a few foods that adults eat, calculated exposures from these tests, and found them to be within safe levels (CERHR 2006). To make this determination the Agency compared the estimated exposures to "safe" doses far higher than those now known to cause permanent harm to lab animals.
Dr. George Pauli, at the time FDA's associate director for science and policy, offered this rationale: "FDA sees no reason at this time to ban or otherwise restrict the uses now in practice" (Pauli 2005). Never mind that the Agency's estimated exposures for infants, at 15-24 ug/kg/d, exceed by a factor of up to 10 the dose shown to permanently alter prostate gland growth.
Bisphenol A is just one of hundreds of chemicals that pollute people - proof of critical need to reform our system of public health protections. Studies by European scientists show that BPA is just one of many chemicals that leach out of food can linings. Tests of just three can coatings found at least 23 different BPA-related chemicals leaching into food, all without legal limits (Schaefer and Simat 2004). Research shows these contaminants occur at levels that can dwarf better-known environmental pollutants that accumulate in food, like PCBs and DDT. One scientist writes that "Concentrations of [migrant chemicals like BPA] commonly exceed...pesticides by orders of magnitude; most of the migrating compounds are not even identified; and only a few have been tested for toxicity..." (Grob et al. 1999).
FDA has tallied more than 1,000 indirect food additive chemicals in packaging and food processing, but food is just one of the many ways humans are exposed to industrial chemicals. EWG research reveals more than 200 pollutants in tap water supplies across the country; thousands of chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products; 470 industrial chemicals and pesticides in human tissues; and an average of 200 pollutants in each of 10 babies tested at the moment of birth. Nothing is known about the safety of the complex mixtures of low doses of a myriad of industrial chemicals in the human body.
The nation's system of public health protections from industrial chemicals like BPA are embodied in the Toxic Substances Control Act, a law passed in 1976 that is the only major environmental or public health statute that has never been updated. Under this law companies are not required to test chemicals for safety before they are sold and are not required to track whether their products end up in people at unsafe levels. As a result of this broken system, BPA is now one of the most widely used industrial chemicals, is found at unsafe levels in people, is allowed in unlimited quantities in a broad range of consumer products, and is entirely without safety standards. BPA gives irrefutable proof that our system of public health protections must be strengthened to protect children and others most vulnerable to chemical harm.
3
Buy organic, or eat vegetables and fruit from the "Cleanest 12" list. Why Should You Care About Pesticides?
There is growing consensus in the scientific community that small doses of pesticides and other chemicals can adversely affect people, especially during vulnerable periods of fetal development and childhood when exposures can have long lasting effects. Because the toxic effects of pesticides are worrisome, not well understood, or in some cases completely unstudied, shoppers are wise to minimize exposure to pesticides whenever possible.
Will Washing and Peeling Help?
Nearly all of the data used to create these lists already considers how people typically wash and prepare produce (for example, apples are washed before testing, bananas are peeled). While washing and rinsing fresh produce may reduce levels of some pesticides, it does not eliminate them. Peeling also reduces exposures, but valuable nutrients often go down the drain with the peel. The best option is to eat a varied diet, wash all produce, and choose organic when possible to reduce exposure to potentially harmful chemicals.
How This Guide Was Developed
The produce ranking was developed by analysts at the not-for-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) based on the results of nearly 43,000 tests for pesticides on produce collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 2000 and 2005. A detailed description of the criteria used in developing the rankings is available as well as a full list of fresh fruits and vegetables that have been tested (see below).
EWG is a not-for-profit environmental research organization dedicated to improving public health and protecting the environment by reducing pollution in air, water and food. For more information please visit www.ewg.org.
The Full List: 43 Fruits & Veggies
RANK
FRUIT OR VEGGIE
SCORE
1 (worst)
Peaches
100 (highest pesticide load)
2
Apples
96
3
Sweet Bell Peppers
86
4
Celery
85
5
Nectarines
84
6
Strawberries
83
7
Cherries
75
8
Lettuce
69
9
Grapes - Imported
68
10
Pears
65
11
Spinach
60
12
Potatoes
58
13
Carrots
57
14
Green Beans
55
15
Hot Peppers
53
16
Cucumbers
52
17
Raspberries
47
18
Plums
46
19
Oranges
46
20
Grapes-Domestic
46
21
Cauliflower
39
22
Tangerine
38
23
Mushrooms
37
24
Cantaloupe
34
25
Lemon
31
26
Honeydew Melon
31
27
Grapefruit
31
28
Winter Squash
31
29
Tomatoes
30
30
Sweet Potatoes
30
31
Watermelon
25
32
Blueberries
24
33
Papaya
21
34
Eggplant
19
35
Broccoli
18
36
Cabbage
17
37
Bananas
16
38
Kiwi
14
39
Asparagus
11
40
Sweet Peas-Frozen
11
41
Mango
9
42
Pineapples
7
43
Sweet Corn-Frozen
2
44
Avocado
1
45 (best)
Onions
1 (lowest pesticide load)
Note: We ranked a total of 44 different fruits and vegetables but grapes are listed twice because we looked at both domestic and imported samples.
4
Use iodized salt to combat chemical interference from the thyroid. Under Proposed Rocket Fuel Standards, Many Women Would Need Treatment To Protect Baby
A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that more than one third of American women are deficient in iodine, and that for these women, exposure to the rocket fuel contaminant perchlorate in food or water can cause a significant and dose dependent decline in thyroid hormone levels. Low thyroid levels, or subclinical hypothyroidism, is an established risk factor in fetal development and can cause IQ deficits, developmental delays, and in severe cases, cretinism.
An Environmental Working Group analysis of the CDC data found that for more than 2 million iodine deficient women nationwide, exposure to perchlorate in drinking water and the food supply, at levels equal to or lower than proposed national and state standards, could lower thyroid hormone levels to the extent that they would require medical treatment to avoid developmental damage to their babies.
5
Seal outdoor wooden structures. Order a test kit to find out if your wooden deck, picnic table, or playset is leaching arsenic.
6
Leave your shoes at the door. This minimizes distribution of dust-bound pollutants.
7
Avoid perfume, cologne and products with added fragrance. Search for personal care products that are fragrance-free, or check the products you're already using.
8
Buy products with natural fibers, like cotton and wool, that are naturally fire resistant. Use our list of products and manufacturers to avoid the chemical flame retardant PBDE.
9
Eat low-mercury fish like tilapia & pollock, rather than high-mercury choices like tuna & swordfish. EWG’s Fish List
What Women Should Know About Mercury In Fish
Download this list as a PDF.
Avoid If Pregnant
How many servings of tuna should you eat?
Use the EWG Tuna Calculator to find out.
SharkSwordfishKing mackerelTilefishTuna steaksCanned tunaSea bassGulf Coast OystersMarlinHalibutPikeWalleyeWhite croakerLargemouth bass
Eat No More Than One Serving From This List Per Month
Mahi mahiBlue musselEastern oysterCodPollockGreat Lakes salmonGulf Coast blue crabChannel catfish (wild)Lake whitefish
Lowest In Mercury
Blue crab (mid-Atlantic)CroakerFish SticksFlounder (summer)HaddockTrout (farmed)Salmon (wild Pacific)Shrimp *
* Shrimp fishing and farming practices have raised serious environmental concerns.** Farmed catfish have low mercury levels but may contain PCBs in amounts of concern for pregnant women.
Data From The 1970sShow High Concentrations(No Recent Data Available)
PorgyOrange RoughySnapperLake TroutBluefishBonitoRockfish
10
Filter your water for drinking and cooking. How does your tap water stack up? Search our tap water database to see what you're drinking.
10 Everyday Pollution Solutions
1
Use cast iron pans instead of nonstick. EWG finds heated Teflon pans can turn toxic faster than DuPont claims
In two to five minutes on a conventional stovetop, cookware coated with Teflon and other non-stick surfaces can exceed temperatures at which the coating breaks apart and emits toxic particles and gases linked to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pet bird deaths and an unknown number of human illnesses each year, according to tests commissioned by Environmental Working Group (EWG).
In new tests conducted by a university food safety professor, a generic non-stick frying pan preheated on a conventional, electric stovetop burner reached 736°F in three minutes and 20 seconds, with temperatures still rising when the tests were terminated. A Teflon pan reached 721°F in just five minutes under the same test conditions (See Figure 1), as measured by a commercially available infrared thermometer. DuPont studies show that the Teflon offgases toxic particulates at 446°F. At 680°F Teflon pans release at least six toxic gases, including two carcinogens, two global pollutants, and MFA, a chemical lethal to humans at low doses. At temperatures that DuPont scientists claim are reached on stovetop drip pans (1000°F), non-stick coatings break down to a chemical warfare agent known as PFIB, and a chemical analog of the WWII nerve gas phosgene.
For the past fifty years DuPont has claimed that their Teflon coatings do not emit hazardous chemicals through normal use. In a recent press release, DuPont wrote that "significant decomposition of the coating will occur only when temperatures exceed about 660 degrees F (340 degrees C). These temperatures alone are well above the normal cooking range."
These new tests show that cookware exceeds these temperatures and turns toxic through the common act of preheating a pan, on a burner set on high.
In cases of "Teflon toxicosis," as the bird poisonings are called, the lungs of exposed birds hemorrhage and fill with fluid, leading to suffocation. DuPont acknowledges that the fumes can also sicken people, a condition called "polymer fume fever." DuPont has never studied the incidence of the fever among users of the billions of non-stick pots and pans sold around the world. Neither has the company studied the long-term effects from the sickness, or the extent to which Teflon exposures lead to human illnesses believed erroneously to be the common flu.
The government has not assessed the safety of non-stick cookware. According to a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food safety scientist: "You won't find a regulation anywhere on the books that specifically addresses cookwares," although the FDA approved Teflon for contact with food in 1960 based on a food frying study that found higher levels of Teflon chemicals in hamburger cooked on heat-aged and old pans. At the time, FDA judged these levels to be of little health significance.
Of the 6.9 million bird-owning households in the US that claim an estimated 19 million pet birds, many don't know know that Teflon poses an acute hazard to birds. Most non-stick cookware carries no warning label. DuPont publicly acknowledges that Teflon can kill birds, but the company-produced public service brochure on bird safety discusses the hazards of ceiling fans, mirrors, toilets, and cats before mentioning the dangers of Teflon fumes.
As a result of the new data showing that non-stick surfaces reach toxic temperatures in a matter of minutes, EWG has petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to require that cookware and heated appliances bearing non-stick coatings must carry a label warning of the acute hazard the coating poses to pet birds. Additionally, we recommend that bird owners completely avoid cookware and heated appliances with non-stick coatings. Alternative cookware includes stainless steel and cast iron, neither of which offgases persistent pollutants that kill birds.
2
To avoid chemicals leaching into food, go easy on processed, canned or fast foods and never microwave plastic. A Survey of Bisphenol A in U.S. Canned Foods
March 5, 2007
Summary. Independent laboratory tests found a toxic food-can lining ingredient associated with birth defects of the male and female reproductive systems in over half of 97 cans of name-brand fruit, vegetables, soda, and other commonly eaten canned goods. The study was spearheaded by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and targeted the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), a plastic and resin ingredient used to line metal food and drink cans. There are no government safety standards limiting the amount of BPA in canned food.
EWG's tests found:
Of all foods tested, chicken soup, infant formula, and ravioli had BPA levels of highest concern. Just one to three servings of foods with these concentrations could expose a woman or child to BPA at levels that caused serious adverse effects in animal tests.
For 1 in 10 cans of all food tested, and 1 in 3 cans of infant formula, a single serving contained enough BPA to expose a woman or infant to BPA levels more than 200 times the government's traditional safe level of exposure for industrial chemicals. The government typically mandates a 1,000- to 3,000-fold margin of safety between human exposures and levels found to harm lab animals, but these servings contained levels of BPA less than 5 times lower than doses that harmed lab animals.
BPA testing in canned food. We contracted with a national analytical laboratory to test 97 cans of food we purchased in March 2006 in three major, chain supermarkets in Atlanta, Georgia; Oakland, California; and Clinton, Connecticut. The lab tested 30 brands of food altogether, 27 national brands and 3 store brands. Among the foods we tested are 20 of the 40 canned foods most commonly consumed by women of childbearing age (NHANES, 2002), including soda, canned tuna, peaches, pineapples, green beans, corn, and tomato and chicken noodle soups. We also tested canned infant formula. The lab detected BPA in fifty-seven percent of all cans.
BPA is a heavily produced industrial compound that has been detected in more than 2,000 people worldwide, including more than 95 percent of 400 people in the United States. More than 100 peer-reviewed studies have found BPA to be toxic at low doses, some similar to those found in people, yet not a single regulatory agency has updated safety standards to reflect this low-dose toxicity. FDA estimates that 17% of the U.S. diet comprises canned food; they last examined BPA exposures from food in 1996 but failed to set a safety standard.
Recommendations
BPA is associated with a number of health problems and diseases that are on the rise in the U.S. population, including breast and prostate cancer and infertility. Given widespread human exposure to BPA and hundreds of studies showing its adverse effects, the FDA and EPA must act quickly to set safe levels for BPA exposure based on the latest science on the low-dose toxicity of the chemical.
BPA is at unsafe levels in one of every 10 servings of canned foods (11%) and one of every 3 cans of infant formula (33%)
Source: Chemical analyses of 97 canned foods by Southern Testing and Research Division of Microbac Laboratories, Inc., North Carolina.
EWG calculated people's BPA exposures from canned food using the following assumptions: Calculations reflect a single adult serving, using label serving size and body weight of 60 kg (132 lbs); exposures for concentrated infant formula is calculated for exclusively formula-fed infant using average 3-month-old body weight (6 kg/13 lbs) and average daily formula ingestion (840 g/30 oz); formula is assumed diluted with water free of BPA. Estimated single-serving exposures are compared against BPA dose of 2 ug/kg/d linked in lab studies to permanent damage of reproductive system from in utero exposures and referenced as "toxic dose" in figure above (see Section 3 of this report).
Summary of findings
Widespread exposures, no safety standards. In studies conducted over the past 20 years, scientists have detected BPA in breast milk, serum, saliva, urine, amniotic fluid, and cord blood from at least 2,200 people in Europe, North America, and Asia (CERHR 2006). Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently detected BPA in 95% of nearly 400 U.S. adults (Calafat et al. 2005). EWG-led biomonitoring studies have detected BPA in people from four states and the District of Columbia (EWG 2007). BPA ranks in the top two percent of high production volume chemicals in the U.S., with annual production exceeding a billion pounds (TSCA 2006), and is so common in products and industrial waste that it pollutes not only people but also rivers, estuaries, sediment, house dust, and even air nearly everywhere it is tested.
Yet despite its ubiquity and toxicity, BPA remains entirely without safety standards. It is allowed in unlimited amounts in consumer products, drinking water, and food, the top exposure source for most people. The lack of enforceable limits has resulted in widespread contamination of canned foods at levels that pose potential risks. For instance, analysis of our tests reveals that for one of every five cans tested, and for one-third of all vegetables and pastas (ravioli and noodles with tomato sauce), a single serving would expose a pregnant woman to BPA at levels that fall within a factor of 5 of doses linked to birth defects — permanent damage of developing male reproductive organs (Figure 1).
Many studies confirm BPA's low-dose toxicity across a diverse range of toxic effects
Daily BPA exposure (ug/kg body weight-day)
CERHR conclusion*
Toxic effect
Study details
Reference
% cans tested by EWG with single-serving BPA levels within a margin of 10 from harmful dose
0.0001
not included
alterations in cell signalling pathways on the cell surface that control calcium eflux in cells
in-vitro study which compared activity of BPA and other hormone disruptors
Wozniak 2005
56.7 (all cans with detected BPA)
0.025
"very useful"
persistent changes to breast tissue, predisposes cells to hormones and carcinogens
fetal exposure, osmotic pumps, changes noted a 6 months of age
Munoz-de-Toro 2005
55.7
0.025
"useful and shows tissue effects at extremely low dose levels"
permanent changes to genital tract
fetal exposure, osmotic pumps
Markey 2005
55.7
0.2
utility "limited"
decrease antioxidant enzymes
adult exposure, oral
Chitra 2003
47.4
0.25
utility "to be added"
altered growth, cell size and lumen formation in mammary epithelium of mouse fetuses.
exposure during pregnancy w/osmotic pumps
Vandenberg 2007
45.4
2
"useful"
increased prostate weight 30%
fetal exposure, oral route
Nagel 1997
20.6
2
"moderately useful"
increased aggression at 8 weeks of life
fetal exposure, oral route
Kawai 2003
20.6
2.4
"useful", but non-traditional endpoint
Decreased time from vaginal opening to first estrus, possibly earlier puberty
fetal exposure, oral route
Howdeshell 1999
17.5
2.4
"useful"
lower bodyweight, increase of anogenital distance in both genders, signs of early puberty and longer estrus.
fetal exposure, oral route
Honma 2002
17.5
2.4
"adequate"
decline in testicular testosterone
fetal and neonatal exposure, gavage
Akingbemi 2004
17.5
2.5
utility "to be added"
breast cells predisposed to cancer
fetal exposure, osmotic pumps
Murray 2006
16.5
2.5
not included
immune system impacts
oral exposure
Sawai 2003
16.5
10
utility "very useful"
prostate cells more sensitive to hormones and cancer
infant oral exposure, 3 day duration
Ho 2006
2.1
10
utility "very useful"
prostate cells more sensitive to hormones and cancer
fetal exposure, oral route, short duration
Timms 2005
2.1
10
not included
insulin resistance develops in 2 days, chronic hyperinsulinemia at day 4
subcutaneous injection, short duration exposure
Alonso-Magdalena 2006
2.1
10
"very useful"
decreased maternal behaviors
fetal and neonatal exposure, oral route
Palanza 2002
2.1
20
not included
damage to eggs and chromosomes
fetal exposure, osmotic pumps
Hunt 2003
0
20
not included
damage to eggs
fetal exposure, osmotic pumps
Susiajro 2007
0
20
not included
brain effects - disrupted neocortical development by accelerating neuronal differentiation and migration
single injection
Nakamura 2006
0
30
"...adequate for the evaluation process and gives cause for concern"
reversed the normal sex differences in brain structure and behavior
oral during gestation and lactation
Kubo 2001
0
30
"suitable"
hyperactivity
oral
Ishido 2004
0
50
EPA RfD
EPA's 'safe exposure level, based on outdated, high dose studies and a 1000-fold margin of safety
EPA 1998
0
*CERHR conclusion refers to the Center for Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction expert panel assessment of the utility of the study in the panel's review of BPA risks to human reproduction (CERHR 2006).
Statistics on percent cans with single servings that would yield human dose within a margin of 10 of the toxic dose are generated with the following assumptions: BPA calculations reflect a single adult serving, using label serving size and body weight of 60 kg (132 lbs); exposures for concentrated infant formula is calculated for exclusively formula-fed infant using average 3-month-old body weight (6 kg/13 lbs) and average daily formula ingestion (840 g/30 oz); formula is assumed diluted with water free of BPA.
BPA concentrations are expressed in parts per billion (ppb) by weight (micrograms of BPA per kilogram of food).
* Average is the geometric mean. Non-detects considered to be 1/2 the detection limit (1 ppb) for purposes of this calculation.
Government assessments fail to consider BPA low-dose toxicity. As of December 2004, 94 of 115 peer-reviewed studies had confirmed BPA's toxicity at low levels of exposure. At some of the very lowest doses the chemical causes permanent alterations of breast and prostate cells the precede cancer, insulin resistance (a hallmark trait of Type II diabetes), and chromosomal damage linked to recurrent miscarriage and a wide range of birth defects including Down's syndrome (vom Saal and Hughes 2005). Few chemicals have been found to consistently display such a diverse range of harm at such low doses.
Yet all of the most recent government reviews of bisphenol A have failed to set safety standards consistent with the chemical's low-dose toxicity. Each one either preceded the development of the low-dose literature, or heavily weighted industry-sponsored studies that are now known to have fundamental design flaws rendering them incapable of detecting BPA toxicity. U.S. safety reviews are described below:
The U.S. EPA established its generic safety standard for BPA (the reference dose, or RfD) in 1987, a decade before the BPA low-dose literature was established (EPA 1987). The vast majority of studies finding BPA toxic at low doses have been published since 1997, the year that a pivotal study showed BPA's ability to harm the prostate at levels far below what was thought safe (vom Saal et al. 1997). EPA's safety standard is 25 times the dose now known to cause birth defects in lab studies (50 ug/kg/d vs. 2 ug/kg/d), and has not been updated for 20 years.
The U.S. National Toxicology Program's 2001 assessment, which found BPA safe at low doses, relied heavily on industry-sponsored studies showing no low-dose BPA effects (NTP 2001). These studies are now known to have used animals resistant to the effects of estrogen-like chemicals such as BPA (vom Saal and Hughes 2005). The NTP assessment considered studies published in 2000 or earlier. The six years following this review have seen the publication of dozens of low-dose BPA studies that substantially bolster the now near irrefutable evidence for low-dose effects.
FDA published estimates of infant and adult BPA exposures 10 years ago. Even though the Agency did not then and has not since assessed the low-dose toxicity of BPA, in 2005 an FDA official asserted, in response to questions from a California legislator considering a state BPA phase-out bill, that "...FDA sees no reason to change [its] long-held position that current [BPA] uses with food are safe" (FDA 2005). FDA makes this assertion even though the Agency has not yet established an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for BPA, and has not even conducted the Agency's standard, basic toxicology study to determine a safe dose for humans (FDA 2007).
BPA's low dose toxicity. Companies began using BPA in metal can linings in the 1950s and 1960s (Schaefer and Simat 2004), fully twenty years after the chemical was first understood to be toxic (Dodds and Lawson, 1936 and 1938). These early warnings of toxicity were ignored or forgotten while companies steadily increased their reliance on BPA until it reached an annual U.S. production exceeding one billion pounds around 1990. In 1993 the chemical's signature toxic property, its ability to mimic estrogen, was accidentally discovered in a failed lab experiment (Krishnan et al. 1993), and the intervening years have witnessed the development of a body of low-dose science that has transformed our understanding of chemical toxicity.
Bisphenol A demonstrates the fallacy of nearly every long-standing tenet of government-style safety standards and traditional high-dose toxicology:
Low doses and toxicity. Where traditional toxicology asserts that higher doses confer greater harm, bisphenol A tests show that low doses can be the most toxic of all, below the radar screen of the body's compensatory detoxifying mechanisms, or below overtly toxic doses that destroy the tissues under study. In one investigation a low dose of BPA produced a 70% higher growth rate of prostate cancer cells in lab animals than did higher doses (Wetherill et al. 2002). In another study lower doses of BPA resulted in higher rates of breast cell growth that can precede cancer (Markey et al. 2001). ("Low doses" are typically defined as those that produce tissue concentrations at or below those in the typical range of human exposures.)
Timing of the dose. While traditional methods set safety standards to control risks defined in adulthood, bisphenol A studies reveal that exposures at other times can confer far higher risks, especially in the womb and during early childhood. For example, recent studies show that prenatal exposure to BPA causes breast cancer in adult rats (Murray et al. 2006), and causes genetic changes resulting in greater risk of prostate cancer in later life. (Ho et al. 2006). In another study adult rats which had been dosed in the womb developed breast cancer in adulthood (Munoz-de-Toro 2005); these exposure levels during adulthood would not have caused cancer.
Genetic susceptibility. Traditional toxicology holds that a chemical's potency and risks are constant, regardless of who is exposed. Bisphenol A suggests a different truth: A person's genetics plays an important role in defining risks and health outcomes from exposures to toxic chemicals. For instance, studies suggest that for some but not all babies, BPA accumulates in amniotic fluid, suggesting differing innate capacities for excretion that would be defined by genetics (Yamada et al. 2002). A recent study of mammary gland development showed that animals exposed to BPA in utero are more likely to develop mammary tumors when they are exposed to carcinogenic chemicals later in life, compared to animals not previously exposed to BPA (Durando et al. 2007). This study is one of many suggesting that early-life exposures to BPA may alter the expression or strength of genes to dramatically alter disease risk later in life.
Over the past year an average of four new BPA toxicity studies have been published in the peer-reviewed literature every month. New discoveries on BPA surface so routinely that the CERHR review document (CERHR 2006) describes fully 465 studies conducted primarily over the past 14 years. Among recent works:
A study showing that BPA exposures lead to an error in cell division called aneuploidy that causes spontaneous miscarriages, cancer, and birth defects in people, including Down Syndrome (Hunt et al. 2003).
An investigation demonstrating that low doses of BPA spur both the formation and growth of fat cells, the two factors that drive obesity in humans (Masumo et al. 2002).
A study linking low doses of BPA to insulin resistance, a risk factor for Type II diabetes (Alonso-Magdalena et al. 2006).
A preliminary investigation linking BPA exposures to recurrent miscarriage in a small group of Japanese women, made potentially pivotal by its concordance with lab studies of BPA-induced chromosome damage that could well cause miscarriage (Sugiura-Ogasawara 2005).
The unusually broad toxicity of BPA is explained by a prominent scientist as stemming from the fact that BPA can alter the behavior of over 200 genes — more than one percent of all human genes (Myers 2006). These genes control the growth and repair of nearly every organ and tissue in the body. Taken in its totality, the range of toxic effects linked to BPA is startlingly similar to the litany of human health problems on the rise or common across the population, including breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, obesity, infertility, and polycystic ovarian syndrome (Myers 2007).
Studies show that BPA is toxic to lab animals at doses overlapping with or very near to human exposures, and that the chemical causes toxic effects that are on the rise or very common in people. These disturbing facts raise questions about the extent to which current, widespread exposures to BPA are contributing to the burden of human disease.
Were the federal government to develop safety standards reflecting any of the more than 200 low-dose studies of BPA toxicity, the chemical would become the first widespread industrial compound with a government-recognized, harmful dose at such remarkably low levels that in some cases appear to overlap with human exposures. The science would fully justify a strict safety standard and would force industry to change food packaging to dramatically decrease the widespread BPA exposures to which they are currently subjecting the public.
FDA fails to protect the public. FDA is responsible for ensuring that food packaging chemicals like BPA are safe. In the case of BPA, the Agency has deemed the chemical safe even though its own exposure estimates for infants exceed doses shown to permanently harm the developing male reproductive system.
FDA does not restrict BPA levels in food. In the wake of a 1993 experiment proving that BPA disrupts estrogen levels, FDA tested 14 cans of infant formula and a few foods that adults eat, calculated exposures from these tests, and found them to be within safe levels (CERHR 2006). To make this determination the Agency compared the estimated exposures to "safe" doses far higher than those now known to cause permanent harm to lab animals.
Dr. George Pauli, at the time FDA's associate director for science and policy, offered this rationale: "FDA sees no reason at this time to ban or otherwise restrict the uses now in practice" (Pauli 2005). Never mind that the Agency's estimated exposures for infants, at 15-24 ug/kg/d, exceed by a factor of up to 10 the dose shown to permanently alter prostate gland growth.
Bisphenol A is just one of hundreds of chemicals that pollute people - proof of critical need to reform our system of public health protections. Studies by European scientists show that BPA is just one of many chemicals that leach out of food can linings. Tests of just three can coatings found at least 23 different BPA-related chemicals leaching into food, all without legal limits (Schaefer and Simat 2004). Research shows these contaminants occur at levels that can dwarf better-known environmental pollutants that accumulate in food, like PCBs and DDT. One scientist writes that "Concentrations of [migrant chemicals like BPA] commonly exceed...pesticides by orders of magnitude; most of the migrating compounds are not even identified; and only a few have been tested for toxicity..." (Grob et al. 1999).
FDA has tallied more than 1,000 indirect food additive chemicals in packaging and food processing, but food is just one of the many ways humans are exposed to industrial chemicals. EWG research reveals more than 200 pollutants in tap water supplies across the country; thousands of chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products; 470 industrial chemicals and pesticides in human tissues; and an average of 200 pollutants in each of 10 babies tested at the moment of birth. Nothing is known about the safety of the complex mixtures of low doses of a myriad of industrial chemicals in the human body.
The nation's system of public health protections from industrial chemicals like BPA are embodied in the Toxic Substances Control Act, a law passed in 1976 that is the only major environmental or public health statute that has never been updated. Under this law companies are not required to test chemicals for safety before they are sold and are not required to track whether their products end up in people at unsafe levels. As a result of this broken system, BPA is now one of the most widely used industrial chemicals, is found at unsafe levels in people, is allowed in unlimited quantities in a broad range of consumer products, and is entirely without safety standards. BPA gives irrefutable proof that our system of public health protections must be strengthened to protect children and others most vulnerable to chemical harm.
3
Buy organic, or eat vegetables and fruit from the "Cleanest 12" list. Why Should You Care About Pesticides?
There is growing consensus in the scientific community that small doses of pesticides and other chemicals can adversely affect people, especially during vulnerable periods of fetal development and childhood when exposures can have long lasting effects. Because the toxic effects of pesticides are worrisome, not well understood, or in some cases completely unstudied, shoppers are wise to minimize exposure to pesticides whenever possible.
Will Washing and Peeling Help?
Nearly all of the data used to create these lists already considers how people typically wash and prepare produce (for example, apples are washed before testing, bananas are peeled). While washing and rinsing fresh produce may reduce levels of some pesticides, it does not eliminate them. Peeling also reduces exposures, but valuable nutrients often go down the drain with the peel. The best option is to eat a varied diet, wash all produce, and choose organic when possible to reduce exposure to potentially harmful chemicals.
How This Guide Was Developed
The produce ranking was developed by analysts at the not-for-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) based on the results of nearly 43,000 tests for pesticides on produce collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 2000 and 2005. A detailed description of the criteria used in developing the rankings is available as well as a full list of fresh fruits and vegetables that have been tested (see below).
EWG is a not-for-profit environmental research organization dedicated to improving public health and protecting the environment by reducing pollution in air, water and food. For more information please visit www.ewg.org.
The Full List: 43 Fruits & Veggies
RANK
FRUIT OR VEGGIE
SCORE
1 (worst)
Peaches
100 (highest pesticide load)
2
Apples
96
3
Sweet Bell Peppers
86
4
Celery
85
5
Nectarines
84
6
Strawberries
83
7
Cherries
75
8
Lettuce
69
9
Grapes - Imported
68
10
Pears
65
11
Spinach
60
12
Potatoes
58
13
Carrots
57
14
Green Beans
55
15
Hot Peppers
53
16
Cucumbers
52
17
Raspberries
47
18
Plums
46
19
Oranges
46
20
Grapes-Domestic
46
21
Cauliflower
39
22
Tangerine
38
23
Mushrooms
37
24
Cantaloupe
34
25
Lemon
31
26
Honeydew Melon
31
27
Grapefruit
31
28
Winter Squash
31
29
Tomatoes
30
30
Sweet Potatoes
30
31
Watermelon
25
32
Blueberries
24
33
Papaya
21
34
Eggplant
19
35
Broccoli
18
36
Cabbage
17
37
Bananas
16
38
Kiwi
14
39
Asparagus
11
40
Sweet Peas-Frozen
11
41
Mango
9
42
Pineapples
7
43
Sweet Corn-Frozen
2
44
Avocado
1
45 (best)
Onions
1 (lowest pesticide load)
Note: We ranked a total of 44 different fruits and vegetables but grapes are listed twice because we looked at both domestic and imported samples.
4
Use iodized salt to combat chemical interference from the thyroid. Under Proposed Rocket Fuel Standards, Many Women Would Need Treatment To Protect Baby
A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that more than one third of American women are deficient in iodine, and that for these women, exposure to the rocket fuel contaminant perchlorate in food or water can cause a significant and dose dependent decline in thyroid hormone levels. Low thyroid levels, or subclinical hypothyroidism, is an established risk factor in fetal development and can cause IQ deficits, developmental delays, and in severe cases, cretinism.
An Environmental Working Group analysis of the CDC data found that for more than 2 million iodine deficient women nationwide, exposure to perchlorate in drinking water and the food supply, at levels equal to or lower than proposed national and state standards, could lower thyroid hormone levels to the extent that they would require medical treatment to avoid developmental damage to their babies.
5
Seal outdoor wooden structures. Order a test kit to find out if your wooden deck, picnic table, or playset is leaching arsenic.
6
Leave your shoes at the door. This minimizes distribution of dust-bound pollutants.
7
Avoid perfume, cologne and products with added fragrance. Search for personal care products that are fragrance-free, or check the products you're already using.
8
Buy products with natural fibers, like cotton and wool, that are naturally fire resistant. Use our list of products and manufacturers to avoid the chemical flame retardant PBDE.
9
Eat low-mercury fish like tilapia & pollock, rather than high-mercury choices like tuna & swordfish. EWG’s Fish List
What Women Should Know About Mercury In Fish
Download this list as a PDF.
Avoid If Pregnant
How many servings of tuna should you eat?
Use the EWG Tuna Calculator to find out.
SharkSwordfishKing mackerelTilefishTuna steaksCanned tunaSea bassGulf Coast OystersMarlinHalibutPikeWalleyeWhite croakerLargemouth bass
Eat No More Than One Serving From This List Per Month
Mahi mahiBlue musselEastern oysterCodPollockGreat Lakes salmonGulf Coast blue crabChannel catfish (wild)Lake whitefish
Lowest In Mercury
Blue crab (mid-Atlantic)CroakerFish SticksFlounder (summer)HaddockTrout (farmed)Salmon (wild Pacific)Shrimp *
* Shrimp fishing and farming practices have raised serious environmental concerns.** Farmed catfish have low mercury levels but may contain PCBs in amounts of concern for pregnant women.
Data From The 1970sShow High Concentrations(No Recent Data Available)
PorgyOrange RoughySnapperLake TroutBluefishBonitoRockfish
10
Filter your water for drinking and cooking. How does your tap water stack up? Search our tap water database to see what you're drinking.
Dehumidifiers
The following information came from www.redsofts.com
A dehumidifier is a device which removes excess moisture in the air. This device performs this process by condensing the moisture on a cool surface. A dehumidifier is simply an air conditioner. The air conditioner cools the temperature of a humid room by condensing the air in its cold coils.A dehumidifier has hot and cold coils that are built in the same box. The unit’s fan draws the air in the room through the cold coils of the dehumidifier to condense its moisture. When this happens, as in the case of window type air conditioning units, water drips out of the unit. Dry air then goes through the dehumidifier’s hot coils so it can we heated up again back to its previous temperature.An example of a dehumidifier is an air conditioning (AC) unit. It is a device that was designed to remove heat out of an area using the principles of refrigeration. An AC is a good example of a dehumidifier because it is designed to lower the humidity in the air which goes through it. Human bodies have natural dehumidifiers in form of sweat. When we sweat, our bodies cool because of the evaporating perspiration from our skin. Dry air, then coming from an AC unit creates provides comfort as it creates 40-60% relative humidity in an area.As a dehumidifier, an AC unit is basically another form of refrigerator without an insulated box. It uses a refrigerant like Freon for its evaporation to cool an area. Freon is one of the many non-flammable fluorocarbons which are in use today as refrigerants.In an AC unit, the evaporation cycle works in this manner: 1) cool Freon gas is compressed, making it high-pressure, hot gas; 2) the hot gas then goes through the set of coils in the AC unit so it can disperse its heat and then condenses into liquid form; 3) Freon goes through a valve, and through this process it becomes low-pressure, cold gas; and 4) the cold Freon gas then goes through a set of coils in the AC unit that will allow the gas to take in heat and chill the air within the area. A special type of oil is mixed with the Freon gas to lubricate the AC unit’s compressor.The coldness that a dehumidifier can provide depends on the air’s relative humidity and the barometric pressure (this is sea level normal pressure). When there is 50% humidity in the air, water temperature will drop at about 6 degrees to 89F. Change that to 20% air humidity and the temperature drops to 28 degrees to 67F. These small temperature drops affect energy consumption because the use of these AC units places a large demand on electricity especially on warm months when more units are operated. During these peak times, more power plants must be online to cater to the large demand for energy. Studies of residential air conditioning showed that AC units wasted 40% of energy. This energy gets wasted in the form of heat waiting to be pumped out. When you see large quantities of water running through plastic hoses at the backs of big buildings, you’ll know that there are dehumidifier units inside. Many apartment and office complexes now use centralized AC units and the chilled water coming out of these systems is directed to underground pipes.
A dehumidifier is a device which removes excess moisture in the air. This device performs this process by condensing the moisture on a cool surface. A dehumidifier is simply an air conditioner. The air conditioner cools the temperature of a humid room by condensing the air in its cold coils.A dehumidifier has hot and cold coils that are built in the same box. The unit’s fan draws the air in the room through the cold coils of the dehumidifier to condense its moisture. When this happens, as in the case of window type air conditioning units, water drips out of the unit. Dry air then goes through the dehumidifier’s hot coils so it can we heated up again back to its previous temperature.An example of a dehumidifier is an air conditioning (AC) unit. It is a device that was designed to remove heat out of an area using the principles of refrigeration. An AC is a good example of a dehumidifier because it is designed to lower the humidity in the air which goes through it. Human bodies have natural dehumidifiers in form of sweat. When we sweat, our bodies cool because of the evaporating perspiration from our skin. Dry air, then coming from an AC unit creates provides comfort as it creates 40-60% relative humidity in an area.As a dehumidifier, an AC unit is basically another form of refrigerator without an insulated box. It uses a refrigerant like Freon for its evaporation to cool an area. Freon is one of the many non-flammable fluorocarbons which are in use today as refrigerants.In an AC unit, the evaporation cycle works in this manner: 1) cool Freon gas is compressed, making it high-pressure, hot gas; 2) the hot gas then goes through the set of coils in the AC unit so it can disperse its heat and then condenses into liquid form; 3) Freon goes through a valve, and through this process it becomes low-pressure, cold gas; and 4) the cold Freon gas then goes through a set of coils in the AC unit that will allow the gas to take in heat and chill the air within the area. A special type of oil is mixed with the Freon gas to lubricate the AC unit’s compressor.The coldness that a dehumidifier can provide depends on the air’s relative humidity and the barometric pressure (this is sea level normal pressure). When there is 50% humidity in the air, water temperature will drop at about 6 degrees to 89F. Change that to 20% air humidity and the temperature drops to 28 degrees to 67F. These small temperature drops affect energy consumption because the use of these AC units places a large demand on electricity especially on warm months when more units are operated. During these peak times, more power plants must be online to cater to the large demand for energy. Studies of residential air conditioning showed that AC units wasted 40% of energy. This energy gets wasted in the form of heat waiting to be pumped out. When you see large quantities of water running through plastic hoses at the backs of big buildings, you’ll know that there are dehumidifier units inside. Many apartment and office complexes now use centralized AC units and the chilled water coming out of these systems is directed to underground pipes.
Dangers of Processed Foods
The Six Thousand Hidden Dangers of Processed Foods (and What to Choose Instead)
by BodyEcology.com
This might be All American but if you knew what was really in it, you'd call Homeland Security!
A stroll down your grocery store's aisles can be a tempting experience. Rows and rows of delicious food all wrapped up in colorful packages, encouraging you to give it a try with catchy names and creative graphics.
Good food, delicious food that's appealing to the eye, and convenient to boot. Anything that yummy has to be nourishing, right?
Processed Foods Aren't Just What You Pick Up At A Drive Thru
The first image that comes to mind for most people when they hear the term "processed food" is a wrapped burger and a sleeve of fries served over a counter at a fast food joint.
But the truth is, the very food you have in your cabinets is processed.
What Exactly Is Processed Food Anyway?
If it's boxed, bagged, canned or jarred and has a list of ingredients on the label, it's processed. Methods used to process foods include:
Canning
Freezing
Refrigeration
Dehydration
Aseptic Processing
Processed foods have been altered from their natural state for "safety" and convenience reasons. And scary as it seems, about 90 percent of the money that Americans spend on food is used to buy processed items.1
Food Is Good The Way It Is, Why Process It?Processed foods are more convenient - that's what it comes down to. It's so much easier to bake a cake by opening up a box, pouring out a dry mix, and adding an egg and some oil than starting from scratch.
Having Jambalaya in five minutes after pouring hot water into a carton makes your prep time for lunch a breeze.
But convenience isn't the only thing you get when you eat processed foods. There's a whole list of ingredients that manufacturers add to2:
Color - It gives your orange soda that neon glow
Stabilize - So your gravy isn't watery
Emulsify - Who says oil and water can't mix?
Bleach - Let's disinfect and deodorize
Texturize - Nothing's worse than soggy cereal...
Soften - It's as if the ice cream was churned twice
Preserve - What if you want to eat the cupcake six months from now?
Sweeten - Sugar is sweet but saccharin and aspartame is sweeter
Hide Odors - Do you really want to smell the fish paste in your instant Pad Thai?
Flavor - Nothing like having the sweet taste of watermelon all year round
How kind of them!
If You Can't Pronounce It, Do You Want To Eat It?
The problem is, most processed foods have a laundry list of ingredients similar to that of a can of paint. It's not as simple as adding a little sugar to canned bisque or lemon juice to a scone mix.
Take a look at the list of ingredients from the strawberry flavoring of a milkshake served at a zip-through restaurant:
Amyl acetate, amyl butyrate, amyl valerate, anethol, anisyl formate, benzyl acetate, benzyl isobutyrate, butyric acid, cinnamyl isobutyrate, cinnamylvalerate, cognac essential oil, diacetyl, dipropyl ketone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl cinnamate, ethyl heptanoate, ethyl lactate, ethyl methylphenylglycidate, ethyl Nitrate, ethyl propionate, ethyl valerbate, heliotropin, hydroxphrenyl-2butanone(10% solution to alcohol), a-ionone, isobutyl anthranilate, isobutyl butrate, lemon essential oil, maltol, 4-methylacetophenone, methyl anthranilate, methyl benzoate, methyl cinnamate, methyl heptine carbone, methyl naphthyl ketone, methyl slicylate, mint essential oil, neroli essential oil, nerolin, neryl isobulyrate, orris butter, phenethyl alcohol, sore rum ether, g-undecalctone, vanillin, and solvent3
Looks delicious, doesn't it? And this is just a small sampling of the SIX THOUSAND chemicals used to process foods.4
That Wouldn't Go In My Body!
By now you might be thinking that you have nothing to worry about because you wouldn't dream of drinking a milkshake let alone anything else from a fast food restaurant.
But this goes far beyond fast food.
What's In Your Cabinet?
A study conducted at UCLA's Center on Everyday Lives of Families videotaped 32 families including their dinner routines for a three-year period. Although 70% of the dinners were home-cooked, most included moderate amounts of packaged food. 5
How many processed foods are you using each day?
Always The Last To Know
The FDA doesn't require food manufacturers to list additives as ingredients that they consider Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS). All the label has to say is "artificial flavor" or "artificial coloring" or (are you sitting down?) "natural".6
Yes, "NATURAL".
A Frozen Fish Stick Never Killed Anybody
Here are just a few reasons you might want to think twice before throwing a jar of Vienna Sausages in your shopping cart:
CANCER - Some synthetic chemicals used in the processed foods industry are known to have carcinogenic properties.
In fact, a seven-year study conducted by the University of Hawaii of almost 200,000 people found that those who ate the most processed meats (hot dogs, bologna) had a 67 percent higher risk of pancreatic cancer than those who ate little or no meat products.7
OBESITY - Heavily processed foods are usually higher in sugar, fat and salt, and lower in nutrients and fiber than the raw foods used to create them, making them the perfect choice if you're interested in unhealthy weight gain and water retention.8
According to the World Health Organization, processed foods are to blame for the spike in obesity levels and chronic disease around the world.9
HEART DISEASE - Many processed foods have trans fatty acids (TFA), the dangerous type of fat you don't want in your diet. TFA's give a rise to LDL, the dangerous cholesterol, and squash HDL, the good one.
Harvard recently conducted a study which found that women who avoided high-carb processed foods cut their heart disease risk by 30%.10
And If That's Not Enough To Make You Avoid Processed Foods, Try Swallowing This:
Your taste buds become used to the strong flavors of processed foods and make you want to add more salt or sugar to the natural flavors of whole foods.
Some processed foods are filled with indistinguishable parts and pieces, like snouts, ears and esophagi (yum!).
To make up for the loss of nutrients during processing, synthetic vitamins and minerals are added to "enhance" their nutritional content.
Spending more on processed foods just means spending less on locally grown foods, particularly organic.
Eating a diet high in processed foods can lead to diabetes, and liver overload.
OK, You're Convinced, But What Are Some Options?
You wouldn't be the first person to think eating a natural, wholesome diet with nutrient-dense foods means eating foods that could easily be mistaken for Styrofoam. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Eating food in its natural state (food without ingredients!) is a great reminder for your palate of the clean, crisp tastes of nature. Try just one recipe from the Body Ecology Diet for example, and you'll know that to be true.
Take a look a the list of ingredients of a bowl of homemade carrot ginger soup found in the Body Ecology book versus canned carrot ginger soup - even if it's from your natural grocer - and you'll immediately know which is the better choice.
And The Benefits Are Endless...
The Body Ecology Diet is ideal for anyone interested in moving away from processed foods, toward a diet focused around eating only fresh, wholesome foods as nature created them.
This isn't your brown rice and tofu diet. This is a lifestyle rich in probiotic foods such as cultured vegetables and young coconut kefir to keep your gut flourishing with healthy bacteria and your immune system strong and protective.
At Body Ecology we don't think that a long list of ingredients is a necessarily a bad thing, as long as each ingredient's purpose is to nourish your body. Read the label of our VITALITY SuperGreen and you'll find it's an excellent source of:
Complete, easily assimilated protein
Enzymes
Vitamins
Minerals
Lignans
Essential Fatty Acids
Nucleic Acids
Beneficial Microflora
Not a chemical in the bunch!
Nourish yourself with VITALITY SuperGreen - a powerful whole foods and herbs combo with a list of ingredients that both you and your body will understand! . Learn More About Body Ecology's Vitality and Order Now!
Our Dong Quai fermented liquid beverage is another great example of delicious food brimming with nutrients and healthy bacteria and a list of ingredients that doesn't include the artificial colors, flavors and sweeteners you'd find in another bubbly drink.
Will I Spend My Life Cooking In The Kitchen?
Preparing all of your own food is ideal but we can definitely help out with some of the work! Healthful products are absolutely available such as the hearty wholegrain, gluten-free breads and the miracle no cal, no carb, fiber rich, gluten-free Konjaku Noodle For more information on other great ideas for delicious, wholesome foods, visit http://shop.bodyecology.com/ and get the extra fat, salt and sugar out of your diet today!
Sources:
1.) All the Health Risks of Processed Foods – In Just a Few Quick, Convenient Bites, SixWise.com, http://www.sixwise.com/newsletter/05/10//19/all_the_health_risks_of_processed_foods_-- …
2.) You Are What You Eat, Paul Chek, http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=42
3.) Schiosser E. :Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin, 2001
4.) The Dangers of Preservatives and Additives, Freedom You, http://www.freedomyou.com/nutrition_book/enriched_fortified_synthetic_food.htm
5.) Convenience Foods Save Little Time, Lack Nutrients, Judith Groch, Senior Writer, MedPage Today, http:www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/dh/6368
6.) Convenience Foods Save Little Time, Lack Nutrients, Judith Groch, Senior Writer, MedPage Today, http:www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/dh/6368
7.) All the Health Risks of Processed Foods – In Just a Few Quick, Convenient Bites, SixWise.com, http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/10/19/all_the_health_risks_of processed_foods_--…
8.) Convenience Foods Save Little Time, Lack Nutrients, Judith Groch, Senior Writer, MedPage Today, http:www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/dh/6368
9.) Processed Foods to Blame for Obeisty and Chronic Disease, healingsearch.com, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2814253.stm
10.) NewsTarget.com, Women and Processed Foods, http:www.newstarget.com/021039.html
by BodyEcology.com
This might be All American but if you knew what was really in it, you'd call Homeland Security!
A stroll down your grocery store's aisles can be a tempting experience. Rows and rows of delicious food all wrapped up in colorful packages, encouraging you to give it a try with catchy names and creative graphics.
Good food, delicious food that's appealing to the eye, and convenient to boot. Anything that yummy has to be nourishing, right?
Processed Foods Aren't Just What You Pick Up At A Drive Thru
The first image that comes to mind for most people when they hear the term "processed food" is a wrapped burger and a sleeve of fries served over a counter at a fast food joint.
But the truth is, the very food you have in your cabinets is processed.
What Exactly Is Processed Food Anyway?
If it's boxed, bagged, canned or jarred and has a list of ingredients on the label, it's processed. Methods used to process foods include:
Canning
Freezing
Refrigeration
Dehydration
Aseptic Processing
Processed foods have been altered from their natural state for "safety" and convenience reasons. And scary as it seems, about 90 percent of the money that Americans spend on food is used to buy processed items.1
Food Is Good The Way It Is, Why Process It?Processed foods are more convenient - that's what it comes down to. It's so much easier to bake a cake by opening up a box, pouring out a dry mix, and adding an egg and some oil than starting from scratch.
Having Jambalaya in five minutes after pouring hot water into a carton makes your prep time for lunch a breeze.
But convenience isn't the only thing you get when you eat processed foods. There's a whole list of ingredients that manufacturers add to2:
Color - It gives your orange soda that neon glow
Stabilize - So your gravy isn't watery
Emulsify - Who says oil and water can't mix?
Bleach - Let's disinfect and deodorize
Texturize - Nothing's worse than soggy cereal...
Soften - It's as if the ice cream was churned twice
Preserve - What if you want to eat the cupcake six months from now?
Sweeten - Sugar is sweet but saccharin and aspartame is sweeter
Hide Odors - Do you really want to smell the fish paste in your instant Pad Thai?
Flavor - Nothing like having the sweet taste of watermelon all year round
How kind of them!
If You Can't Pronounce It, Do You Want To Eat It?
The problem is, most processed foods have a laundry list of ingredients similar to that of a can of paint. It's not as simple as adding a little sugar to canned bisque or lemon juice to a scone mix.
Take a look at the list of ingredients from the strawberry flavoring of a milkshake served at a zip-through restaurant:
Amyl acetate, amyl butyrate, amyl valerate, anethol, anisyl formate, benzyl acetate, benzyl isobutyrate, butyric acid, cinnamyl isobutyrate, cinnamylvalerate, cognac essential oil, diacetyl, dipropyl ketone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl cinnamate, ethyl heptanoate, ethyl lactate, ethyl methylphenylglycidate, ethyl Nitrate, ethyl propionate, ethyl valerbate, heliotropin, hydroxphrenyl-2butanone(10% solution to alcohol), a-ionone, isobutyl anthranilate, isobutyl butrate, lemon essential oil, maltol, 4-methylacetophenone, methyl anthranilate, methyl benzoate, methyl cinnamate, methyl heptine carbone, methyl naphthyl ketone, methyl slicylate, mint essential oil, neroli essential oil, nerolin, neryl isobulyrate, orris butter, phenethyl alcohol, sore rum ether, g-undecalctone, vanillin, and solvent3
Looks delicious, doesn't it? And this is just a small sampling of the SIX THOUSAND chemicals used to process foods.4
That Wouldn't Go In My Body!
By now you might be thinking that you have nothing to worry about because you wouldn't dream of drinking a milkshake let alone anything else from a fast food restaurant.
But this goes far beyond fast food.
What's In Your Cabinet?
A study conducted at UCLA's Center on Everyday Lives of Families videotaped 32 families including their dinner routines for a three-year period. Although 70% of the dinners were home-cooked, most included moderate amounts of packaged food. 5
How many processed foods are you using each day?
Always The Last To Know
The FDA doesn't require food manufacturers to list additives as ingredients that they consider Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS). All the label has to say is "artificial flavor" or "artificial coloring" or (are you sitting down?) "natural".6
Yes, "NATURAL".
A Frozen Fish Stick Never Killed Anybody
Here are just a few reasons you might want to think twice before throwing a jar of Vienna Sausages in your shopping cart:
CANCER - Some synthetic chemicals used in the processed foods industry are known to have carcinogenic properties.
In fact, a seven-year study conducted by the University of Hawaii of almost 200,000 people found that those who ate the most processed meats (hot dogs, bologna) had a 67 percent higher risk of pancreatic cancer than those who ate little or no meat products.7
OBESITY - Heavily processed foods are usually higher in sugar, fat and salt, and lower in nutrients and fiber than the raw foods used to create them, making them the perfect choice if you're interested in unhealthy weight gain and water retention.8
According to the World Health Organization, processed foods are to blame for the spike in obesity levels and chronic disease around the world.9
HEART DISEASE - Many processed foods have trans fatty acids (TFA), the dangerous type of fat you don't want in your diet. TFA's give a rise to LDL, the dangerous cholesterol, and squash HDL, the good one.
Harvard recently conducted a study which found that women who avoided high-carb processed foods cut their heart disease risk by 30%.10
And If That's Not Enough To Make You Avoid Processed Foods, Try Swallowing This:
Your taste buds become used to the strong flavors of processed foods and make you want to add more salt or sugar to the natural flavors of whole foods.
Some processed foods are filled with indistinguishable parts and pieces, like snouts, ears and esophagi (yum!).
To make up for the loss of nutrients during processing, synthetic vitamins and minerals are added to "enhance" their nutritional content.
Spending more on processed foods just means spending less on locally grown foods, particularly organic.
Eating a diet high in processed foods can lead to diabetes, and liver overload.
OK, You're Convinced, But What Are Some Options?
You wouldn't be the first person to think eating a natural, wholesome diet with nutrient-dense foods means eating foods that could easily be mistaken for Styrofoam. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Eating food in its natural state (food without ingredients!) is a great reminder for your palate of the clean, crisp tastes of nature. Try just one recipe from the Body Ecology Diet for example, and you'll know that to be true.
Take a look a the list of ingredients of a bowl of homemade carrot ginger soup found in the Body Ecology book versus canned carrot ginger soup - even if it's from your natural grocer - and you'll immediately know which is the better choice.
And The Benefits Are Endless...
The Body Ecology Diet is ideal for anyone interested in moving away from processed foods, toward a diet focused around eating only fresh, wholesome foods as nature created them.
This isn't your brown rice and tofu diet. This is a lifestyle rich in probiotic foods such as cultured vegetables and young coconut kefir to keep your gut flourishing with healthy bacteria and your immune system strong and protective.
At Body Ecology we don't think that a long list of ingredients is a necessarily a bad thing, as long as each ingredient's purpose is to nourish your body. Read the label of our VITALITY SuperGreen and you'll find it's an excellent source of:
Complete, easily assimilated protein
Enzymes
Vitamins
Minerals
Lignans
Essential Fatty Acids
Nucleic Acids
Beneficial Microflora
Not a chemical in the bunch!
Nourish yourself with VITALITY SuperGreen - a powerful whole foods and herbs combo with a list of ingredients that both you and your body will understand! . Learn More About Body Ecology's Vitality and Order Now!
Our Dong Quai fermented liquid beverage is another great example of delicious food brimming with nutrients and healthy bacteria and a list of ingredients that doesn't include the artificial colors, flavors and sweeteners you'd find in another bubbly drink.
Will I Spend My Life Cooking In The Kitchen?
Preparing all of your own food is ideal but we can definitely help out with some of the work! Healthful products are absolutely available such as the hearty wholegrain, gluten-free breads and the miracle no cal, no carb, fiber rich, gluten-free Konjaku Noodle For more information on other great ideas for delicious, wholesome foods, visit http://shop.bodyecology.com/ and get the extra fat, salt and sugar out of your diet today!
Sources:
1.) All the Health Risks of Processed Foods – In Just a Few Quick, Convenient Bites, SixWise.com, http://www.sixwise.com/newsletter/05/10//19/all_the_health_risks_of_processed_foods_-- …
2.) You Are What You Eat, Paul Chek, http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=42
3.) Schiosser E. :Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin, 2001
4.) The Dangers of Preservatives and Additives, Freedom You, http://www.freedomyou.com/nutrition_book/enriched_fortified_synthetic_food.htm
5.) Convenience Foods Save Little Time, Lack Nutrients, Judith Groch, Senior Writer, MedPage Today, http:www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/dh/6368
6.) Convenience Foods Save Little Time, Lack Nutrients, Judith Groch, Senior Writer, MedPage Today, http:www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/dh/6368
7.) All the Health Risks of Processed Foods – In Just a Few Quick, Convenient Bites, SixWise.com, http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/10/19/all_the_health_risks_of processed_foods_--…
8.) Convenience Foods Save Little Time, Lack Nutrients, Judith Groch, Senior Writer, MedPage Today, http:www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/dh/6368
9.) Processed Foods to Blame for Obeisty and Chronic Disease, healingsearch.com, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2814253.stm
10.) NewsTarget.com, Women and Processed Foods, http:www.newstarget.com/021039.html
Friday, November 2, 2007
Dangerous Toxins in Your Home
The following information came from www.getipm.com
The 10 most dangerous toxins in your house
Thursday, January 14, 1999
By Claude Morgan
Household toxins? Look no further than your kitchen cabinets.
It's official: Staying home is hazardous to your health. Toxins found in the home injured 789,000 Americans between 1992 and 1995, and new research suggests that this figure is underestimated.
"Toxins in U.S. homes now account for 90 percent of all reported poisonings each year," says Ross Ann Soloway, administrator of the American Association of Poison Control Centers. That's an epidemic of hazardous living by any standard. And while these figures include everything from non-fatal aspirin overdoses to the deadly consumption of drain cleaners, they fail to include long-term exposure to toxins like lead and asbestos.
To address the climbing domestic injury rates associated with household toxins, Congress and the Centers for Disease Control in 1992 created the Unintentional Injury Center to focus on the health dangers of consumer goods and modern home living. Other federal agencies are following suit. The EPA now has branches which deal with home indoor air quality, lead exposure and ubiquitous low-level toxicity, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development publishes a pollution look-out list for first-time home buyers.
The short list of toxins under your roof may surprise you:
Formaldehyde offgasses (evaporates) from cushions, particleboard and the adhesives used to manufacture most inexpensive wood-based products. Carpets and carpet cushions may also offgas formaldehyde, causing eye and upper respiratory irritation. According to the EPA, formaldehyde may even cause cancer;
Radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the United States, warns the Surgeon General. Radon is a natural radioactive gas that can seep into homes through cracks in the basement, the surrounding foundation and in well water. It enters the body quietly through the airways;
Lead keeps epidemiologists returning to the drawing board, says Soloway, "mostly because we know more now about the adverse effects of low-level exposure." Levels once thought to be acceptable are now known contributors to learning disabilities and behavioral problems. Lead is found in paint in older houses, old plumbing and soil near highways and busy roads. It causes neurological and kidney damage, high blood pressure, disrupted blood cell production and reproductive problems;
Carbon monoxide will kill an estimated 660 Americans this year. Don't look for exhaust fumes in the attached garage; the biggest culprit is the unserviced furnace burning propane, butane or oil; Arsenic is still lacing many household pesticides and is increasingly used as a wood preservative. Low levels of inorganic arsenic "may cause lung cancer risk," according to the CDC. The Department of Health and Human Services agrees, adding arsenic compounds to the list of unknown carcinogens;
Vinyl chloride is the source of "new car smell": The plastic interior of a new car offgasses this known carcinogen. Water sitting in PVC pipes overnight may also be steeping into a toxic tea. Very large exposures can lead to "vinyl chloride disease," which causes severe liver damage and ballooning of the fingertips;
Hydrofluoric acid "can cause intense pain and damage to tissues and bone if the recommended gloves happen to have holes in them," says Soloway. This highly corrosive substance is the active ingredient in many household rust removers.
But even the most liberal list of known toxins pales next to the order of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). VOCs comprise hundreds of natural and man-made, carbon-based agents. They react quickly with other carbon-based compounds, and evaporate easily, making them ideal solvents. VOCs can be found in disinfectants and pesticides, too.
Solvents: Benzene and methyl ethyl ketome traverse cell walls unchecked by normal cell defense. Both are known carcinogens. Cousins toluene, xylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and trichloroethylene make up the lion's share of the solvent market;
Disinfectants: Phenols, which include biphenyl, phenolics and the preservative pentachloraphenol, are found in disinfectants, antiseptics, perfumes, mouthwashes, glues and air fresheners;
Pesticides: Chlordane, aldrin, dieldrin, though all banned for nearly two decades, continue to show up airborne in older houses.
Don't be a statistical figure on the CDC's tracking list: Be aware of what substances, from pesticides to cleaners, pose threats in your household. Maintain ingredient awareness. Many poisonings still occur because of product combinations, like the ammonia-chlorine bleach reaction, which produces the deadly respiratory irritant chloramine (a problem labeling practices have not addressed).
Replace toxic agents with non-toxic alternatives. Above all, educate your household to reduce risk and exposure. For practical ideas on reducing your family's risk, consult the following books: "Living Healthy in a Toxic World" by David Steinman and R. Michael Wisner (Berkeley, 1996); "Toxins A-Z: A Guide to Everyday Pollution Hazards" by John Harte, Cheryl Holdren, Richard Schneider and Christine Shirley (University of California, 1991); "Home Safe Home: Protecting Yourself and Your Family from Everyday Toxics and Harmful Household Products" by Debra L. Dadd (Putnam, 1997).
The 10 most dangerous toxins in your house
Thursday, January 14, 1999
By Claude Morgan
Household toxins? Look no further than your kitchen cabinets.
It's official: Staying home is hazardous to your health. Toxins found in the home injured 789,000 Americans between 1992 and 1995, and new research suggests that this figure is underestimated.
"Toxins in U.S. homes now account for 90 percent of all reported poisonings each year," says Ross Ann Soloway, administrator of the American Association of Poison Control Centers. That's an epidemic of hazardous living by any standard. And while these figures include everything from non-fatal aspirin overdoses to the deadly consumption of drain cleaners, they fail to include long-term exposure to toxins like lead and asbestos.
To address the climbing domestic injury rates associated with household toxins, Congress and the Centers for Disease Control in 1992 created the Unintentional Injury Center to focus on the health dangers of consumer goods and modern home living. Other federal agencies are following suit. The EPA now has branches which deal with home indoor air quality, lead exposure and ubiquitous low-level toxicity, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development publishes a pollution look-out list for first-time home buyers.
The short list of toxins under your roof may surprise you:
Formaldehyde offgasses (evaporates) from cushions, particleboard and the adhesives used to manufacture most inexpensive wood-based products. Carpets and carpet cushions may also offgas formaldehyde, causing eye and upper respiratory irritation. According to the EPA, formaldehyde may even cause cancer;
Radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the United States, warns the Surgeon General. Radon is a natural radioactive gas that can seep into homes through cracks in the basement, the surrounding foundation and in well water. It enters the body quietly through the airways;
Lead keeps epidemiologists returning to the drawing board, says Soloway, "mostly because we know more now about the adverse effects of low-level exposure." Levels once thought to be acceptable are now known contributors to learning disabilities and behavioral problems. Lead is found in paint in older houses, old plumbing and soil near highways and busy roads. It causes neurological and kidney damage, high blood pressure, disrupted blood cell production and reproductive problems;
Carbon monoxide will kill an estimated 660 Americans this year. Don't look for exhaust fumes in the attached garage; the biggest culprit is the unserviced furnace burning propane, butane or oil; Arsenic is still lacing many household pesticides and is increasingly used as a wood preservative. Low levels of inorganic arsenic "may cause lung cancer risk," according to the CDC. The Department of Health and Human Services agrees, adding arsenic compounds to the list of unknown carcinogens;
Vinyl chloride is the source of "new car smell": The plastic interior of a new car offgasses this known carcinogen. Water sitting in PVC pipes overnight may also be steeping into a toxic tea. Very large exposures can lead to "vinyl chloride disease," which causes severe liver damage and ballooning of the fingertips;
Hydrofluoric acid "can cause intense pain and damage to tissues and bone if the recommended gloves happen to have holes in them," says Soloway. This highly corrosive substance is the active ingredient in many household rust removers.
But even the most liberal list of known toxins pales next to the order of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). VOCs comprise hundreds of natural and man-made, carbon-based agents. They react quickly with other carbon-based compounds, and evaporate easily, making them ideal solvents. VOCs can be found in disinfectants and pesticides, too.
Solvents: Benzene and methyl ethyl ketome traverse cell walls unchecked by normal cell defense. Both are known carcinogens. Cousins toluene, xylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and trichloroethylene make up the lion's share of the solvent market;
Disinfectants: Phenols, which include biphenyl, phenolics and the preservative pentachloraphenol, are found in disinfectants, antiseptics, perfumes, mouthwashes, glues and air fresheners;
Pesticides: Chlordane, aldrin, dieldrin, though all banned for nearly two decades, continue to show up airborne in older houses.
Don't be a statistical figure on the CDC's tracking list: Be aware of what substances, from pesticides to cleaners, pose threats in your household. Maintain ingredient awareness. Many poisonings still occur because of product combinations, like the ammonia-chlorine bleach reaction, which produces the deadly respiratory irritant chloramine (a problem labeling practices have not addressed).
Replace toxic agents with non-toxic alternatives. Above all, educate your household to reduce risk and exposure. For practical ideas on reducing your family's risk, consult the following books: "Living Healthy in a Toxic World" by David Steinman and R. Michael Wisner (Berkeley, 1996); "Toxins A-Z: A Guide to Everyday Pollution Hazards" by John Harte, Cheryl Holdren, Richard Schneider and Christine Shirley (University of California, 1991); "Home Safe Home: Protecting Yourself and Your Family from Everyday Toxics and Harmful Household Products" by Debra L. Dadd (Putnam, 1997).
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Cosmetics and Cancer
The following information came from www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org.
It sounds noble: a cosmetics company promises that if you buy one of its products, a portion of the sale will go toward “the fight against breast cancer.”
But what if that cosmetic contains chemicals that might actually increase your risk of developing the disease?
Many cosmetics contain chemicals known as parabens and phthalates, which recent studies indicate may be linked to cancer development.
Parabens are chemical preservatives that have been identified as estrogenic and disruptive of normal hormone function. (Estrogenic chemicals mimic the function of the naturally occurring hormone estrogen, and exposure to external estrogens has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer.)
Phthalates are known to cause a broad range of birth defects and lifelong reproductive impairments in laboratory animals that are exposed to these chemicals during pregnancy and after birth. Phthalates are also known to be hormone-mimicking chemicals, many of which disrupt normal hormonal processes, raising concern about their implications for increased breast cancer risk.
There are numerous other chemicals of concern in personal care products. BCA is particularly concerned about progesterone, formaldehyde and coal tar due to their links to cancer. The Environmental Working Group recently released Skin Deep, a report on the safety of cosmetics and personal care products. Astonishingly, 1/3 of products tested contain on or more ingredients that are known, probable or possible human carcinogens.
Cosmetic companies will argue that we don't need to worry about harmful chemicals in their products because they are only used on our skin and hair. For example, the cosmetics industry has long stated that their widespread use of parabens and phthalates is not harmful because they remain on our skin and are not absorbed into our body. However, a recent study found parabens in human breast cancer tissue, raising obvious questions about the ability of parabens to accumulate in our bodies (Darbre et al. 2004). In September 2000 scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found phthalates at surprisingly high levels in every one of 289 people tested, especially in women of reproductive age. The authors concluded that "from a public health perspective, these data provide evidence that phthalate exposure is both higher and more common than previously suspected" (Blount et al. 2000).
Many cosmetic companies will also argue that the level of a harmful chemical in any one product is not enough to harm you, based on studies of chemical exposure in adults. However, science is finding the timing of exposure is crucial, and that even a very small dose of some chemicals can have serious consequences in children and young women who are still developing. Also, we are rarely exposed to a chemical just one time. We may use the same product every day, several days a week, for months or years. In addition, we use dozens of personal care products daily, not just one. So while exposure from one product on one day may be small, the fact is we use numerous products a day for extended periods of time. As a result, scientists are finding chemicals such as parabens and phthalates accumulating in our bodies.
Many diseases like cancer, asthma, birth defects and learning disabilities are on the rise, and there is growing evidence that these health problems are linked to the chemicals we are exposed to in our air, water, food, and everyday products. It's time we start acting to protect human health. The Precautionary Principle, a common sense approach to chemical use, says "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". It guides us to take action to prevent exposure to chemicals we know or suspect are harmful to our health. In the case of cosmetics, when a product ingredient is known or strongly suspected of being harmful to our healthy, our top priority should be eliminating the use of this chemical and finding a safe substitute to replace it. In many cases, we know safe alternatives do exist and are already being used by some cosmetic companies. The notion of "safe" or "acceptable" levels of hazardous chemicals in our products should only be introduced when we cannot find alternatives. We are entitled to products that won't hurt us.
It sounds noble: a cosmetics company promises that if you buy one of its products, a portion of the sale will go toward “the fight against breast cancer.”
But what if that cosmetic contains chemicals that might actually increase your risk of developing the disease?
Many cosmetics contain chemicals known as parabens and phthalates, which recent studies indicate may be linked to cancer development.
Parabens are chemical preservatives that have been identified as estrogenic and disruptive of normal hormone function. (Estrogenic chemicals mimic the function of the naturally occurring hormone estrogen, and exposure to external estrogens has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer.)
Phthalates are known to cause a broad range of birth defects and lifelong reproductive impairments in laboratory animals that are exposed to these chemicals during pregnancy and after birth. Phthalates are also known to be hormone-mimicking chemicals, many of which disrupt normal hormonal processes, raising concern about their implications for increased breast cancer risk.
There are numerous other chemicals of concern in personal care products. BCA is particularly concerned about progesterone, formaldehyde and coal tar due to their links to cancer. The Environmental Working Group recently released Skin Deep, a report on the safety of cosmetics and personal care products. Astonishingly, 1/3 of products tested contain on or more ingredients that are known, probable or possible human carcinogens.
Cosmetic companies will argue that we don't need to worry about harmful chemicals in their products because they are only used on our skin and hair. For example, the cosmetics industry has long stated that their widespread use of parabens and phthalates is not harmful because they remain on our skin and are not absorbed into our body. However, a recent study found parabens in human breast cancer tissue, raising obvious questions about the ability of parabens to accumulate in our bodies (Darbre et al. 2004). In September 2000 scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found phthalates at surprisingly high levels in every one of 289 people tested, especially in women of reproductive age. The authors concluded that "from a public health perspective, these data provide evidence that phthalate exposure is both higher and more common than previously suspected" (Blount et al. 2000).
Many cosmetic companies will also argue that the level of a harmful chemical in any one product is not enough to harm you, based on studies of chemical exposure in adults. However, science is finding the timing of exposure is crucial, and that even a very small dose of some chemicals can have serious consequences in children and young women who are still developing. Also, we are rarely exposed to a chemical just one time. We may use the same product every day, several days a week, for months or years. In addition, we use dozens of personal care products daily, not just one. So while exposure from one product on one day may be small, the fact is we use numerous products a day for extended periods of time. As a result, scientists are finding chemicals such as parabens and phthalates accumulating in our bodies.
Many diseases like cancer, asthma, birth defects and learning disabilities are on the rise, and there is growing evidence that these health problems are linked to the chemicals we are exposed to in our air, water, food, and everyday products. It's time we start acting to protect human health. The Precautionary Principle, a common sense approach to chemical use, says "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". It guides us to take action to prevent exposure to chemicals we know or suspect are harmful to our health. In the case of cosmetics, when a product ingredient is known or strongly suspected of being harmful to our healthy, our top priority should be eliminating the use of this chemical and finding a safe substitute to replace it. In many cases, we know safe alternatives do exist and are already being used by some cosmetic companies. The notion of "safe" or "acceptable" levels of hazardous chemicals in our products should only be introduced when we cannot find alternatives. We are entitled to products that won't hurt us.
Toxins in Cosmetics
The following information came from www.healthy-communications.com
You slather, spray, and paint them on and rub them in. Cosmetics are so much a part of your daily regimen that you probably never think twice about them. If they're on store shelves, it seems reasonable to figure that they're safe to use, despite those unpronounceable ingredient lists.But at least some of what's in your cosmetics might not be so good for you. One example is the family of chemicals known as phthalates (pronounced THAL-ates), which may be linked to developmental and reproductive health risks. The industry says phthalates are safe, but some companies have dropped them in response to public concern. Essie, OPI, and Sally Hansen, for example, are removing dibutyl phthalate (DBP), which is used to prevent chipping, from nail polishes. Other big-name brands that have reformulated products to remove some phthalates include Avon, Cover Girl, Estée Lauder, L'Oréal, Max Factor, Orly, and Revlon.If you're trying to cut back on phthalates, however, sticking with these brands may not make much of a difference. You'll find phthalates in too many other personal-care products, including body lotions, hair sprays, perfumes, and deodorants. The chemicals are used to help fragrances linger and take the stiffness out of hair spray, among other reasons. They're also in detergents, food packaging, pharmaceuticals, and plastic toys. And they have turned up in our bodies.Although phthalates show up in so many places, they're often absent from labels because disclosure is not always required. That's the case with fragrances. We tested eight fragrances and although none of the products included phthalates in its ingredient list, they all contained the chemicals. Some were made by companies that specifically told us their products were free of phthalates, and two even say as much on their Web sites.Getting your nails done or spritzing on your favorite perfume obviously isn't going to kill you. But the health effects of regular long-term exposure, even to small amounts, are still unknown.Makeup wakeup callCompanies that have eliminated phthalates are no doubt getting the message that people are paying more attention to ingredients. But public concern isn't the only factor driving the reformulations. Another reason is a European ban. Although the U.S. has outlawed just eight cosmetic ingredients, the European Union has banned more than 1,000. For companies that make cosmetics, complying with E.U. rules makes good business sense. It's more efficient to sell the same product worldwide. It's also good PR. About 380 U.S. companies have publicly pledged their allegiance to cosmetic safety by signing the Compact for Global Production of Safe Health & Beauty Products, under which they voluntarily pledged to reformulate globally to meet E.U. standards.The reformulation trend is likely to gain further momentum from the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005, which took effect only this year. Manufacturers that sell over $1 million a year in personal-care products in the state must report any products containing a chemical that is either a carcinogen or a reproductive or developmental toxic agent. Among those that must be disclosed are the phthalates DBP and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). California plans make this information public, possibly on the Web, so some companies may choose to remove rather than report the ingredients.Guinea pig nationDespite the laws, pacts, and reformulations, questions about safety remain. Cosmetic industry critics argue that the Food and Drug Administration has not told companies what "safe" means, leaving them to make their own decisions. In fact, with cosmetics, the government generally takes action only after safety issues crop up.Take the case of Rio hair relaxers. In December 1994, the FDA warned against two products sold through infomercials after consumers complained about hair loss, scalp irritation, and hair turning green. Rio announced that it would stop sales but there were reports that it continued to take orders. The California Department of Health then stepped in to halt sales and in January 1995, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles filed a seizure action. By then, the FDA had received more than 3,000 complaints. Rio later reformulated and renamed its products.The Rio case illustrates how holes in the government's cosmetic regulatory system can hurt consumers. The industry essentially regulates itself. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel, made up of physicians and toxicologists and funded by the industry's leading trade group--the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA)--assesses ingredient safety. Another industry group reviews fragrances and helps create safety standards. But manufacturers aren't obligated to do anything with this information."We're working on the honor system when it comes to cosmetics safety," says Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a research and advocacy group. "In the absence of federal standards, we have a huge range of safety in the products we buy every day."The FDA has made efforts to improve its ability to spot problems and issue warnings. The agency now has a computerized database, called CAERS, that collects reports of problems such as allergic reactions. Complaints can be sent via the FDA Web site or by calling a district office. But Amy Newburger, a dermatologist at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City and a former member of the FDA's General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel, says her experiences make her wonder about the system's effectiveness. In one case, she filed a report by phone and on the CAERS system after she and several of her patients got a rash with blisters after using an anti-aging treatment. It wasn't until a year later, in November 2006, that the FDA sent an e-mail asking her to complete some forms, she says. The FDA responds that it doesn't provide information or feedback to people who file complaints. It simply routes them to the appropriate office for evaluation. The FDA says it may also send reports to companies.So what are the risks?Scientists know very little about how repeated exposure to small amounts of phthalates in cosmetics may affect your health, if at all. But some studies suggest that the chemicals are present in our bodies.In 2005, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that it had found breakdown chemicals from two of the most common cosmetic phthalates in almost every member of a group of 2,782 people it examined. A separate study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) in 2005 showed that men who used the most personal-care products, such as after-shave and cologne, had the highest urinary levels of a breakdown product of diethyl phthalate (DEP).In rodent studies, phthalates have caused testicular injury, liver injury, and liver cancer. We found no such clear hazards in human research. But we did find studies suggesting that phthalates may be associated with other health issues, including the following four examples from one source alone, EHP, which is a leading journal published by the National Institutes of Health. In 2000, EHP published a small study that said elevated blood levels of phthalates were associated with premature breast development in young girls. Another report in 2003 found that men with higher concentrations of two phthalate breakdown products in their urine were more likely to have a low sperm count or low sperm motility. A study published in 2005 said women with higher levels of four phthalate compounds in their urine during pregnancy were likelier to give birth to boys with smaller scrotums. And a 2006 report cited low testosterone levels in male newborns exposed to higher levels of phthalates in breast milk.Experts in the industry and the government are aware of such reports but say there is no cause for alarm. The FDA, for instance, concluded after a thorough review of the literature that "it's not clear what effect, if any, phthalates have on health." And the CTFA, the industry trade group, notes that government and scientific bodies in the U.S. and Canada have examined phthalates without restricting their use in cosmetics. After the 2005 report linking phthalate exposure to smaller scrotum size, in particular, the trade group said, "The sensational and alarming conclusions being drawn from this single study are completely speculative and scientifically unwarranted."Even companies that have dropped phthalates from products say they are safe. "This policy is driven by a wish to allay public concern and does not reflect concern with the safe use of the ingredients," Avon said after announcing that it would cut DBP from its product line. John Bailey, the CTFA's executive vice president for science, says ingredients like DBP in nail polish are simply not a hazard in such small amounts.On the other side are some environmental and public-health advocates who say possible carcinogens and reproductive toxins do not belong in cosmetics, no matter how small the amount. "We take issue with the idea that a little bit of poison doesn't matter, because safer alternatives are available," says Stacy Malkan, communications director of Health Care Without Harm. "Companies should be making the safest products possible, instead of trying to convince us that a little bit of toxic chemicals are OK." While the scientific jury is still out, we at ShopSmart believe it makes sense to reduce your exposure to phthalates, especially if you're nursing, pregnant, or trying to become pregnant.
You slather, spray, and paint them on and rub them in. Cosmetics are so much a part of your daily regimen that you probably never think twice about them. If they're on store shelves, it seems reasonable to figure that they're safe to use, despite those unpronounceable ingredient lists.But at least some of what's in your cosmetics might not be so good for you. One example is the family of chemicals known as phthalates (pronounced THAL-ates), which may be linked to developmental and reproductive health risks. The industry says phthalates are safe, but some companies have dropped them in response to public concern. Essie, OPI, and Sally Hansen, for example, are removing dibutyl phthalate (DBP), which is used to prevent chipping, from nail polishes. Other big-name brands that have reformulated products to remove some phthalates include Avon, Cover Girl, Estée Lauder, L'Oréal, Max Factor, Orly, and Revlon.If you're trying to cut back on phthalates, however, sticking with these brands may not make much of a difference. You'll find phthalates in too many other personal-care products, including body lotions, hair sprays, perfumes, and deodorants. The chemicals are used to help fragrances linger and take the stiffness out of hair spray, among other reasons. They're also in detergents, food packaging, pharmaceuticals, and plastic toys. And they have turned up in our bodies.Although phthalates show up in so many places, they're often absent from labels because disclosure is not always required. That's the case with fragrances. We tested eight fragrances and although none of the products included phthalates in its ingredient list, they all contained the chemicals. Some were made by companies that specifically told us their products were free of phthalates, and two even say as much on their Web sites.Getting your nails done or spritzing on your favorite perfume obviously isn't going to kill you. But the health effects of regular long-term exposure, even to small amounts, are still unknown.Makeup wakeup callCompanies that have eliminated phthalates are no doubt getting the message that people are paying more attention to ingredients. But public concern isn't the only factor driving the reformulations. Another reason is a European ban. Although the U.S. has outlawed just eight cosmetic ingredients, the European Union has banned more than 1,000. For companies that make cosmetics, complying with E.U. rules makes good business sense. It's more efficient to sell the same product worldwide. It's also good PR. About 380 U.S. companies have publicly pledged their allegiance to cosmetic safety by signing the Compact for Global Production of Safe Health & Beauty Products, under which they voluntarily pledged to reformulate globally to meet E.U. standards.The reformulation trend is likely to gain further momentum from the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005, which took effect only this year. Manufacturers that sell over $1 million a year in personal-care products in the state must report any products containing a chemical that is either a carcinogen or a reproductive or developmental toxic agent. Among those that must be disclosed are the phthalates DBP and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). California plans make this information public, possibly on the Web, so some companies may choose to remove rather than report the ingredients.Guinea pig nationDespite the laws, pacts, and reformulations, questions about safety remain. Cosmetic industry critics argue that the Food and Drug Administration has not told companies what "safe" means, leaving them to make their own decisions. In fact, with cosmetics, the government generally takes action only after safety issues crop up.Take the case of Rio hair relaxers. In December 1994, the FDA warned against two products sold through infomercials after consumers complained about hair loss, scalp irritation, and hair turning green. Rio announced that it would stop sales but there were reports that it continued to take orders. The California Department of Health then stepped in to halt sales and in January 1995, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles filed a seizure action. By then, the FDA had received more than 3,000 complaints. Rio later reformulated and renamed its products.The Rio case illustrates how holes in the government's cosmetic regulatory system can hurt consumers. The industry essentially regulates itself. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel, made up of physicians and toxicologists and funded by the industry's leading trade group--the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA)--assesses ingredient safety. Another industry group reviews fragrances and helps create safety standards. But manufacturers aren't obligated to do anything with this information."We're working on the honor system when it comes to cosmetics safety," says Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a research and advocacy group. "In the absence of federal standards, we have a huge range of safety in the products we buy every day."The FDA has made efforts to improve its ability to spot problems and issue warnings. The agency now has a computerized database, called CAERS, that collects reports of problems such as allergic reactions. Complaints can be sent via the FDA Web site or by calling a district office. But Amy Newburger, a dermatologist at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City and a former member of the FDA's General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel, says her experiences make her wonder about the system's effectiveness. In one case, she filed a report by phone and on the CAERS system after she and several of her patients got a rash with blisters after using an anti-aging treatment. It wasn't until a year later, in November 2006, that the FDA sent an e-mail asking her to complete some forms, she says. The FDA responds that it doesn't provide information or feedback to people who file complaints. It simply routes them to the appropriate office for evaluation. The FDA says it may also send reports to companies.So what are the risks?Scientists know very little about how repeated exposure to small amounts of phthalates in cosmetics may affect your health, if at all. But some studies suggest that the chemicals are present in our bodies.In 2005, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that it had found breakdown chemicals from two of the most common cosmetic phthalates in almost every member of a group of 2,782 people it examined. A separate study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) in 2005 showed that men who used the most personal-care products, such as after-shave and cologne, had the highest urinary levels of a breakdown product of diethyl phthalate (DEP).In rodent studies, phthalates have caused testicular injury, liver injury, and liver cancer. We found no such clear hazards in human research. But we did find studies suggesting that phthalates may be associated with other health issues, including the following four examples from one source alone, EHP, which is a leading journal published by the National Institutes of Health. In 2000, EHP published a small study that said elevated blood levels of phthalates were associated with premature breast development in young girls. Another report in 2003 found that men with higher concentrations of two phthalate breakdown products in their urine were more likely to have a low sperm count or low sperm motility. A study published in 2005 said women with higher levels of four phthalate compounds in their urine during pregnancy were likelier to give birth to boys with smaller scrotums. And a 2006 report cited low testosterone levels in male newborns exposed to higher levels of phthalates in breast milk.Experts in the industry and the government are aware of such reports but say there is no cause for alarm. The FDA, for instance, concluded after a thorough review of the literature that "it's not clear what effect, if any, phthalates have on health." And the CTFA, the industry trade group, notes that government and scientific bodies in the U.S. and Canada have examined phthalates without restricting their use in cosmetics. After the 2005 report linking phthalate exposure to smaller scrotum size, in particular, the trade group said, "The sensational and alarming conclusions being drawn from this single study are completely speculative and scientifically unwarranted."Even companies that have dropped phthalates from products say they are safe. "This policy is driven by a wish to allay public concern and does not reflect concern with the safe use of the ingredients," Avon said after announcing that it would cut DBP from its product line. John Bailey, the CTFA's executive vice president for science, says ingredients like DBP in nail polish are simply not a hazard in such small amounts.On the other side are some environmental and public-health advocates who say possible carcinogens and reproductive toxins do not belong in cosmetics, no matter how small the amount. "We take issue with the idea that a little bit of poison doesn't matter, because safer alternatives are available," says Stacy Malkan, communications director of Health Care Without Harm. "Companies should be making the safest products possible, instead of trying to convince us that a little bit of toxic chemicals are OK." While the scientific jury is still out, we at ShopSmart believe it makes sense to reduce your exposure to phthalates, especially if you're nursing, pregnant, or trying to become pregnant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)