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.