Thursday, August 12, 2010
Just in time for back to school shopping - a PVC Guide from CHEJ!
Visit http://bit.ly/9w9NmM for more information and great tips for doing safer school prep this year.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Sanity, Hope AND Chemical Reform - too much to ask for?
I'm very lucky to have such good friends. Even luckier when they check in to make sure I am not making myself too crazy in the quest to identify and control at least some of the chemical dangers that threaten the health and safety of all Americans, especially our children. It is a crazy situation - no doubt about that. But knowing more about what is happening (the good and the bad) is empowering. Having information allows us all to make more informed choices. That is exactly why The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act (HR-5820 Waxman/Rush) is calling for clear labeling on consumer goods, in addition to more thorough testing.
I'll admit that there have been times over the past few years when I felt fairly hopeless about the reality of navigating the chemical jungle safely. Everywhere I turned, something was wrong with something – and the rising pediatric cancer rates are enough to feed any parents’ nightmares. The reason I’ve picked it up again with such enthusiasm and commitment, is because of the pending legislation and the fact that there is a huge wave of support for change. In the words of Andy Igrejas, Director of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, "There has never been more momentum to reform our federal chemical policy." He has also observed the "unusual diversity of support for reform. It is both broad and deep."
Chemical regulation policies are being reviewed for the first time in 30 years, so there IS hope. The new regulations will probably not be perfect – the 'Big Chemical' lobby that they we fighting against will take years to conquer. I am optimistic, however, that it will be a good starting point and that it will keep the door open to start making some serious changes.
So if ever you were inspired to make a change for the better, NOW is the time! Please check out the "Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families" website to see how you can get involved. They make it very easy for you to add your voice to the growing number of individuals and organizations who are determined to ensure that chemicals are safe before they are sold, purchased and consumed by the American public. Join us!
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
BPA for sale...
There has been a lot of news lately about the overwhelming amount of BPA in store receipts. Just when a lot of us thought we'd cleared that hurdle by using BPA-free plastics, canned goods, etc, BPA shows up in a form that is very hard to avoid. Once I heard this, I was extra vigilant about using my hand sanitizer (yep, that again) as soon as I got to the car - a stopgap precaution before I could get to the sink at home. And then THIS. In a recent article, The Environmental Working Group, "...warns not to use an alcohol based hand sanitizer after handling a receipt as it causes greater absorption of the chemical." Sigh. This is a tough one.
There are strategies to minimize the exposure - I'll try carrying an envelope for receipts and having the cashier (poor exposed cashiers!) place the receipt directly in the envelope without touching it. Not ideal, but a start.
My hope is that some of the many phone apps geniuses out there will develop apps that enable consumers to get a digital copy of the receipt before it is even printed. There is a barcode on the bottom of each receipt after all - and I scan all kinds of barcodes with my (beloved) Droid. So - can it really be so hard to do? I’d be equally thrilled with a receipt that was available online, or via email. Anything to keep these dratted pieces of paper out of my hands – and my kids reach – while still enabling me to document transactions (see Honey, I do try to stay organized!). I can tell you this - I would go out of my way to shop at a store that offered these types of options. Would you?
There are strategies to minimize the exposure - I'll try carrying an envelope for receipts and having the cashier (poor exposed cashiers!) place the receipt directly in the envelope without touching it. Not ideal, but a start.
My hope is that some of the many phone apps geniuses out there will develop apps that enable consumers to get a digital copy of the receipt before it is even printed. There is a barcode on the bottom of each receipt after all - and I scan all kinds of barcodes with my (beloved) Droid. So - can it really be so hard to do? I’d be equally thrilled with a receipt that was available online, or via email. Anything to keep these dratted pieces of paper out of my hands – and my kids reach – while still enabling me to document transactions (see Honey, I do try to stay organized!). I can tell you this - I would go out of my way to shop at a store that offered these types of options. Would you?
Monday, August 2, 2010
I'm anti-antibacterial products - read on to see why you might want to be, too.
I’ll start by admitting that I am an obsessive hand sanitizer and wash my hands religiously. Anyone who knows me, knows that germs are the stuff of my nightmares – and with 2 small children it is a daily concern. It didn’t help that their first few winters were full of exciting threats like H1N1 and bird flu epidemics. A quick and easy way to clean hands on the go seemed like a no-brainer safety precaution. After all, they are used throughout hospitals, schools and even grocery stores these days. Must be perfectly safe, right? In addition, I felt 'safe' getting home and using antibacterial soap to further clean off any pesky germs collected on forays to the grocery store, mall or playground.
I didn’t mind that hand sanitizers and antibacterial soaps killed the ‘good’ bacteria along with the bad. I could live with that.
It was the better understanding of ‘antimicrobial’ that first sent up a red flare for me. I thought the term antimicrobial just meant ‘germ killer’, but antimicrobial agents actually inhibit cellular reproduction. In essence, it mutates the bacteria and while, yes, that kills it, it also changes it. Bacteria are smart little critters – how long before they find a new and better way around our attempts to alter their structure? I’m not foolish enough to get out of my depth on this one. I’m not a scientist and a Master in Public Health in Environmental Health is just a Lotto dream for me – but suffice it to say, this has concerned a number of people with a much better grasp of the subject matter. I started to question my faith in antibacterial products.
Then the issue really spoke to me. Nearly all antibacterial soaps and some hand sanitizers contain triclosan and triclocarban – PESTICIDES that can damage reproductive organs, sperm quality and the production of thyroid and sex hormones. So I have been coating my hands – and so much worse, my CHILDRENS’ hands – with a PESTICIDE??? I won’t even let the bug guy in our house. I try ‘deterring’ spiders with lemon scents. I spread cinnamon and cayenne pepper all over our foyer in an attempt to chase away ants. But I am regularly and liberally using a pesticide-laced soap on our skin? Not anymore.
How is it possible that products containing such a potentially dangerous ingredient are so readily available without any kind of warning? It all comes back to the refrain – we desperately need reformed federal policies to protect the public from toxic chemicals.
Apparently the FDA is looking into the safety of antibacterial products containing triclosan and triclocarban now that they have been sued by the National Resources Defense Council – a fact I learned today while researching this topic. I’m not waiting for their verdict to ban all antimicrobial and antibacterial products, especially those containing triclosan, from our home.
As for alcohol-based hand-sanitizers, the jury (MY jury, anyway) is still out. When I buy non-alcohol 'kid safe' hand sanitizers, they describe themselves as 'antimicrobial' – not something I want to continue. Maybe the alcohol-based hand sanitizers are still our best bet when we can't get to plain soap and water. I'm off to find options that I can live with – ideally without having to dangle 2 2-year olds over the sinks in public bathrooms on a regular basis. One thing is for sure – although we'll still be big hand washers whether at home or away, we will never use antibacterial soaps again.
Then the downsides started cropping up...
I didn’t mind that hand sanitizers and antibacterial soaps killed the ‘good’ bacteria along with the bad. I could live with that.
It was the better understanding of ‘antimicrobial’ that first sent up a red flare for me. I thought the term antimicrobial just meant ‘germ killer’, but antimicrobial agents actually inhibit cellular reproduction. In essence, it mutates the bacteria and while, yes, that kills it, it also changes it. Bacteria are smart little critters – how long before they find a new and better way around our attempts to alter their structure? I’m not foolish enough to get out of my depth on this one. I’m not a scientist and a Master in Public Health in Environmental Health is just a Lotto dream for me – but suffice it to say, this has concerned a number of people with a much better grasp of the subject matter. I started to question my faith in antibacterial products.
Then the issue really spoke to me. Nearly all antibacterial soaps and some hand sanitizers contain triclosan and triclocarban – PESTICIDES that can damage reproductive organs, sperm quality and the production of thyroid and sex hormones. So I have been coating my hands – and so much worse, my CHILDRENS’ hands – with a PESTICIDE??? I won’t even let the bug guy in our house. I try ‘deterring’ spiders with lemon scents. I spread cinnamon and cayenne pepper all over our foyer in an attempt to chase away ants. But I am regularly and liberally using a pesticide-laced soap on our skin? Not anymore.
How is it possible that products containing such a potentially dangerous ingredient are so readily available without any kind of warning? It all comes back to the refrain – we desperately need reformed federal policies to protect the public from toxic chemicals.
Apparently the FDA is looking into the safety of antibacterial products containing triclosan and triclocarban now that they have been sued by the National Resources Defense Council – a fact I learned today while researching this topic. I’m not waiting for their verdict to ban all antimicrobial and antibacterial products, especially those containing triclosan, from our home.
As for alcohol-based hand-sanitizers, the jury (MY jury, anyway) is still out. When I buy non-alcohol 'kid safe' hand sanitizers, they describe themselves as 'antimicrobial' – not something I want to continue. Maybe the alcohol-based hand sanitizers are still our best bet when we can't get to plain soap and water. I'm off to find options that I can live with – ideally without having to dangle 2 2-year olds over the sinks in public bathrooms on a regular basis. One thing is for sure – although we'll still be big hand washers whether at home or away, we will never use antibacterial soaps again.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Help Dr. Susan Shaw and MERI
Even though it isn't technically part of my usual consumer product safety focus, I can't get Dr. Shaw's speech out of my head. The dangerous toxins in our ocean and the terrifying impact that the oil spill will have on our already chemical-drenched environment are enough to give anyone nightmares. It is too easy to feel powerless and immobilized by the enormity of it all.
Short of moving to Maine and volunteering for the Institute on a daily basis, there are some things that we can do to help. I found a wishlist on the MERI Center for Marine Studies/Marine Environmental Research Institute (MERI) website.
While some items are a bit specific (liquid nitrogen portable container, stainless steel sink, oars...), there are a few simple items on the list that could be shipped fairly easily - I'm going to start with children's books and fish food. For more information, contact Sarah Curts at 207-374-2135 or info@meriresearch.org.
Dr. Shaw and her site are inspiring. Visit MERI online when you need to be reassured that someone is working around the clock to make a positive difference in this unthinkable situation.
|
|
|
House Members, Witnesses Clash Over Chemicals Regulation
Things are heating up. The following excerpts are taken from the full article that was posted on the EWG site by Nils Bruzelius in Featured Articles, House status, Legislation on July 30, 2010.
"At a packed hearing before a key House subcommittee, Environmental Working Group President and co-founder Ken Cook called on Congress yesterday (July 29) to pass tough new legislation to repair a “broken toxic chemicals policy” that is currently so weak “the American public has lost confidence that the products they are using, the chemicals they are being exposed to, are safe.”
Reps. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.), the subcommittee chairman, and Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the parent Committee on Energy and Commerce, co-sponsored the pending bill along with three other House members.
“Americans are exposed to a staggering number and variety of chemicals – even before birth,” Waxman said in his opening remarks, “yet consumers lack even basic information about these chemical exposures. And the federal government is no less in the dark.”
Ranking Republican member Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) set the contrary theme voiced by a number of Republicans, scoring the bill with words including “cumbersome,” “unworkable,” “ineffective,” and “overly broad.”
Perhaps the most unexpected testimony of the day came from Howard Williams, vice-president and general manager of the Pennsylvania Division of Construction Specialties, Inc., a maker of building products for commercial construction. Williams described his firm’s difficulties in obtaining detailed information about the chemicals in the materials it buys, focusing particular on PBTs (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals) and carcinogens.
“Environmentally preferable and green building standards reward those whose materials have high amounts of recycled content,” Williams noted, but if the original materials contain long-lasting PBT chemicals, this has the unintended effect of recycling these toxic materials “from one generation to another.”
Describing himself as a Republican from a conservative area of Pennsylvania, Williams said:
“Given the economic and population multipliers, coupled with America’s global reach, H.R. 5820 becomes one of the more beneficially impactful pieces of legislation of our generation.”
Thank you, Environmental Working Group!
"At a packed hearing before a key House subcommittee, Environmental Working Group President and co-founder Ken Cook called on Congress yesterday (July 29) to pass tough new legislation to repair a “broken toxic chemicals policy” that is currently so weak “the American public has lost confidence that the products they are using, the chemicals they are being exposed to, are safe.”
Reps. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.), the subcommittee chairman, and Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the parent Committee on Energy and Commerce, co-sponsored the pending bill along with three other House members.
“Americans are exposed to a staggering number and variety of chemicals – even before birth,” Waxman said in his opening remarks, “yet consumers lack even basic information about these chemical exposures. And the federal government is no less in the dark.”
Ranking Republican member Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) set the contrary theme voiced by a number of Republicans, scoring the bill with words including “cumbersome,” “unworkable,” “ineffective,” and “overly broad.”
Perhaps the most unexpected testimony of the day came from Howard Williams, vice-president and general manager of the Pennsylvania Division of Construction Specialties, Inc., a maker of building products for commercial construction. Williams described his firm’s difficulties in obtaining detailed information about the chemicals in the materials it buys, focusing particular on PBTs (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals) and carcinogens.
“Environmentally preferable and green building standards reward those whose materials have high amounts of recycled content,” Williams noted, but if the original materials contain long-lasting PBT chemicals, this has the unintended effect of recycling these toxic materials “from one generation to another.”
Describing himself as a Republican from a conservative area of Pennsylvania, Williams said:
“Given the economic and population multipliers, coupled with America’s global reach, H.R. 5820 becomes one of the more beneficially impactful pieces of legislation of our generation.”
Thank you, Environmental Working Group!
Friday, July 30, 2010
Susan Shaw, Marine Toxicologist
Check out this amazing talk by Dr. Susan Shaw that addresses the dangerous levels of toxicity already in our bloodstreams, as well as the added threat posed by the chemical dispersants being used to 'solve' the oil spill in the gulf.
"We are not regulating chemicals properly in this country. We are hardly regulating them at all," says Shaw. "'Big Chemical' is what we are dealing with here. They're allowed to keep trade secrets so they don't even give the ingredients out, plus they don't give out health and safety data. So consequently they cannot be regulated before they go to market. So it's a case of innocent until guilty. The burden of proof is not on the producer."
It is on us, the consumers.
Partnered with companies that include the Marine Environmental Research Institute, The Wadsworth Center/NY State Department of Health, Mission Blue, CIESIN/Columbia University, the Gulf Restoration Network, Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries and Google Earth, Dr. Shaw is trying to get information to the public at large and find a solution to the environmental impact of the oil spill. Together, they are launching an independent study that will counter "the kind of crime scene secrecy that is going on in the Gulf now" to assess toxic impacts on our future health.
"My wish for the Gulf project is that we have the truth. Whatever it is, please let us have the truth - and to get there we need to do the assessment."
She is my new hero.
Thank you so much for sharing this with me, Bridget!
"We are not regulating chemicals properly in this country. We are hardly regulating them at all," says Shaw. "'Big Chemical' is what we are dealing with here. They're allowed to keep trade secrets so they don't even give the ingredients out, plus they don't give out health and safety data. So consequently they cannot be regulated before they go to market. So it's a case of innocent until guilty. The burden of proof is not on the producer."
It is on us, the consumers.
Partnered with companies that include the Marine Environmental Research Institute, The Wadsworth Center/NY State Department of Health, Mission Blue, CIESIN/Columbia University, the Gulf Restoration Network, Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries and Google Earth, Dr. Shaw is trying to get information to the public at large and find a solution to the environmental impact of the oil spill. Together, they are launching an independent study that will counter "the kind of crime scene secrecy that is going on in the Gulf now" to assess toxic impacts on our future health.
"My wish for the Gulf project is that we have the truth. Whatever it is, please let us have the truth - and to get there we need to do the assessment."
She is my new hero.
Thank you so much for sharing this with me, Bridget!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)