SIGG is offering a free bottle exchange, before October 31st.

You know those shiny metal water bottles you replaced your old Nalgene^TM ones with? (Yeah, the ones you practically maxed out your credit cards to buy…) Well, it turns out that some of them – most notably those made by so-called eco-friendly manufacturers SIGG and Gaiam – may be lined with a material that leaches bisphenol A (a.k.a. BPA), the nasty endocrine-disrupting, cancer-causing chemical you were trying to avoid in the first place! (Scroll down to read one of our older blog posts or visit ewg.org to learn more about BPA and how you can reduce your exposures.)

The “good” news is that SIGG is offering a voluntary exchange program if you have a SIGG bottle that was made prior to August 2008. (Here’s how to tell whether or not you have one of the bottles in question.) You may also be able to return your bottle to any major retailer, such as EMS, in exchange for a new BPA-free version. Either way, make sure you act fast! The program ends on October 31^st.

If, like me, all this information makes your head swim and leaves you thirsty for some unbiased suggestions about what kind of bottle you should (or shouldn’t) buy, “The ZRecs 2009 BPA-Free Water Bottle Showdown” includes reviews for nearly 40 alternatives.

I have a confession to make. I’m addicted to single-use plastic bags…

 
I’ve tried to quit. I’ve tried substituting paper for plastic. And of course I own a bunch of Chicobags and a plethora of other reuseable shopping bags. But as a busy working mom who lives 30-minutes from the nearest supermarket, I often shop when I can. Which means I don’t always have bags with me when I head to the store. I know, it’s shameful. But awareness is the first step toward making change, right?

Perhaps because of my pervasive plastic habit, I was struck by a recent news story about Yvonne Benedict, a so-called “bag lady” in northern, VT, whom the reporter described as “an unlikely environmental superhero.” Hey, if an 86-year-old woman can find a way to help the environment, I can too. Have a look at what Yvonne is doing to keep plastic bags out of local landfills. 

Still wondering about that age-old question: Paper or plastic?
In addition to contributing to environmental devastation, studies show that the inks and colorants used on some plastic bags contain  lead, proven to damage the brain, kidneys, and reproductive system, and cause birth defects, slow growth, and  hearing problems. 

They say admitting your addition is the first step in kicking the habit. Now that my secret is, well, no longer secret, I'm committed to redoubling my efforts to bagging my bag habit. I'll keep you posted.

As an avid tea drinker (3 or 4 cups a day!), I was greatly disturbed when I was recently told that tea bags are often glued with PVC or other thermoplastics.  These can leach out when heated.  Add to that, many tea bags are bleached, as well, which can lead to dioxin leaching.

I'm an addict, so rather than give up the tea, I researched. It turns out, the toxic teabag tidbit was in fact true—at one time. Consumers were outraged when they learned about what was really holding tea bags together and about the bleaching processes of the tea paper.  Following the uproar, many companies spent their resources on rectifying the problem by finding new, innovative ways to keep the taste of a teabag neutral without bleaching.

Nonetheless, it’s safe to say that not all companies are being responsible. It is important to pay attention: tea companies felt the pressure to change because consumers made noise. With a wide range of resources now available to us, such a consumer reports, blogs, and online reviews, it is easier than ever to access more information on everyday products. Unless we consumers read product labels, and speak up when something does not add up with a product, there will never be anyone to make the changes that should be made.

We always have choices; there are plenty of alternatives to teabags on the market: tea balls, strainers, infusers ... find out what suits you best, and use the product that fits with your lifestyle.

Aaahhh…September is right around the corner.  September signals summer slowly winding to an end, and for many adults, signals a renewed sense of purpose.  I think many of us “grown-ups” regard September as a kind of “New Year” as we are so used to associating this month with the start of a new school year.  So, in the spirit of my pseudo holiday, I have decided to take on a September New Year’s Resolution - I hereby resolve to send my sons back to school with PVC-free school supplies.

PVC, polyvinyl chloride, has been notoriously deemed the “poison plastic” for good reason.  Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) is unique among plastics because it contains dangerous chemical additives used to soften or stabilize it. These harmful chemicals include phthalates, lead, cadmium, and/or organotins. One could argue that no other plastic contributes to the release of as many reproductive health toxicants than PVC.  PVC’s lifecycle is one of the largest sources of dioxins in our environment.  Exposure to dioxin has been linked with birth defects, decreased fertility, inability to carry pregnancies to term, lowered testosterone levels, decreased sperm counts, and decreased testis size.  Furthermore, several studies have detected measureable amounts of dioxin in women's breastmilk.

Additionally, PVC is responsible for the consumption of over 90% of all phthalates worldwide.  Phthalates must be added to PVC in large quantities – and can make up to 60% of the final product by weight.  Over 5 million tons of phthalates are used in vinyl every year, and more than 80 million tons of phthalates are estimated to be contained in the stock of PVC products now in use in buildings and other applications.  Exposure to phthalates has been linked to reproductive problems including shorter pregnancy duration, premature breast development in females and sperm damage and impaired reproductive development in males.

You may be thinking to yourself, “Yes, PVC is bad, but what on earth does PVC have to do with school supplies?”  Parents across the country are getting ready to stock up on binders and lunchboxes, and while it’s easy to know the healthiest foods to pack in those lunchboxes, many parents are not aware of the toxic plastic used to make them.  In fact, the average child’s character-themed backpack is filled with supplies and materials made from toxic PVC. Lunchboxes, binders, vinyl backpacks, and even art supplies are frequently made out of PVC.  (more…)

In 2008, Maine’s Governor John Baldacci signed into law an Act to Protect Children's Health and the Environment from Toxic Chemicals in Toys and Children's Products. This law is aimed at protecting children’s health from unnecessary and dangerous chemicals in everyday consumer products. It is also an important step toward protecting Maine’s natural environment, as well as women of childbearing age, from the toxic effects of chemicals.

The law requires Maine to adopt a list of priority chemicals of high concern, forces manufacturers to disclose the toxic chemicals they add to products, and authorizes the state to require safer alternatives whenever they are available.  This point is so critical because it finally places the responsibility on the manufacturer, not the consumer.

The first list of chemicals has been released and is available on the Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s website.  Reporter Meg Haskell with the Bangor Daily News recently wrote about the list.

 “At 83 pages, the list includes many compounds whose names would be unfamiliar to most people. But some, such as lead, mercury and formaldehyde, are widely recognized for their toxic effects on babies and young children.

Others, such as phthalates, bisphenol-A and deca, have become more familiar in recent years as public health and environmental groups have sounded the alarm about their presence in household goods.

Infant formula, plastic shower curtains, toys, cosmetics, furniture and home electronics are among the products that can contain and emit the toxic chemicals.”

This list reinforces the concern and need for national reform, don’t you think?

Why do we wear seatbelts? Why do we bring a surplus of diapers and multiple changes of clothes when we take our babies on a single outing?  Why do we wear helmets while biking and skiing? Why – because by golly, we’re smart kids and we have learned to intrinsically employ the precautionary principle…now if only our law and policy makers could do the same.

According to Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, “there are 82,000 chemicals available for use in the U.S. yet only about 200 chemicals have been assessed for safety.  Only 5 chemicals have been removed from use based on health and safety concerns.”  Currently, in the United Sates, law makers require strong, and in many cases, conclusive evidence that a contaminant has adverse human health effects before preventative actions are taken.  In other words, the burden is on people to prove a chemical is unsafe before lawmakers will take action. The problem with this policy, however, is “serous, evident effects such as endocrine disruption, climate change, [and] cancer…can seldom be linked to a single cause.  Scientific standards of certainty may be impossible to attain when causes and outcomes are multiple; latent periods are long; timing of exposure is crucial; unexposed, “control” populations do not exist; or cofounding factors are unidentified (www.sehn.org ). 

So, if definitively linking specific contaminants to specific adverse health outcomes is sometimes a nearly impossible task, how could our government better protect us?  The U.S. should borrow a page from the European Union’s playbook and begin to adopt the Precautionary Principle – that’s how.  (more…)

Ever since Al Gore started promoting his film “An Inconvenient Truth,” much of what we’ve seen or heard about the environment has been bad news. Whether it’s environmental links to cancer, widespread drought, or rising sea levels and melting polar ice caps, all this information can make you feel pretty hopeless. While there is plenty to be aware of -- and concerned about -- there's no need to despair.

On my way home from work the other day, I was lucky enough to catch an NPR story about the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, OH.
 

 
For those of you who don’t know, an oil slick and debris in the Cuyahoga River caught fire on June 22, 1969, drawing national attention to environmental problems in that state. Now, forty years later, the river is making a comeback and has gone from “fire to fish-friendly,” proving that when we set our minds to it, we CAN make a difference. 

Want to know more about what YOU can do? Register for PPNNE's “Critical Link” conference on September 10, where a panel of experts will address how all of us can protect ourselves and our families and exercise greater power as consumers and citizens in a discussion titled, “We ARE Part of the Solution.”

Efforts to ban specific toxic chemicals like Deca and BPA make a difference. The reality, however, is that there are  more than 82,000 different chemicals in production.  Dealing with harmful chemicals one by one could take a lifetime. Or more.  A more effective way to protect ourselves from exposure is through policy that takes a precautionary approach.  This framework requires thorough evaluation of chemicals so that unsafe chemicals don’t make it to the market in the first place and promotes the use of the least toxic alternatives.

Last April, Maine took a huge step in this direction last April with the passage of the Kid-Safe Products Law.  This landmark law will reduce children’s exposure to chemicals that based on “credible scientific evidence” may be harmful to our health.  PPNNE worked with Alliance for A Clean and Healthy Maine on the bill and applauds its passage.

Maine's State House

The Kid-Safe Products Law applies to children’s products, but don’t just think of sippy cups and toys. ‘Children’s products’ are defined broadly to include products to which kids are exposed. While exceptions are written in for some everyday products it is clear the bill was written with children’s safety in mind.  For example, while food  is generally exempt from the law, the law does apply to baby food and infant formula. Furthermore, the bill specifically  targets chemicals that are known or likely reproductive or developmental toxicants. It also singles out endocrine disrupters, which are frequently linked to reproductive health problems.

Roughly one year later implementation is underway in Maine, and the law has become a national role model of sorts.

(more…)

I read a review today for the movie "Food, Inc." and it got me thinking about genetically modified organisms (aka GMOs).  We talk a lot about environmental contaminants in cosmetic products, plastics, soaps, etc. and how they affect our bodies and fertility. But what about what we eat and where our food comes from?

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) recently issued a position paper calling for a moratorium on GMOs until long-term, independent studies can prove their safety.

"Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health," said Dr. Amy Dean, PR chair and Board Member of AAEM.

The report goes on to say: “several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”

It's time to learn more about the food we eat and it can affect our reproductive health.  Have you seen the movie yet?  Let us know what you think!

Do you want in depth information on the links between human health & the environment? Are you  just looking for a good book to read on the beach?  Do you doubt the existence of one book that fits both of these criteria? Please, allow Dr. Sandra Steingraber to prove you wrong!

Steingraber is a scientist and a storyteller. She weaves biographical information, history, and scientific data into a coherent picture of how “Lifestyle and environment are not independent categories that can be untwisted from each other: to talk about one is to talk about the other” (Steingraber, 1997).

Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment examines the link between chemicals and cancer, challenging the heavy emphasis we place on genetics and lifestyle as causes for cancer.  Having Faith: An Ecologist’s Journey to Motherhood discusses the ecology of pregnancy. Both books are a strong argument for the precautionary principle: that chemicals should not be released into the environment until we know they are “almost certainly not going to hurt anyone” and that least toxic alternatives should always be used (Steingraber, 1997).

Dr. Steingraber is the key note speaker at PPNNE’s upcoming Critical Link conference. She is as compelling a speaker as she is a writer. We hope you will come see her in person.

Read any good environmental health books lately? Let me know. I am looking for more summer reading.