Green Options

The Environmental Working Group has done it again. Have a mentioned lately how much I appreciate them?

They’ve just released a report and new guide for all of us about what CFL bulbs contain the least mercury. Let me back up.

Awhile back I posted on my blog Non-Toxic Kids about the mercury in those energy efficient CFL bulbs, what to do if you break one, and another post about where to recycle them.

We know that CFL bulbs save gobs of valuable energy and are the most responsible, greenest choice. But no one wants mercury, what we all avoid eating fish for (especially when pregnant), all over our house. So the folks at EWG have created a guide to the bulbs with the lowest amount of mercury in each, and a handy list of steps to follow if you do break a bulb.

Environmental groups and food producers oppose the Renewable Fuels Association’s requests for support from the stimulus package that includes $1 billion to finance current operations and a $50 billion federal loan guarantee, as well as job tax credits.

The Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Working Group, Friends of Earth, and the Network for New Energy Choices released a statement today saying that federal government subsidies and mandates for corn-based ethanol produce potentially catastrophic consequences to the environment, and have no payback to taxpayers in terms of alleviating global warming effects, providing for energy security, or even simply reducing the cost of driving. The group’s stance:

“With evidence mounting that biofuels are worsening global warming and harming water quality and wildlife habitat, it makes no sense for the federal government to lavish billions more on an industry already flush with government assistance. It is time for ethanol to stand on its own.”

Myth: Drinking bottled water is safer than drinking tap water.

Truth: You are being ripped off, and then poisoned, by drinking bottled water from unknown sources.

Recently found in bottled drinking water: Trihalomethanes, Haloacetic acids, Nitrates, Ammonia, Acetaldehyde, Hexane, Toluene, bacterial contamination, Arsenic, radioactivity contamination (and more…)

Not the sort of chemical cocktail you had in mind when you bought bottled water at the grocery store, now is it?

The results of a two year study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) were recently released, detailing the lab tests of 10 brands of bottled drinking water from 8 different states in the US.

The report is shocking.

38 different chemical pollutants were detected, with an average of 8 contaminants per brand. One-third of the chemicals they found are not even regulated in drinking water. Some brands, like Sam’s Choice (Wal Mart) and Acadia (Giant) contained cancer-causing chemicals at levels exceeding the standards for safety set by the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) tested ten brands of bottled water and found that Wal-Mart’s “Sam’s Choice” contained chemical levels higher than is legal in California, and exceeding voluntary limits set by the industry.

The study found that 10 popular brands of bottled water, purchased from grocery stores and other retailers in 9 states and the District of Columbia, contained 38 chemical pollutants altogether, with an average of 8 contaminants in each brand.  The group is not disclosing most of the brand names at this point, but did single out Wal Mart’s “Sam’s Choice,” as a brand to be wary of.

The Environmental Working Group found that some of the Sam’s Choice bottled water bought from stores in Mountain View and Oakland, California, came from the Las Vegas Valley Water District’s public water supply, which is sometimes chlorinated.  Scott Huntley, a spokesman for the Las Vegas Valley Water District, said he had no knowledge that Wal-Mart was using Las Vegas’s water supply for bottling.

On Tuesday, the Environmental Working Group filed a notice to sue Wal-Mart, stating that the chain did not effectively warn the public about the health risks of their bottled water.

Teenage Girls Exposed to Hormone Altering Chemicals During Critical Development of Reproductive System

A new study on teenagers and toxic chemicals was released by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), and it has some very disturbing implications. Laboratory tests revealed that adolescent girls across America are contaminated with chemicals commonly used in cosmetics and body care products. The study of 20 teens found an average of 13 different hormone-altering chemicals in their bodies.

The laboratory tests found 16 chemicals from 4 different chemical families - phthalates, triclosan, parabens, and musks - in the blood and urine samples of the girls. Studies have linked these chemicals to potential health effects, including cancer and hormone disruption. This work represents the first focused look at exposure data for parabens in teens, and indicates that young women are widely exposed to this common class of cosmetic preservatives, with methylparaben and propylparaben detected in every single girl tested.

Every single girl tested had detectable levels of toxic cosmetics chemicals in their blood or urine!

How is this possible?

Toddlers Have Three Times the Level of PBDEs as Their Mothers

A new study finds that the concentrations of hormone-disrupting chemicals known as PBDEs in young children are significantly higher than their mothers. The investigation, conducted for the Environmental Working Group, tested blood samples of 20 mothers and their young children for PBDEs, a common fire retardant found in foam mattresses, furniture, and electronics.

According to the study, 11 different flame retardants were found in the children’s blood, and the levels were three times that of their mothers. Deca, a PBDE banned in Europe but still legal and unregulated in the US, was measured in 65 percent of the children. Two other fire retardant chemicals, Octa and Penta, are no longer made in the US, but are found in items made before the ban. Importing furniture containing Penta is still legal, due to a regulatory loophole.

I often wonder why our beauty products do not come with warning labels; most of them are filled with toxins harmful to our bodies and our environment. Ingredients such as parabens, sodium lauryl sulfate, germall, coal tar derivatives, urea, phthalates, toluene, formaldehyde, mineral oil, propylene glycol, triclosan, DEA, TEA, MEA, synthetic fragrances, PEG, BHA, and petroleum. Many of these ingredients have been confirmed to cause a wide range of cancers, reproductive concerns, allergies, and a sizeable list of health problems. Furthermore the ingredients which pollute our bodies also pollute the environment.To see the health effects of your current cosmetics check out the Environment Working Group’s Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database. In the search field of the website, type your brand of cosmetics, or simply type one of its ingredients. Information will appear using a 1–10 ratio scale; 10 being the most harmful brand or ingredient.Your skin is your largest organ. It is porous; everything you apply on your body seeps into your pores. Therefore, what you put on your body is as important as what you put in it. Why not use beauty products kind to animals, kind to the planet, and kind to you?

What’s the solution?After much research concerning cosmetics which are safe, yet provide the desired results, I’ve found a great website to share: Holistic Beauty.

An exclusive investigative report in this week’s Mother Jones provides yet another compelling reason to shred and recycle your office paper: revelations about a now-defunct private security firm that searched through Greenpeace’s trash for documents and targeted other environmental groups such as the Center for Food Safety and the Environmental Working Group.

Obviously, breastfed babies are happiest and healthiest; however, sometimes families have to use infant formulas to nourish their young ones. A new report issued by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) makes recommendations for feeding babies safely and avoiding Bisphenol-A (BPA). BPA is a hormone disruptor that can harm brain development and may affect behavior. Many families have switched to BPA-free bottles and sippy cups; however, infant formula containers pose a higher risk to children than baby bottles when it comes to BPA leaching.

Back in October, I wrote about the risk of BPA leaching into food and infant formula stored in tin/steel cans. Steel cans are lined with plastic containing BPA to prevent contamination from the can to the food/formula. EWG found that,

1 out of every 16 infants fed ready-to-eat liquid formula are exposed to BPA at doses exceeding those that caused increased aggression and significant changes in testosterone levels in laboratory animals.

Natural Soap?Myth: Beauty products sold as “natural” and “organic” at health food stores and coops are truly natural and organic.

Facts: Some natural, organic beauty products are exactly what they claim to be; however, many of the trusted brands featured in health food stores and coops contain harmful ingredients and/or are not 100% natural. Anyone can claim their product is natural and/or organic, as there are no

[...]