Enviroblog

Is bottled water safe? Who knows!?

2009-07-09T15:01:08Z

By Lisa Frack

As you might imagine, I read labels before I buy pretty much anything. But when they don't tell me a thing, why bother? Take, for example, bottled water.

Labels disclose very little. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Our new research into 200 popular brands of bottled water shows that less than 2 percent disclose the water's source, how the water has been purified and what chemical pollutants each bottle of water may contain. Just 2 of the 188 individual brands EWG analyzed disclosed these three very basic - and arguably essential - facts about their water. You can easily find your brand with our searchable (and embeddable) widget.

Some brands are better than others
Somewhat surprisingly, mainstream brands such as Sam's Club and Walgreen's scored relatively high marks, while waters marketed as elite, including Perrier, S. Pellegrino and the Whole Foods store brand, flunked because they provided almost no meaningful information for consumers. Ahhhh, marketing.

Speaking of marketing...
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the non-profit consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch explains the industry's marketing scam:

The Bottled water industry's strategy has been to market bottled water as the safe and clean alternative to tap water. This myth has been used to trick consumers into paying thousands times more for a product that is the same or even more polluted than the water available from our faucets.
Tap water in the United States undergoes rigorous testing for contaminants--as often as 480 times a month, far more than the once-a-week test for bottled water.

Why the glaring lack of disclosure?
When EWG's Jane Houlihan testified in Congress yesterday, she reported that bottled water companies enjoy a regulatory holiday under the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which give beverage corporations complete latitude to choose what, if any, information about their water they divulge to customers.

In contrast, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- the federal agency that oversees the nation's municipal water utilities -- requires all 52,000 community tap water suppliers nationwide to produce an annual water quality report: The utilities' reports detail water source and pollutant testing results for customers, as required under the Safe Drinking Water Act. An estimated 58 percent of these reports also describe water treatment methods. Houlihan notes:

Many people assume bottled water is healthier and safer to drink than ordinary tap water. But some companies have lured consumers away from the tap with claims of health and purity that aren't backed by public data. The ugly truth is that under lax federal law, consumers know very little about the quality of bottled water on which they spend billions every year.

You can hear it for yourself on the Today Show:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

PS - Thanks a million to our fans who provided us with the bottled water labels - we couldn't have done it without you.

Because pesticides on your food aren't bad enough

2009-07-07T15:03:50Z

By Amy Rosenthal

Worried about your cantaloupe catching fire?
You might not have to anymore! Your fruits and veggies may be doused in Deca, a flame retardant chemical and known neurotoxin.

How could a flame retardant get on my apples?
The food industry uses plastic pallets made with the toxic chemical Deca to store certain fruits and vegetables. These pallets may go through a process called "hydrocooling," where they're submerged or water is sprayed over them to keep the produce fresh. As the water is reused, Deca leaching from the pallets can build up, eventually leaving residue on the food itself.

(Fun fact: two of the fruits likely to be hydrocooled - apples and peaches - are the two with the most pesticide residues, according to EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides. How's that for your daily serving of chemicals?)

What are the risks of Deca?
Deca is a member of the family of flame retardants known as PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers). PBDEs, which accumulate in the blood and tissue of people and wildlife, have been associated with disruptions in brain development and hormone systems. Two other types of PBDEs have been pulled from the market due to health dangers, and 10 state legislatures have proposed bans on Deca.

Is anyone checking that my food is toxic-free?
The FDA has said that pallets made with Deca are "not authorized" for hydrocooling and that food with Deca residue would be considered "adulterated." Last week, EWG Senior Vice President Richard Wiles sent a letter to the FDA Commissioner urging her to investigate to see what's actually happening. No one knows for sure what these food companies are up to, but as Richard writes on EWG's Kid-Safe blog, "It's the FDA's job to find out."

New Doubts About Roundup

2009-07-07T05:00:00Z

By Elaine Shannon

As the East Coast monsoon season slogs on, there's carnage in the garden. The dandelions and plantains are elbowing the grass aside, and the morning glory vines are garrotting the daylilies. Over at Strosnider's Hardware, that bottle of Roundup is looking pretty fetching.

Mine is not an original thought. Glyphosate, the active chemical in Roundup and many other broadleaf weedkillers, is one of the most popular and widely used herbicides in the U.S. Americans use about 100 million pounds of glyphosate annually, to kill weeds in fields of "Roundup-ready" soybeans and corn, on lawns, along highway rights-of-way, around oil tanks and on lawns. For decades, the U.S. State Department has financed the use of Glyphosate to kill hardy coca plants in the Andes.

The U.S. government has treated the Roundup and other Glyphosate-based herbicides as relatively safe. "Glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to soil, with little potential for leaching to ground water," the Environmental Protection Agency says on its website. "Microbes in the soil readily and completely degrade it even under low temperature conditions. It tends to adhere to sediments when released to water. Glyphosate does not tend to accumulate in aquatic life."

But a recent report in Environmental Health News raises new questions about Roundup's safety. EHN highlights a new study by University of Caen scientists Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Séralini that shows that Roundup kills human cells, even when diluted "far below agricultural recommendations and [at an amount that] corresponds to low levels of residues in food or feed."

There's a twist: the culprit in the Caen study is not Glyphosate but so-called inert ingredients. "Astonishingly," the study says, "the supposed inert product POEA (polyethoxylated tallowamine) is the most potent one."

Benachour and Séralini, who is also an outspoken critic of genetically modified food crops, conclude that mixing Glyphosate with POEA, a detergent that helps Glyphosate penetrate a plant's skin, creates a more poisonous product than its component parts.

"This work clearly conﬁrms that the adjuvants [ingredients that enhance a weed-killer's effects] in Roundup formulations are not inert," the scientists write. Gylphosate-based herbicides now on the market , they say, "could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R[oundup] formulation-treated crops. "

This assertion is sure to stir debate and calls for much more research. I'm for both.

Meantime, I'm learning to see chickweed, clover, purslane and such as a nice mottled patchwork. And in the case of dandelions, lunch.

Intersex fish on Colbert Nation

2009-07-02T14:38:33Z

On July 1st Nicholas Kristof wrote an opinion piece in The New York Times on endocrine disruptors: It's Time to Learn from Frogs.

If you missed it, or prefer to get your science on Colbert Nation where Kristof appeared to discuss his piece, check out the show for yourself. Word to the wise: Colbert's humorous suggestion that intersex fish are caused by what Colbert calls "lady pee" is (surprise!) not true.

We recommend you read Kristof's NYT piece, his follow-up blog post, or our Enviroblog post on endocrine disruption to get the real story. But we're sure glad this important public health issue is getting some prime time.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Nicholas Kristof

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jeff Goldblum

Find your sunscreen in EWG's 2009 report

2009-07-02T13:32:13Z

This week my family is vacationing, like many American families, and we're doing our best to play outside - a lot. Which, of course, means we're in the sun. And since we're from Oregon, our skin isn't exactly used to the sun come July.

So I opened the medicine cabinet to see what sunscreens we have lying around from last year. Hoping they were the safe and effective kind. And one was. But many weren't. How did I know? EWG's sunscreen report, of course. The 2009 version is here!! And this year, it includes lip balms and face moisturizers, as well as the usual "beach" sunscreens.

The good news is that products are improving. For example, 19 percent fewer sunscreens contains oxybenzone, an active ingredient that disrupts the hormone system.

The bad news is that there are still only a few safe and effective brands that I'd use on my family: Of the 1,572 sunscreens and other sun-blocking products that we researched, 3 of 5 either don't protect skin from sun damage or contain hazardous chemicals -- or both. Yowza. Better check yours.

What you'll find in the report
There's a lot of information in our report to help you enjoy the sun safely this summer, pick safe and effective products, and understand the science behind sunscreens. Some highlights:

9 safety tips for enjoying the sun safely

Best "beach" and "sport" sunscreens

Best sun-protective lip balms

Best moisturizers

Be sure to check our comprehensive FAQ
You'll find complete, understandable answers to 19 questions about sunscreen, like:

How high of an SPF should I use?

Which sunscreens are best for children?

What's the matter with sprays and powder?

Doesn't the government ensure that sunscreens protect us?

Got a blog? Get the widget.
This year we created a sunscreen search widget for your blog so your readers can easily research sunscreen safety - right from your site.

Find Your Sunscreengreat free widgetsWidgetbox

Is there too much fluoride in your dog food? Read EWG's new report

2009-07-01T13:19:11Z

By Lisa Frack

You're probably familiar with the longstanding and often heated debate over the addition of fluoride to public water supplies. And while EWG does have an opinion on that, last week we focused on fluoride in dog food in a new report based on independent tests of 10 brands.

EWG's finding: High levels of fluoride in dog food
EWG found fluoride above healthy levels in 8 national brands of dog food marketed for both puppies and adults. The amount of fluoride in the dog food was up to 2.5 times higher than what the EPA has deemed a safe amount in drinking water.

Where is the fluoride coming from?
Some of this extra fluoride comes from the fluoridated water used to manufacture dog food. Most, however, is from the "bone meal" and various meat byproducts that are added to dog food - anything from "chicken byproduct meal" to "beef and bone meal."

These are basically ground bones, cooked with steam, dried, and mashed to make a cheap dog food filler. Since bones store fluoride, any product that includes bone meal is likely to be high in fluoride, too.

Why is excessive fluoride a problem?
Combined fluoride exposure from both food and water can easily range into unsafe territory. Routine exposure, like eating the same food every day, can predispose dogs to a variety of health problems: weakened bones, hormonal and behavior problems, and even bone cancer.

What can you do for your dog?
Check the ingredient list before you buy dog food. Look for and demand pet foods that do not include bone meal.

Read the full EWG report on fluoride in dog food.

[Thanks to MShades & Flickr CC for the pic]

About BPA: Do you feel lucky?

2009-06-30T10:00:00Z

By Elaine Shannon

Well, do you?

Clint Eastwood/Harry Callahan's pithy question rings in my head, every time I read the chemical lobby's defense of bisphenol A(BPA), a high-volume industrial plastics chemical.

Many experiments have shown that BPA, a synthetic estrogen as well as a plastics hardener, disrupts the endocrine system and causes a growing list of chronic, often permanent disorders in lab animals.

To which industry routinely responds: 1) animals aren't people, and 2) in people, BPA is, as one industry spokesman put it, "efficiently metabolized and rapidly eliminated from the body."

Scientists who think BPA is as bad for people as for lab animals can't prove their cases by experimenting on people.

Epidemiological studies of human populations can't isolate the impact of a single chemical like BPA. The human body burden, now comprising close to 500 chemicals, according to Environmental Working Group's biomonitoring tests, is an unintended consequence of the age of innovation after World War I. The period produce a rich array of "miracle" materials, symbolized by DuPont's iconic 1935 slogan, "Better Things for Better Living Through Chemistry," and Monsanto's streamlined plastic House of the Future in Disneyland's Tomorrowland, vintage 1957.

There is much yet to learn about how BPA affects the human body, acting singly and in combination with all those other chemicals that pollute people.

So -- back to Dirty Harry's question: Do we feel lucky?

I don't. Not about this stuff. I'm not willing to bet that BPA, which is in water bottles, drink bottles, cans, and also medical devices such as IV drips, is benign, washes harmlessly through the human body and leaves no mark, especially on infants in critical stages of development?

Every new, independent scientific study of this chemical reinforces my skepticism of industry's see-no-evil position:

Yale researchers have recently found that when embryonic mice are exposed to BPA, the chemical strips hydrogen-carbon structural units, called methyl groups, from the gene responsible for fertility. As a result, as the mice grew to maturity, their uterine linings did not develop normally, rendering them unlikely to carry pregnancies to term. "We've discovered the exact mechanism by which BPA affects this gene," Yale scientist Hugh Taylor told me. The gene in question -- HOXA10 -- is the same in mice and people.

Scientists at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences report in this month's Environmental Health Perspectives journal that mice exposed BPA in the womb developed "numerous abnormalities" in the form of both benign and cancerous lesions throughout their reproductive tissues. The researchers, led by veteran reproductive scientist Retha Newbold, wrote that "The BPA doses were low and within the range of human exposure...The findings...raise concerns about widespread exposure to BPA and, in particular, exposure to fetuses, infants, and children."

Scientists at the University of Rochester and University of Missouri-Columbia, also in the current Environmental Health Perspectives, estimate that BPA does not clear out of the human body as quickly as had been thought.

I could be wrong. Hope I am, given the fact that an estimated 93 percent of us would test positive for BPA, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Still, I've kicked most of that modern-living-plastic out of the kitchen and the kids' stuff.

How about you? Feel lucky about BPA? Do you think its dangers are still in the realm of the theoretical and untested? Or have you heard enough?

Share your thoughts here -- and join our new interactive forum on the nation's toxic chemicals policy.

You can also find my posts and add your own comments on Huffington Post.

EWG's Healthy Home Tip 1: Choose better body care products

2009-06-28T19:50:29Z

Most people use around 10 personal care products every day with an average of 126 unique ingredients.

The government's NOT protecting us
We'd like to believe that the government is policing the safety of all of these mixtures we're putting on our bodies, but they're not. Instead, these under-regulated chemicals are causing concerns for human health and the environment - whether they seep through your skin or wash down your drain.

We think you deserve better than that. So we created a our Healthy Home Tips series to make it easier to safeguard your family's health. This month's tip is: Choose better body care products.

What makes a body care product "better"?
Better products meet their claims and are free of ingredients that could harm our health or the environment. Labels might claim that a product is "gentle" or "natural," but with no required safety testing, companies that make personal care products can use almost any chemical they want, regardless of risks. So, always read product labels - especially the ingredient list - before you buy.

Learn how to choose better body care products
We make these choices as simple as possible on our Healthy Home Tips page, where you'll learn:

How to read a label
How to shop for the grown-ups in the house
How to find the safest body care products for your kids

Tell your friends about our Healthy Home Tips
We know you're not the only one who wants to choose better body care products. Tell your friends about our Healthy Home Tip Series so they, too, can be informed when faced with rows of under-regulated products at the store.

More about EWG's Healthy Home Tips
In May we announced a new Healthy Home Tips email series here on Enviroblog. Have you signed up yet? If not, hop on our children's health and toxics e-list so you can get the next 10 tips right in your inbox.

Talk to you in a month when we discuss our next Healthy Home Tip: Going organic and eating fresh foods.

When breast cancer has 'No Family History'

2009-06-26T16:20:31Z

By Lisa Frack

A while back, EWG staff scientist Olga Naidenko wrote here about the need to focus breast cancer research on prevention - with an emphasis on the role of carcinogens. I was reminded of her post when I saw the film No Family History about the environmental causes of the disease. The filmmakers describe the film - which includes EWG's Research Director Jane Houlihan - this way:

No Family History turns the debate about breast cancer upside down by proposing before solutions about prevention, rather searching only for a cure.
A few dedicated experts tell the story of how they began to realize all the toxic exposures in daily life that could be causing the epidemic - toxics in their home and even their own personal care products.

A few dedicated breast cancer activists relate how they tried to improve regulations to prevent breast cancer, and how they have changed their own lives to make it safer.

See what you think:

Growing veggies in my (leaded?) urban soil

2009-06-25T18:43:11Z

I live in an old house (1911) and used to work in affordable housing, so the dangers of lead paint aren't new to me. And with toddlers around for years now, I know to avoid paint chips in the mouth and lead dust in the air.

What I didn't connect - until recently - was that there might be lead in our soil, which is where we grow food. And that for those who have backyard chickens (a hot urban trend - at least in my sustainability-obsessed corner of the world), those super fresh eggs can deliver a dose of lead if the chickens are eating it. Yowza.

Since we don't have chickens (yet), I focused on our vegetable garden which just happens to be right behind an old, old garage that had chipped so much paint into the yard it was bare. Ugh.

Two recent articles tell you what you need to know
In May, the New York Times ran an article about a Brooklyn homeowner and avid backyard gardener whose yard is loaded with lead. And just two weeks ago my hometown paper, The Oregonian, ran another - the columnist's own raspberry bushes had visible paint chips under them. Together, they answered all of my questions.

Does it really matter if there's lead in - or near - my vegetable growing soil?
Most probably. While there is some disagreement out there (lack of field data), the general consensus is that it's worth testing and adapting your garden if you have high lead soil levels. Why? Because some soil types and some plants and some lead sources can add up to a hazard worth avoiding. The main concern is lead dust landing on your vegetables, which (happily!) you can just wash off. The less certain concern is uptake from the soil into the plant itself.

What should you do if you're a backyard gardener?
Test your soil. Understand the results, then mitigate if needed. Why test if you think there's no risk? Because according to the Times, environmental engineers and soil experts say "any place" is potentially tainted. Specifically, they list these causes for lead-tainted soil:

Excessive lead in soil is the legacy not only of lead paint but also of leaded gasoline, lead plumbing and lead arsenate pesticides. Although these products were outlawed decades ago, their remnants linger in the environment. Lead batteries and automotive parts, particularly wheel balancing weights, are still widely used and are sources of soil contamination.
Soil is likely to contain high levels of lead if it is near any structure built before 1978, when lead-based paint was taken off the market, or if a building of that vintage was ever demolished on the site. Pesticides containing lead were often used on fruit trees, so land close to old orchards is also of concern. And beware of soil around heavily trafficked roadways; it, too, is probably laced with lead.

I tested our soil for $20 at a local lab (which handles mail orders) and learned that, thankfully, our levels are low enough to keep on keepin' on with the arugula, tomatoes and basil. But if you test and learn that your levels are high, you can mitigate - and keep on gardening. Mitigations range from washing your veggies before eating them (to remove the dust) to building raised beds with clean soil from off site to doing some phytoremediation to clean the soil over time. All do-able, some easier than others.

The good news is that lead need not halt the urban gardening trend - but it needs to be included in your garden plans. Where you're the boss of your food. Isn't that nice?

[Thanks to jefield and Flickr creative commons for the photo]

Puberty is tough enough without BPA

2009-06-24T14:41:51Z

Special to Enviroblog by Alex Formuzis, EWG Communications Director

Every child's journey through puberty is different, but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone describe the experience as "wonderful," "awesome" or "let's play two!"

A high-pitched, crackling voice, acne, a disproportionately large head and generally looking like a lurch could describe my own bout with the inevitable.

These days, puberty is starting earlier
And today, more and more young people are experiencing signs of puberty at earlier ages, particularly among girls. Some are beginning to develop breasts, pubic hair and see the first signs of their period as early as 6 years old. 6!! While most experts claim the cause is genetic, there is a growing body of science connecting these early physical and sexual changes to the environment: meaning a link between early, onset puberty and exposure to man-made pollutants.

New study shows link between BPA exposure and early puberty
Last week, a new study from researchers at North Carolina State University and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) discovered a connection between exposure to BPA and early puberty and reproductive health problems with female lab rats who were given doses of the chemical "equivalent to or below the dose that has been thought not to produce any adverse effects," [Science Daily, June 18, 2009].

According to the study's news release:

The study found that female rats exposed to a BPA dose of 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight (µg /kg) in their first four days of life experienced early onset of puberty. Female rats exposed to 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg) during their first four days of life developed significant ovarian malformations and premature loss of their estrus cycle.

"The 50 mg/kg level is important," says lead researcher Dr. Heather Patisaul, "because it is equivalent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 'Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level' for BPA. So, by definition, we should not have seen significant effects at or below this level, but we did."

BPA is linked to an increasing number of diseases
So, in just the last two years, we've seen independent research linking BPA to breast cancer, diabetes, infertility and now early puberty and certain reproductive problems in females.

I continue to wait for research linking BPA to something good, like increased IQ, longer life spans, lower blood pressure and the sudden ability to 'get' algebra.

The abstract of the study is published online at the Biology of Reproduction.

[Thanks to yellowblade67 and Flickr for the photo]

Beijing Games Had Worst Air Pollution Ever

2009-06-23T14:40:38Z

Remember the Chinese government's draconian crackdown on air pollution before the 2008 Olympics?

Turns out it didn't make much of a difference after all, according to a new analysis by researchers from Oregon State University and Peking University.

The study, published June 18 in the online edition of Environmental Science & Technology, found that the mean concentrations of particulate matter, measured during and after the Olympics and Paralympic games, held between July 20 and September 20, were "not statistically different."

Some decreases in pollution occurred during the games, the study fund, but mostly thanks to rain and wind. Government controls, the researchers said, accounted for just 16 percent of the improvements noted.

These conclusions undercut the Chinese government's high-profile efforts to make its air safe for athletes and spectators - and greenwash its reputation for sketchy environmental and industrial health standards.

During the Olympics and Paralympics, Chinese officials ordered half the cars off the road on alternate days and closed factories and construction sites, not only in the capital city but also in industrial enclaves as distant as the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. Some businesses were ordered to switch from coal to natural gas, and some truck movements were stopped.

Yet, the study shows, air particulate concentrations in Beijing during the games were 2.9, 3.5, and 1.9 times higher than those observed during previous Olympics in Atlanta, Sydney and Athens, respectively.

Moreover, the study said, pollution levels in Beijing were roughly twice the guidelines set by the World Health Organization.

As Oregon State scientist Staci Simonovich told the London Daily Telegraph: "This demonstrates how difficult it is to solve environmental problems on a short-term, local basis."

If a Communist state can't dictate effective pollution curbs, even briefly, that suggests that all nations need to think through their clean air plans. In a non-authoritarian state, you have to build political consensus for regulation. That isn't easy, so you don't want to have to do it twice.

The new study offered an interesting insight into the way China's official environmental agency works. It noted that Peking University's readings for some particulate concentrations were generally1.3 times higher than those from the Beijing
Environmental Protection Bureau, a government agency. The paper attributed the disparity to "differences in the measurement methods used."

Given the high stakes for the Chinese government in making the air seem clean, we're skeptical that lower readings occurred by accident, Whatever the case, the Peking U. - Oregon State study seems careful and reliable.

Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform

2009-06-17T03:20:18Z

Today we invite you to join an important conversation about our nation's chemical policy - and how we're going to reform it. The fact that we need to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is hardly in dispute.

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) put TSCA on its 'high-risk' list earlier this year. Even the American Chemical Council (ACC) acknowledged the need for change.

On the Kid-Safe blog you'll find all the info you need on TSCA reform - in one convenient place:

Important action opportunities,

Timely updates about the bill's status in Congress, and

Thought-provoking commentary from policy experts, decision makers, and the media.

Read some of the latest posts

Is our stuff killing us? by Elaine Shannon
There's a lot to love about the 21st Century. Wireless. Hybrids. Ipods. Hockey in June. But modern life comes at the price of a body burden of pollutants. The stuff we like is amazingly light, pliable, tough, tiny, shatter-proof, stain-proof, waterproof, spongy, fire-resistant, explosive, clear, brilliant, fragrant, sleek, silky or some of the above because it's made of complex mixtures of chemicals -- that end up in us.

Winning on BPA? Not so fast. by Richard Wiles

It's been quite a ride with the fight against the toxic plastics chemical bisphenol A (BPA)- David vs. Goliath, public interest advocates and a handful of scientists pushing back against lobbyists and dealmakers, shady government contractors, bogus science, backroom strategy sessions.

Measuring Pollution in People. by Nena Baker

The mass spectrometers needed to measure traces of chemicals and their byproducts in human samples of blood and urine are big beige machines that, to the untrained eye, look like something you might find at your neighborhood photocopy store.

Check it out today - and weigh in!

The more voices at this table, the better. Read and comment on our new Kid-Safe blog today.

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this important national conversation about our nation's failing toxics policy. The need for a strong law that values human health is clear, and it's only together that we'll get there.

Dear CEO: It's time to reduce children's exposure to BPA

2009-06-10T21:37:24Z

On June 10th, EWG's President Ken Cook wrote a letter to Coca-Cola's Chairman and CEO, Muhtar Kent, calling on him to take immediate steps to reduce children's exposure to BPA.

I thought you might like to read it - before or after you call the company yourself to reinforce his powerful words.

Together our message is louder, stronger. Speak up with us, the time has come.

Dear Mr. Kent,

Along with hundreds of thousands of Environmental Working Group (EWG) supporters, I was very disappointed to read reports in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and The Washington Post that a Coca-Cola representative joined chemical and food processing company lobbyists in a recent meeting to consider, among other things, the use of "fear tactics" to protect the market for the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA). According to minutes of that meeting, one participant proposed a media campaign around the misleading slogan: "Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?" The "holy grail," the memo said, would be to find a pregnant woman to serve as a spokesperson to tout the benefits of BPA.

Is this the kind of "marketing" effort that The Coca-Cola Company stands behind when it comes to toxic chemicals that contaminate the food supply?

The leaked minutes depict desperate industries willing to do almost anything to avert government restrictions on the use of BPA in products for young children. The overall impression is one of callous disregard for the ample scientific evidence that BPA, known to be a synthetic estrogen since the 1930s, disrupts the endocrine system and is associated with breast and prostate cancer, neurological and reproductive system disorders and diabetes and obesity - all on the rise in the U.S. in recent years.

Scientists have repeatedly shown that BPA readily leaches out of plastic food containers into their contents. Notably, Canadian government researchers have found that BPA migrates from can linings into popular soft drinks, including numerous Coca-Cola products: Coke, Diet Coke, Fresca, Barq's Root Beer, Full Throttle Fury Energy Drink, Sprite and Tab.

It is clear that the days of BPA in food containers designed for young children are coming to an end. The states of Minnesota and Connecticut have adopted laws to prohibit use of the chemical in products for children three and under. The California State Senate has passed a similar measure, and the city of Chicago will soon prohibit the sale of any BPA-laced products for children three and under within the city limits. Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has promised to reassess her agency's position on low-dose exposures of BPA.

More than a decade ago, because of concerns about high levels of BPA in bioassays of teenagers and young adults, most Japanese food processing removed or dramatically reduced the use of BPA in can linings, switching to safer, less expensive PET(polyrthylene terephthalate) film lamination. As a result, a 2002 study found that BPA levels among Japanese students dropped by fully 50 percent between 1992 and 1999.

On behalf of EWG's supporters, I strongly urge you and your company to join other major U.S. corporations like Walmart, Toys R' Us, Nalgene and Sunoco in taking steps to reduce children's exposure to BPA. I thank you for your consideration and look forward to your response to this request to protect millions of your customers from further exposure to a toxic chemical that poses a serious threat to public health.

Sincerely,

Kenneth A. Cook
President

Pick up the phone to say it for yourself
Coca-Cola: 1-800-GET-COKE, ext. 2
Del Monte: 1-800-543-3090

Sample script: "Hello, My name is ______________. I'm shocked and disappointed in your unethical approach to business when it comes to BPA - placing profits ahead of my family's health and using fear tactics to placate consumers about a clearly dangerous chemical. BPA needs to go - NOW. Thank you."

[Thanks to dan1710 on Flickr for the can image]

Time to say goodbye

2009-06-10T16:53:13Z

I will never forget my job interview here at EWG--I woke up at 3am to catch the plane from Detroit and to make my 9am interview time. I slept for one hour the night before because I was nervous and quite honestly, scared. A few weeks before I had graduated from Michigan State University with my Master's in Public Relations and was ready to make the difference in the professional world, working for a non-profit advocacy in the nation's capital.

The moment I walked in to the EWG office, I fell in love with it. The people, the atmosphere and the décor, plastered with EWG' s slogan the power of information, made me feel right at home. As the daughter of a former journalist, I was raised with the mantra that information is power.

I spend almost 3 years here at EWG bringing that information to you, as EWG's Press Secretary. I made contact with thousands of reporters nationwide, and I've blogged since the day one. So, as I am sure you can imagine, it is with sadness that I write my last blog at Enviroblog. Friday is my last day at EWG.

It is difficult to decide what would be my favorite moment at EWG - would it be the first interview I ever set up with Fox affiliate in Boston about a fluoride industry cover-up; the time we persuaded EPA not to expose the public to chromium-6, a known carcinogen; or meeting so many people who loved EWG? Or even meeting those who worked for the "other side," and who told me openly that they fear "EWG coming after them"? It could also be the moment a few weeks ago when my mom sent me a power-point presentation in Serbian on the dangers of BPA, the issue we brought to light. The professional challenges and successes of working at EWG have helped me grow as a professional and a person. The people that I have worked with have been an inspiration to me as well as comrades in arms. We have all worked together to protect the most vulnerable populations from chemicals and toxins.

So, why am I leaving and where am I going?

I came to the US 11 years. I meant to stay for a year, to learn English. I ended up staying here much longer. The NATO bombing of my country prevented me from returning, and then school and work kept me here for another decade. Even though my years in the US have been a growing and developing experience for me, the time has come, I feel, to reunite with my family. So the move from EWG is a transcontinental one for me. Before I settle back in my city, Belgrade, I plan to spend some time teaching English at Samveda Training & Research Centre in Davangere, India.

So this is my final note, from this continent, on this blog. It's been an honor to be the part of the amazing team at EWG, as well as a writer for this blog. And as one of my favorite quotations goes: How lucky I am to have something that makes saying good-bye so hard.