Enviroblog

Public funds for public transit

2008-07-03T13:02:54Z

This post is by EWG's stellar media intern, Sameem.

The buzz on gas prices has people rethinking the way they travel. USA Today recently reported record breaking public transit ridership based on a study by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). For the months of January through March 2008 ridership increased 10% when compared to the same months in 2007. And while many riders are making the switch due to rising fuel prices, many of them stick to public transit for its “service and convenience," according to Linda Robson of Seattle's Sound Transit. For riders fortunate enough to live and work near major bus and rail lines, the shift makes a lot of sense.

But how many people really have this good fortune? According to the 2006 US census, only about 1 in 5 households. The logical solution: Make bus and rail lines more extensive. The bleak reality: No one wants to pay for it.

Most transit systems are already aging and underfunded. A recent study by the Brookings Institution reported that "45 percent of the nation's subway cars were over 20 years old." The report also noted that of this 45%, half are at least 25 years old – the age at which the Federal Transit Administration recommends replacement. The percentage of rail stations in good condition has fallen from 61% in 1995 to 35% in 2004. It’s evident that the transit system was in dire need of reworking even before these record breaking ridership numbers.

So where does the money come from? At the moment, most transit projects are state and locally funded, with some federal money. The Brookings report also noted that the federal government will generally match state and local funds up to 80-90% for highway projects, but only up to 50-60% for transit projects. Under current policy, it’s clear that spending on public transit takes a backseat. But with the recent increases ridership, it’s time policy makers rethink their spending habits.

APTA is hopeful that an increased investment in transit systems will lead to a reduction on CO2 emissions. According to an APTA report, public transit could potentially reduce CO2 emissions by 37 million tons annually. Currently, they estimate that 55% of household CO2 emissions are a result of privately owned vehicles. With policy and planning reform, this number could be reduced by 30%.

With all that said, I love driving. It’s fun, convenient, and sometimes very necessary. But, given the option, I’d rather have access to a walkable community with easy public transport for my day-to-day activities, and leave driving as a leisurely and/or occasional activity. At the end of the day, it’s important for people to have a wide array of affordable, clean, convenient and energy efficient options for transportation. Federal spending should reflect the changing needs and demands of its population.

Photo by Jorg Etilico.

Grocery gap? What grocery gap?

2008-07-02T13:01:35Z

As a Seattle native I regularly browse my hometown papers, and last week I stumbled onto a story about a new supermarket opening up just a mile or so from my boyhood home. The idea that a news article about a new Safeway would pique my interest may seem a little strange, but in light of the dwindling number of grocery stores in the inner-cities of America, this article caught my eye.

Things in Bellevue, WA have changed a bit since I left for college 18 years ago, but not for the worse. These days those lucky enough to live and work on the Eastside of Lake Washington across from Seattle are awash in choices for restaurants, high-end clothing stores, cafés, theatres, and of course local supermarkets.

“Up to 40 percent of the produce is organic, the pharmacy in the back is outfitted with cherry wood and looks like a doctor's office and the wine cellar is temperature controlled, encased in glass and features bottles that cost up to $550. Safeway operates about 1,750 stores nationwide and just four have wine cellars.
To show off the new digs and lure in the public, Safeway will offer free food samples from 21 departments through Sunday. A baby grand piano has been set up near the cash registers to play live music through Sunday, too.

Among other upscale features, the seafood bar has doubled in size and features whole octopus, shark steaks and Chilean sea bass. As a promotion, king crab legs will be on sale for $10 per pound and Safeway has brought in a chef from Chateau Ste. Michelle to prepare crab leg samples.”

I HAVE to check this place out. From my count, since the opening of Safeway’s new "Elite" store, the good people of Bellevue (including its most famous resident and the world’s richest person, Bill Gates) will have a plethora of grocery choices within a short distance from their homes and offices. Competing with the city’s two Safeways for business include two Whole Foods, one QFC, one Thriftway, and of course life just isn’t the same without a Trader Joe's near by (for those great deals on a case of Pinot or a huge block of brie).

Meanwhile, access to fresh, healthy foods is becoming unavailable for millions of low-income, mostly African-American and Hispanic families in the inner cities of the same country where others stroll the sushi aisles and wine cellars while listening to Mozart. Grocery stores carrying healthy fruits, vegetables, and other staples of a healthy diet are disappearing, forcing many who live in these communities to either travel longer distances to stock their refrigerators with these essential items, or serve their families fast food.

“In one corner of southeast Queens, four supermarkets have closed in the last two years. Over a similar period in East Harlem, six small supermarkets have closed, and two more are on the brink, local officials said. In some cases, the old storefronts have been converted to drug stores that stand to make money coming and going — first selling processed foods and sodas, then selling medicines for illnesses that could have been prevented by a better diet.
Many people in low-income neighborhoods are spending their food budget at discount stores or pharmacies where there is no fresh produce,” said Amanda Burden, the city’s planning director. “In our study, a significant percentage of them reported that in the day before our survey, they had not eaten fresh fruit or vegetables. Not one. That really is a health crisis in the city.”

Childhood obesity and heart disease may have leveled off in some populations in the US, but that’s not the case for African-American and Hispanic populations where these diet-related diseases are on the rise. And, sadly, it’s the young people of these communities that will pay a price as they enter adulthood already facing a lifetime of serious health problems as the "Grocery Gap" continues to widen.

One organization helping bring an end to these and other serious systemic problems in these communities across the country is the Prevention Institute. Their ENACT tool helps communities establish better nutrition and higher activity levels through a series of goal-oriented projects.

Mixed Greens 013: Don't get burned!

2008-07-01T16:24:57Z

Does your sunscreen work? Probably says so on the bottle, but don't be so sure. In this edition of Mixed Greens, we break down how to choose a better sunscreen based on EWG's updated 2008 sunscreen report. Plus, we reveal the brand-leading company without a single recommended product.

Mixed Greens is EWG's environmental health podcast. You can subscribe in iTunes or in a reader, or listen right here in your browser. Check out previous episodes for more Mixed Greens goodness!

Links for Mixed Greens 013

How to choose a better sunscreen

2008-07-01T12:42:29Z

4 out of 5.

That's how many sunscreens failed EWG's examination this summer season. Seriously -- 4. Out of every 5. That's WAY too many.

I mean, I guess it could be because we set the standards so high. We actually expected sunscreens to be safe and effective. Silly us!

Our researchers investigated nearly 1000 products, from brand leaders like Coppertone and Neutrogena, to small-scale producers making specialty products. The results were disheartening, to say the least, but we did manage to fine more than 140 products we're willing to recommend. They tend to have a few things in common:

The active ingredient is at least 7% zinc oxide or titanium dioxide, not oxybenzone or benzophenone-3.
They don't contain bug repellent. Ingredients in sunscreen can make more of the pesticide absorb into the skin.
They're not spray-on or powder, because those forms are too easy to inhale, and you don't want that.
They don't come from market leaders Coppertone, Neutrogena, or Banana Boat. Fewer than 5% of their more than 100 products were recommended.

So, before you head out to the beach this holiday weekend, use EWG's updated sunscreen guide to choose something better. Looking for something you can pick up at your local drug store? Use our national brand recommendations -- or take along our handy one-page buying guide. And don't forget to apply liberally and frequently.

We've been waiting 30 years for FDA to produce mandatory, comprehensive sunscreen standards. Late last summer they proposed rules for UVA protection, but they still haven't even finalized that! What's the hold up, FDA?

Photo by amuderick.

Spray? We never wanted to spray!

2008-06-30T05:10:50Z

In April, I told you about how citizen protests had forced the state to rethink its plans to spray an artificial pheremone over urban Northern California to eradicate a pest called the light brown apple moth. Now, upon further deliberation, the state has decided it won't spray after all, but will do what anti-spray forces had called for all along: Release sterile light brown apple moths, let nature take its course and the pests will die out.

It's a great victory for public health, common sense and people power. What's annoying is the state's refusal to admit that the will of the people was what forced its hand. After the decision not to spray was announced, the state's secretary of agriculture, A.G. Kawamura, wrote an op-ed (which the Chronicle dutifully printed) in which he tried to claim that was his department's idea all along:

In early 2007, we sought the advice of an international panel of scientists who are apple moth experts, and they advised us to begin emergency eradication efforts using the pheromone treatments - but they also advised a substantial investment in adapting the sterile insect technique for use against this pest.
This technique eradicates an infestation by releasing large quantities of sterilized, infertile insects so that the wild population cannot reproduce. It has been successful for more than 30 years in California and around the globe against a variety of insects; indeed, it was the alternative that ended California's use of aerial Malathion treatments against the Mediterranean fruit fly.

Raising a captive insect colony and adapting the technique to the new pest are technically and biologically complex tasks, so we were advised that this work could take several years to bear fruit. Fortunately, our scientists have surprised us with a breakthrough - we now plan to begin releasing the sterile moths in early 2009.

Wait a minute, Mr. Secretary. Did you say that this safe, non-toxic method was previously used successfully against the notorious Medfly? And it worked? So why didn't you try that first this time?

No matter, says Cameron Scott of The Thin Green Line. It's a victory for the precautionary principle -- the no-brainer idea that if you don't know something is safe, don't expose people to it.

. . . [T}he change represents the victory of a "presumed dangerous until proven safe" approach to chemicals over the United States' standard "presumed safe until proven dangerous" approach. As Mark Schapiro's book, Exposed, reveals, European countries have long adopted the approach California citizens backed by demanding more proof that the pesticide caused neither immediate nor long-term damage to humans. Europe, for reasons likely including this legal bias, has better health outcomes than the United States.

Cameron Scott (and Mark Schapiro) are right to contrast U.S. policy, which allows industrial chemicals on the market without proof of safety, with the more precautionary approach of Europe. But there's a movement building in the U.S. for an even father-reaching revolution in chemical regulation. It's called the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act, and you can learn more about it here.

Little yellow flags? Not in Connecticut

2008-06-27T14:03:59Z

You know that old folk song about little boxes on the hillside? If it were written now, songwriter Melvina Reynolds would likely have added a verse about little yellow flags on the lawns.

Those little pesticide flags are ubiquitous -- in fact, there are some right outside my apartment building, which has only a narrow strip of grass for a "lawn." But this year, Connecticut has taken a step away from the flags and the pesticides they signify. The state will not be applying pesticides, herbicides or fungicides to the grounds of elementary or middle schools.

Connecticut's lawn care industry is not pleased. The implication is that this move by the state may signal a turning of the tide against lawn-care chemicals, although one lawn care professional told Mother Jones expressly that he's not worried. He says that rather than banning pesticides outright, schools should use Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which employs pesticides as a very last resort. I could get behind that, as long as certain chemicals -- like, you know, the one that's made of 50% Agent Orange -- were prohibited.

Mattel lobbies to regulate itself

2008-06-26T13:04:03Z

If I had a daughter, she would not be playing with Barbies. Besides the fact that I would want her to have different ideas of womanhood than Barbie present, I would be a afraid for her health!

Barbie, American Girl, Batman, Diva Starz, Jack-in-the-box, the Lion King, Dora the Explorer, Sesame Street, Mulan and Simpsons, among other toys, are made by Mattel, the world's largest toy company. Mattel’s revenue is above $5 billion and their toys are sold all around the world.

Besides being sold all around the world, they are being recalled: so far, around 14 million toys have been moved off the store shelves because they contained lead paint.

An exclusive Chicago Tribune investigation reveals that because of Mattel’s lobbying efforts, some companies will be allowed to do their own in house testing for safety. According to the article:

Toymaker Mattel Inc. argued to lawmakers that it should be allowed to use its own labs to conduct these certification tests, which were supposed to be a hallmark of Congress' efforts to overhaul the nation's product-safety system. The House and Senate added provisions permitting companies with sophisticated labs to avoid the independent testing requirement by winning federal approval for their in-house testing facilities.
Consumer advocates and some lawmakers worry that this creates a conflict of interest and could compromise safety.

"Companies that are going to do testing, obviously they have a vested interest in the outcome of the test," said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who tried unsuccessfully to amend the Senate bill to mandate that only independent labs be used. "From the standpoint of a consumer, there's much more credibility to independent testing."

The toy industry is not the only one with that lacks health protective regulations. What we need is a better system of protections mandated by the federal government. Until that happens, Mattel and similar companies will continue to receive international “awards” such as the International Bad Product Award. And you, the parent, just need to add “watch out for toxic chemicals” to your parenting to do list. A good resource to start is www.parents.com.

Photo: Hacker Barbie by Nic221.

You know you're an inaction plan. . .

2008-06-25T13:27:07Z

In honor of EPA's June 2008 "Action Plan," three members of the Mississippi River Water Quality Collaborative* explain why the EPA report amounts to an “Inaction Plan” and will have little effect on reducing the oxygen-starved Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

You know you're an inaction plan if:

1. You ignore the science. According to the US Geological Society, pollution from agricultural fields in just nine states – specifically fertilizer and manure run-off from corn and soybean crops - is the leading cause of the Dead Zone in the Mississippi River Basin and the Gulf of Mexico.

EPA barely mentions this earth-shaking scientific finding in its report. Instead, EPA could have made this finding the central focus of a real Action Plan by committing to clean-up these highest priority locations first.

2. You recognize the current approach has failed but you fail to change your approach.

“EPA Task Force members do acknowledge that the current voluntary, cost-share approach to solving farm pollution is failing, yet the Task Force fails to change it’s approach. The Task Force should have adopted minimum environmental performance standards for agriculture in the nine critical Basin states and should have committed to targeting farm conservation funds to the highest priority locations and the practices that achieve the most cost-effective nutrient reductions.”
-Susan Heathcote, Water Program Director for the Iowa Environmental Council.

3. You fail to set meaningful goals.

“Most of the 11 “action steps” in this report do not have due dates and none of them have either nitrogen and phosphorus loading reduction goals or ‘Dead Zone’ size reduction goals. If there are no real goals or due dates, how will progress towards successful actions be measured?”
-Matt Rota, Water Resources Program Director for the Gulf Restoration Network

The EPA Task Force ignores it’s own Science Advisory Board’s recommendation that they adopt a 40-percent nutrient reduction goal for the Basin. This policy is a critical first step to ensuring the Task Force can achieve the goal of reducing the size of the Dead Zone to 5,000 square kilometers. Instead, the Task Force suggests that the states finalize separate and uncoordinated nutrient reduction strategies by the time the next Task Force convenes – in 2013.

4. You fail to act like a leader.

“We can mitigate this environmental disaster, but the EPA’s ‘inaction plan’ ensures that we continue to muddle along for yet another five years, which is completely unacceptable.”
-Matt Rota, Water Resources Program Director for the Gulf Restoration Network

Without a real plan that set goals and mandates action to achieve comprehensive pollution reduction across the Basin, irreversible damage to the ecosystem will be the legacy of the EPA in the Gulf. Only with a targeted action plan can the public ensure that their taxpayer subsidies for ethanol production are not causing environmental disasters and their subsidies for farm conservation practices are achieving the greatest nutrient reductions for the buck.

*The Mississippi River Water Quality Collaborative is comprised of environmental organizations from states bordering the Mississippi River as well as regional and national groups that work on Mississippi River issues. The purpose of the Collaborative is to harness the resources and expertise of diverse organizations to reduce all types of pollution entering the river. EWG Senior Analyst Michelle Perez works with the collaborative and is the author of this post.

Aussie study finds phthalates in jar lids

2008-06-24T13:30:45Z

Sometimes it's hard to write about this stuff. Here I am, day and and day out, telling you that food packaged in glass containers is a better alternative to canned food -- and it is. But the results from recent tests by an Australian non-profit suggest that even jars pose potential risks.

It's not the jars themselves, actually, but the metal lids. They're lined with a resinous material that consumer watchdog organization Choice says leaches phthalates into 'runny' foods, especially those with high fat content. They only tested 25 foods, but half of those contained levels of three different phthalates above the EU's permitted levels.

Choice has chosen not to release the specific list of products they tested, but they have suggested guidelines. Avoid food in jars that might slosh against the lid if the food contains more than 4% fat (or 4 grams of fat per 100 grams of food). You can get details about the testing on their website. No word on whether they tested for BPA or not.

What's frustrating is how easy it is to spin this into a consumer issue. Just avoid A, B and C and you'll be fine! But we're hearing that so often these days that soon we'll be avoiding the whole alphabet. Which is why, no matter which way we spin it, this is ultimately an issue for government and industry: we need chemical safety standards. The sooner the better.

Photo by How Can I Recycle This?, an awesome UK-based recycling blog.

PS, some of you are probably wondering about mason jars. Clearly the lids were lined with something, but the Aussie group doesn't seem to have tested them. Remember that if you're canning things at home, you have more control over how much sloshing goes on.

China's great greenwashing

2008-06-23T13:16:53Z

Here, we call them cancer clusters. Their existence is practically denied much of the time, and when it is acknowledged the polluting industries in the neighborhood often deny any culpability.

They can get away with that, because in most cases the industry has been in town for a good long time, so it's harder to trace the direct causality. That's not the case in Hou Wang Ge Zhung: Since a chemical factory was built in the area just five years ago, 25 of the villagers have been diagnosed with cancer. Nineteen of them have died.

Hou Wang Ge Zhung is one of China's cancer villages. It's not far from Beijing, but politically the city is doing everything it can to distance itself from these small, cancer-riddled towns. The villagers have been told that their legal complaint will have to wait until after the Beijing Olympics, because government officials don't want anything to mar the city's new "green" appearance.

So basically, even though the government went to great lengths to put environmental laws and regulations in place, they won't be enforced at all for the next 8 weeks . . . because that might look bad. That's pretty much the grandest greenwashing scheme I've ever heard of.

Photo by Dip.

Our poorly managed plastic system

2008-06-20T13:42:33Z

The U.S. government should require labeling and warning systems for products containing bisphenol A (BPA) and the phthalate DEHP, according to researchers at the nonprofit Environment and Human Health inc. (EHHI).

EHHI points out that production of BPA and DEHP (used in the production of PVC plastic) has increased since the '90s, and so has our scientific understanding of endocrine disruption. Meanwhile, our systems for recycling polycarbonate and PVC plastic haven't gotten any better. We've got enough data to demonstrate the negative health effects, so why isn't the government doing anything about it?

Amongst EHHI's recommendations are a ban on BPA and DEHP in products intended for children 3 and under (note: this recommendation wouldn't address canned food. EWG supports an outright ban on BPA). They also recommend creating a meaningful code and labeling system for all plastics. The recycling code wasn't meant to tell consumers what ingredients are in their plastic, but that's exactly the kind of system we need. In addition, EHHI argues, the government should warn pregnant women or women who may become pregnant to avoid exposure to BPA and DEHP. Of course, since we're all supposed to think of ourselves as pre-pregnant, that would require women to avoid DEHP and BPA for their entire productive lives. Cut out half of the users of these plastics, and you may as well cut out the plastics altogether.

Photo by ~David.

Relaxing the relaxed standards?

2008-06-19T13:10:29Z

The relationship between government and the cosmetics industry has been a cozy one for many years. The multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry has always been a self-regulating one, and in fact, FDA cannot require companies to test their cosmetic products for safety. In addition, the cosmetics industry can use almost any raw material as a cosmetic ingredient.

But not only is the government not regulating the industry, they are having closed door meetings with them, where they can discuss regulations! You know, the meetings where government treats the industry like a partner, not the body that should be regulated. One of them is happening in few days, and the public is not allowed in.

According to the FDA’s web site, the purpose of the meeting is

“To pave the way for the removal of regulatory obstacles to international trade while maintaining the highest level of global consumer protection.”

Really? What regulatory obstacles? The law is so lax that there is nothing left to remove from it!

For example, our past analysis of ingredients in more than 23,000 products, discovered that nearly 1 of every 30 products sold in the U.S. fails to meet 1 or more industry or governmental cosmetics safety standards. We also found nearly 400 products sold in the U.S. containing chemicals that are prohibited for use in cosmetics in other countries, and over 400 products contain ingredients the U.S. cosmetic industry’s own safety panel has determined to be unsafe when used as directed. Now, what is there to remove from those “regulatory obstacles?”

The FDA is holding a public meeting before that meeting with the industry, and of course, EWG is delivering remarks. Check our web site for more details this afternoon.

Bad weather is bad news for food and fuel

2008-06-18T13:38:48Z

Two months ago, EWG Founder Ken Cook quipped that the Bush administration's food policy amounted to "hope for good weather."

By then, EWG analysts were already hard at work on a report examining the possible affects of a particularly wet or dry growing season (or an early freeze) on the nation's supply of corn. USDA had already acknowledged that farmers would plant 8 percent fewer acres of corn this season, and with 30 percent of corn expected to go into our gas tanks this year, the balance of food and fuel grew even more precarious.

In a conversation with EWG, former USDA Chief Economist Keith Collins said point blank, "There is no cushion if we have a weather-reduced crop.” Increased demand combined with bad weather and the rising cost of fuel and fertilizer has already driven up the cost of corn -- 2007's average price was $3 per bushel, and on June 10th, following USDA's weekly progress report, the price soared to a record $6.73 per bushel.

When we began work on this report, it was an analysis of what could happen. Things are, unfortunately, a little different now; USDA is predicting a yield decrease of more than 10 percent, and on May 29th one climatologist said "it will take nearly perfect weather this point forward to recover.” The disastrous flooding in the corn belt hardly qualifies as perfect weather.

So here we've got a federal policy that orders food to be converted to fuel without any kind of cushion for bad weather, and we've got -- well, bad weather. Time for a new ethanol policy? Y'think? I'll let EWG analyst Michelle Perez sum it up for you:

U.S policy to promote the production of food crop-based biofuels is both short-sighted and dangerous. High corn prices will limit the contribution corn-based ethanol can make to our energy supplies, unless taxpayers are asked for more and more subsidies and credits to support the industry. The more corn diverted into fuel production in hopes of solving our energy problems, the greater the risk imposed on hungry people. The whole world, from average Americans to the poorest billion people on the planet, cannot rely on America’s food-to-fuel gamble. We need to step back from our current policies and chart a new course to a more sustainable biofuels policy.

Mixed Greens 012: Kid-Safe

2008-06-17T16:51:10Z

How do we know when chemicals are safe enough? When they're safe for kids. This edition of Mixed Greens takes a look at the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act. Plus, the latest from EWG's research team.

Mixed Greens is EWG's environmental health podcast. You can subscribe in iTunes or in a reader, or listen right here in your browser. Check out previous episodes for more Mixed Greens goodness!

Links for this edition:

All the news that's fit to print

2008-06-17T13:46:38Z

Okay, there were just too many interesting stories today. I couldn't pick one. Here are a handful, round-up style.

In the Midwest, raw sewage, animal manure, fuel and agricultural chemicals are flowing downstream from downed sewage plants, chemical tanks, and busted manure pits at feedlots. The contaminated floodwaters present a serious environmental disaster.

With the production of their new FCX Clarity, Honda is the first company to produce a hydrogen fuel-cell car -- ridiculously expensive right now, of course, and the extent of the benefits remain to be seen, but still an exciting step!

State health officials in Minnesota have advised neighbors of a feedlot operation to evacuate. Apparently the smell (that is, the chemical fumes) had gotten so bad that they're now a health concern. That's the idyllic countryside for you.

The Wall Street Journal reports on a series of advertisements from oil giants, making them look like innovators in green technology. At least, with the amount of money they're charging for fuel, people are starting to think about conserving. [$ub. only, sorry.]

And finally, lobstermen in Rhode Island are asking local towns to stop using a mosquito-killing chemical that is dumped in huge quantities down storm drains. They believe it's also killing off the lobster. Not a huge surprise, since lobsters look like giant bugs, but seriously? Someone thought it was a good idea to dump a toxic chemical down the storm drains on purpose?

All that news and more: Environmental Health News.