Science for Sale

Campbells loses a customer

2009-11-05T14:21:00.005-06:00

While I hate to keep beating the BPA drum, I couldn't let this pass without comment, since it is affecting my own consumer choices. ABC News had a reporter from Consumer Reports on air a couple days ago discussing the presence and levels of BPA in canned goods. This is nothing new, though it's nice to see mainstream media outlets covering the issue. However, I was shocked and disgusted by Campbell Soup's comment to ABC News regarding the amount of BPA leaching out of its own cans:

The Campbell Soup Co. told ABC News, "While the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence clearly supports the safety of BPA, Campbell is currently researching alternatives. To date, no satisfactory alternative has been identified for a broad range of products."

Really? "The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence clearly supports the safety of BPA..." Is this a joke? The exact opposite is true. This idiotic comment was enough to make me decide to boycott Campbell soup products. Not that I am a huge consumer of its products to begin with, but making a comment like this, which runs counter to science and which comes dangerously close to dismissive, is enough for me to say goodbye to any of the company's products. I would actually have more respect for a company that uses BPA and acknowledges its risks but continues using it than I do for a company that uses the chemical and then disavows any science linking BPA to a host of health problems--especially when that science is as close to conclusive as I think possible.

In some ways, I think a lot of companies are still operating in a Mad Man-esque milieu. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which companies will go to in order to disavow science that suggests their products might need...improvement. Typically, they'll spend huge amounts of money to discredit good science--money which would be better spent taking toxins out of their products. Their blind spot--and it is a huge one--is the one that misses the legions of consumers who would trample to the store to buy products from companies that honestly assess the science, make the adjustments necessary, where feasible, and that are candid about those adjustments they haven't made, for reasons of cost. It's a shame that the only canned food company currently using BPA-free lining is Eden Organics, despite the fact that the technology is already extant. I do not argue that linings are not important--crucial--to keep food safe. I only argue that linings containing BPA contain a chemical demonstrated to be unsafe at low levels and that there are alternatives.

UPDATE: New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof wrote this column in Sunday's New York Times about the latest information on BPA in canned goods. It's heartening to see the mainstream media treating this as the serious issue it is.

Applying Science to Dr. Sears

2009-09-20T19:04:00.013-05:00

UPDATE: For anyone who wants a somewhat digested version of the article I mention below, The Stats Blog does an excellent review of Snyder's article.

This post has to do with something I have been feeling increasingly passionate about the longer I've been a mother. Unfortunately, parents with my point of view we are woefully underrepresented both in the media and in the blogosphere. Up until now, I've held back posting anything much about vaccines, besides the occasional flu shot post. However, I have come to see my reticence as irresponsibility. Let me explain.

My son recently started a Montessori program. He's about two and a half and has never been in daycare, so he has not been exposed to many "germs." Let's put it this way: until he started preschool, he never had so much as a cold. I don't think this is a good thing--kids need to be exposed to illness to build up immunity. So I wasn't surprised when he fell ill after beginning preschool and has been feverish on and off since then. He is also fully vaccinated, completely up to date, and he gets his flu shot. When he was an infant, I was concerned, like many new parents, about the information swirling around the Internet about vaccines. They're poisonous! They cause autism! We get too many! Of course these reports gave me pause, like they would anyone. However, I am someone who relies on science (as anyone who reads this blog can tell) to guide my decisions as a consumer. There are certainly big businesses with much at stake who try to distort science; however, in my years as a journalist and researcher, I have come to specialize in unearthing these conflicts of interest and looking at the science (and consulting scientists much, much smarter than me) to see if it holds up or is biased. Hence the subtitle of my blog: ...and the manipulation of science.

So I get a lot of people coming to my blog because they search "thimerosal" or "vaccines" or "toxicity." And I am grateful for that, because much of what we are surrounded by, much of what we consume, have toxic properties: high levels of formaldehyde in cabinetry; parabens and phthalates in personal products; BPA in baby bottles. So many people assume I am also anti-vaccine. Nothing could be further from the truth. Precisely because I do concern myself with science, I am passionate about vaccination. I live in a state where nearly 5% of the population chooses not to vaccinate their children, which brings us teetering to the edge of the loss of herd immunity. Which means children will die. I can't sit back and leave this uncommented upon.

When I enrolled my son in Montessori, I asked the Head of School the following question:
"So, vaccines--"
She interrupted me, smiling: "Oh, they're not mandatory."
"Actually, I was hoping they were. I am not comfortable having a child in my son's class who is not vaccinated." She seemed taken aback, at first, and then suddenly appeared more at ease. She explained to me that in Minnesota, vaccinations are mandatory for children entering a daycare or school settings--unless you conscientiously object to vaccines and can provide a notarized statement to that effect.
"So it's not really mandatory," I said to my pediatrician. She rolled her eyes and said nothing more. I stopped short of asking the Head of School to consider instituting her own mandatory vaccination requirement, but I've considered asking her about it several times.

This brings me to Dr. Sears. His book is the one I find cited to me by anti-vaccine parents as the "science-based" reason for their decision not to vaccinate. Taking him point by point on a scientific level is beyond my abilities, but thankfully a doctor did just that. In his article on Science-Based Medicine, a website I highly recommend, John Snyder, M.D. wrote a thoughtful, unbiased, and rational response to Dr. Sear's THE VACCINE BOOK. Dr. Snyder is the Chief of the Section of General Pediatrics and Medical Director of Pediatric Ambulatory Care at Saint Vincent's Hospital in New York City. He is also Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at New York Medical College.

It's natural for an intelligent parent to question medication and vaccinations. In an ideal world, we would all have access to and the ability to understand the raw scientific data regarding the medications and vaccinations we get. However, it is reckless to ignore science in favor of celebrity advice and scare tactics used by doctors who rely so little on science that they have been ostracized by the medical community. If you are a concerned parent, especially one who has read Dr. Sears' book, please read Dr. Snyder's scientific review of THE VACCINE BOOK. You will not find here a shrill attack, an "opinion," or admonishments. You will get a point-by-point examination of Dr. Sears' "science" and advice to parents regarding vaccination. Note: you will get some strong, and, frankly, fascinating opinions in the comment section mainly from other physicians and scientists. My son's pediatrician is very tight-lipped about her opinions regarding vaccinations--she doesn't judge but I'm not sure if she refuses to see children whose parents don't vaccinate. So it's terribly interesting to read these comments from doctors who, under cloak of semi-anonymity, can unburden themselves of their opinions on parents who listen to Sears.

What finally convinced me to "come clean" about my decision to fully vaccinate my child? Several things, one of which I'm including below. Dr. Snyder responded to another physician who commented that after several years of trying to deal with parents who came into his practice with Dr. Sears' book in hand, asking for an alternative vaccination schedule, he decided simply to not see patients whose parents were not vaccinating them. I can't have you bringing pertussis or measles into my waiting room and infecting vulnerable patients (like babies too young for the vaccine, for example). Dr. Snyder responded this way:

I can absolutely appreciate your stance with vaccine-refusing parents. I have opted to keep them in my practice as I think I am more likely to get them to vaccinate than others might be. I posted a sign the other day in my waiting room, referencing a recent local measles outbreak, asking parents of under/unvaccinated children to immediately notify the front desk as they enter, so that they can be removed from the waiting room. It makes it clear that they are a risk to the other families. We’ve reached a point at which it’s important for these parents to feel a bit ostracized, and for the other parents to feel some outrage.

Dr. Snyder is right. It's time for the heretofore-quiet vaccinating parents to speak up. I think we do feel outrage, but it's often not worth the trouble to argue with someone who eschews real science in favor of pseudo-science. And for a non-scientist, non-physician parent, it can be very difficult to parse out the difference, of course--one must understand statistics, epidemiology, and so on, to even detect the flaws in the science, which is why Dr. Snyder's piece is so important.

Finally, I plan on writing to my local representatives regarding the bogus mandatory vaccination requirements for preschool and school-age children. These folks have heard from far too few parents like me and far too many parents who don't vaccinate, giving these legislators a skewed idea of what the demographic is doing. Thankfully, the vast majority of us vaccinate our children, which is the only reason the parents who don't vaccinate their children do so. As Dr. Snyder points out in his review, Dr. Sears actually advises parents who are scared of the MMR vaccine and don't plan to get it for their child not to tell their neighbors. This is because Sears knows that the only thing standing between pertussis, measles, tetanus, etc., and your child is herd immunity. And if too many parents think like those who don't vaccinate their children, children are going to die. For anyone who thinks these diseases are dead, know that in addition to recent domestic outbreaks of pertussis and measles, polio is a serious global disease that is only a plane flight away.

I made my decision to vaccinate my child based on the following hypothetical question I asked myself one sleepless night: If I didn't vaccinate him because I was scared of side-effects that have been suggested on blogs and by celebrities but never backed up by science and he became seriously ill or died, would I ever forgive myself?

The answer was no. And as one physician, Dr. Amy Teuter, wrote on her own blog,

Vaccine rejectionism is dangerous. It harms the children who are not vaccinated, and it harms unrelated children who are too young to be vaccinated. Make no mistake about it, vaccine rejectionism is unethical as well as the result of scientific ignorance. Parents who reject vaccines implicitly rely on other people being vaccinated. They are willing to accept the benefits, without partaking of the risk. They expose their own children to life threatening illness, and they expose other people’s children to life threatening illness. The government should act to restrict vaccine waivers to only those with medical indications for forgoing vaccination. The right to indulge one’s philosophical beliefs ends at the point where it threatens the life and health of other people’s children.

One final note--and thanks to one of the commenters for posing this great question, unvaccinated children are a danger to vaccinated children, even though, in theory, vaccinated children should be immune and therefore safe. This is a dangerously false assumption for many reasons, among them: a.) herd immunity: it is an epidemiological fact that if more than 5% of a population is unvaccinated for any one disease, that disease will make a comeback and pose a threat to the population at large. In Minnesota, we are nearing that threshold for several childhood diseases. b.) unvaccinated children may come in contact with the disease in many ways, including from children coming here from other countries where immunization is not standard or is unavailable and where these diseases still exist ( polio is still a huge issue in India for example) Sometimes, it's adults who contract the disease: as this 2009 measles outbreak reminds us. The Red Cross blog took this story up with this commentary:

Six people in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania contracted the highly-contagious disease from an infected Indian traveler. An adult male, who contracted measles during a visit to China, spread the disease to at least one adult and an infant in Montgomery County, Maryland upon his return.
Parents, living in the United States, have a choice whether to vaccinate their children. What they fail to realize is that until families everywhere have the opportunity to immunize their children, ours will face the threat of contracting this preventable disease.
If an unvaccinated person travels to a country where measles is still endemic or comes in contact with an infected visitor from such a country, they may be exposed to measles and become ill.

And should we need a reminder of how close more serious measles outbreaks are, take a look at this story from February, out of Germany.

c.) And this is the most frightening to me, as the mother of a two-week old: a vaccinated child might come in contact with an infected unvaccinated child in a preschool setting, carry home the virus and/or bacteria and remain immune: however, the infant, who is too young to be vaccinated for these diseases, will not be immune and could fall seriously ill or even die.
NOTE: I've chosen to moderate comments for this posting in this way: if you post something that has to do with claims of toxicity, mortality, and other scientific information, I will not post it unless you have cited your information. I will check that citation to be sure it is accurate and will then post it.

Mistin' It this Flu Season

2009-09-10T19:52:00.005-05:00

Being preggers in fall means that the admonishments to get your flu vaccine come showering down on you as soon as the vaccines are made available. I had every intention of getting my flu shot, of course, to protect my toddler and my baby, due in three weeks. However, this year I am not eligible for the great FluMist nasal spray vaccine, which I got at Target Clinic last year. When I wrote about getting the nasal mist last year there seemed to be a lot of confusion and misinformation even among the nurses administering the mist. The woman who gave me my mist vaccine at first claimed it was not thimerosal-free, brushing off my questions without even looking up from her paperwork. Then, when she realized that their own brochures said the mist was thimerosal-free, she tried to scare me by saying it was a live flu virus and could make me sick. This, of course, is untrue. While the mist is a live flu virus, it is attenuated, or profoundly weakened. What's more, evidence shows that the flu mist is much more effective than the shot in preventing flu, particularly among toddlers. In fact, the study, which followed 8000 toddlers, showed that the mist was 55% more effective in preventing flu than the shot, which I find mind-blowing. It was actually this study that prompted the FDA to approve use of the mist in children under five (but older than two).

Happily, my son is now two and a half and will be getting his FluMist on Saturday. It is thimerosal-free, for those who are worried about the preservative. My flu shot this year, administered at the midwife's office, was also thimerosal-free, but that's because it was not from a multi-dose vial. It did, however, contain formaldehyde. Anyone who reads my blog knows that I am basically obsessed with formaldehyde. However, deeper research showed that the amount of formaldehyde used in the manufacturing process for the flu vaccine is so minimal that it actually dilutes the amount of naturally occuring formaldehyde in our bodies. Another mind-blowing fact. An aside: continuing the trend of assistants who don't know much about vaccines, the woman who gave me the shot at the midwife's office seemed flummoxed when I asked if this particular shot contained thimerosal. I happened to read the consent form closely and realized that unless it was from a multi-dose vial pack, it would be thimerosal-free, and this was not from one of those packs. However, as she prepped my arm, she said, "Yeah, it's weird that they put thimerosal in so many children's vaccines now." I couldn't believe my ears--thimerosal has been out of all children's vaccines since 2001 (except for some flu shots). This, I told myself, is how we lose herd immunity. But I digress...

Then we turn our attention to H1N1 flu. We are told that this vaccination will require two shots, three weeks apart, and that it will be available in mid-October. Everyone in my family will be immunized (as they are for seasonal flu), but it looks as if this will be a shot-only deal.

I implore everyone to get their flu shots, but I also want those who object, for whatever reason, to the injection to consider FluMist. It is safe, exceptionaly effective, and much more widely available. Ask for it wherever you choose to get vaccinated. I got mine last year at a walk-in Target clinic. This year my son will be getting it at Park Nicollet Clinic in the Twin Cities. The more people who ask for this type of vaccine, the more doses will become available, and perhaps we'll be able to phase out the injection all together.

UPDATE: My husband went into our local Target clinic this weekend to get the FluMist and, as I predicted before he walked in, he was talked out of the mist because the administrator said, "Oh, since your wife is pregnant you're much better off getting the flu shot because it contains only dead viruses." Information from the CDC, including on the handouts Target Clinic gives to its customers, says that only those working with people whose immune systems are severely (their italics, not mine) compromised--those in bubbles or restricted access areas of hospitals--should get the flu shot instead of the mist. Anyone working with HIV-positive patients, for example, are perfectly fine getting the mist, according to the CDC paperwork. I am appalled by the uninformed crap medical personnel in clinics like this spout off. When she asked my husband why he didn't want the shot, he said he wanted to avoid thimerosal--she said, oh, we offer preservative-containing AND preservative-free shots. This sounds fishy to me--why would anyone choose a shot containing thimerosal if one that doesn't contain the preservative is available?

Sigh. Anyway, I just want to exhort everyone to be his or her own advocate, have the information at hand, and don't be afraid to challenge medical staff--typically the assistants who have to administer these shots.

UPDATE #2: Today a study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the Mist was less effective in adults than the flu shot. I want to clarify this study, since I've been hearing news about it on local broadcasts and there is some missing context. Injectable vaccines containing inactivated viruses prevent about 50% more seasonal flu in healthy adults than the intranasal vaccine. However, multiple studies have shown that in children FluMist works better against seasonal flu. From the Los Angeles Times: "Three large head-to-head studies showed that those who received FluMist had 35% to 53% fewer cases of flu than those who received injectable vaccines. But the results in adults have been much more inconsistent, with some studies showing FluMist to be better and others showing injectables to be superior." Just something to be aware of!

A (Corporate) Rude Awakening: The SIGG bomb

2009-08-28T17:31:00.006-05:00

By this time, most of you have probably heard about the controversy swirling around the Swiss water bottle company SIGG. If you haven't, check out this article by the folks over at EWG regarding the company's big lie about the lining of its aluminum water bottles. For several years, it has sought to capitalize on the consumer backlash against BPA in food and drink containers by assuring those consumers that SIGG bottles are BPA-free. Well--at least that's what their advertising sounded like. In fact, they were claiming that their bottles did not leach BPA--but that its epoxy resin liner did, in fact, contain the chemical. Regardless, word is out that the resin did leach BPA and, duh. As Professor Fred Vom Sall, of the University of Missouri's biology department said, if the liner is made of BPA then of course it is going to leach. That's what BPA does.

But what is most disturbing about this story is the manipulation of the science "backing up" the SIGG claims for so long. SIGG did their testing of BPA leaching in the parts per billion instead of the industry standard of parts per trillion. What's the big deal? The current standard of parts per trillion is a test that is 1000 times more sensitive. Passing off PPB as a legitimate test for leached BPA is underhanded; consumers cannot be expected, at this point, to understand the difference. And SIGG knew this.

What this all comes down to is this: we have no standard currently for the terms "green" and "nontoxic." Yet consumers have made it clear that they are sick of being poisoned by noxious components. As much as the plastics industry and even mainstream media and blogs (I'm thinking of The Consumerist)tries to downplay and even make fun of consumer concern about BPA and phthalates, the tide is turning. The scientific evidence is conclusive. And we need this out of consumer products. I've been amazed at how quickly companies and manufacturers have responded. The problem now is keeping these companies honest. There are the old stand-bys, the Born Frees, for example. But there will always be interlopers in the "green" arena.

As before, my advice is to take the time to do research on products that make claims to being "natural," "nontoxic," or "green." At this point, a product using the term "green" is one to be suspicious of, in my opinion. It suggests a lack of sophistication--and it suggests it is reaching for the least sophisticated consumer of the "green bunch." That's the person who wants to make an effort to choose safe products but who hasn't yet had the time to do the research and might not even know to do it. I know. I was that consumer for many years.

Science for Sale: Wyeth Paid for Positive Reviews of HRT

2009-08-06T07:39:00.004-05:00

More on this later today, but I wanted to post this article from today's New York Times about Wyeth's use of ghostwriters to pen positive reviews of its hormone replacement therapy drugs, which were later shown by a large federal study to cause invasive breast cancer and a host of other serious problems. These weren't any old reviews--these were articles in respected journals. Ghostwriting in the pharmaceutical industry is itself invasive and appallingly unethical, and yet journal editors are still being blindsided by these compromised reviews.

Read the article here.

BPA in BPA-Free Bottles? A mystery in Canada

2009-08-03T21:58:00.002-05:00

Some very strange news out of Canada today. Scientists there claim to have found BPA leaching out of polypropylene bottles. While they haven't named names, their documents suggest that when subjected to high temperatures, such as in a dishwasher, these bottles leach trace amounts of BPA, which is baffling to parents who assumed that non-polycarbonate bottles contained zero BPA. These results are also baffling to some of the most trusted manufacturers of BPA-free bottles, including ThinkBaby and BornFree.

"We have not only three major global testing labs that test our products, but we also do biologic testing on our bottles, and the biologic type of testing is even more sensitive than anything that Health Canada could ever pull off, and it would pick up anything that even behaved like BPA," said Kevin Brodwick, founder and president of thinkbaby, whose products are made with medical-grade plastic specifically formulated to be free of bisphenol A, PVC, nitrosamines, phthalates, lead, melamine and biologically toxic chemicals.

Test results, conducted at least every quarter, consistently show "zero, complete non-detect for BPA," said Brodwick

Indeed, Alicia over at The Soft Landing posted this thoughtful commentary on the test results, suggesting that perhaps cross-contamination, particularly in the dishwashers used, could be partly to blame for these test results, which have not yet been duplicated.

I agree with Alicia that we need to take a step back and wait for more explanation and context regarding these results. As with all scientific results, until there is at least replication of results, we can't jump to any conclusions. I, for one, remain quite confident in my Born Frees and believe, as Brodwick does, that there is a plausible explanation for these strange results. As always, I will keep you posted.

Johnson & Johnson Irritates Me Again

2009-07-26T21:39:00.005-05:00

Just a quick post tonight. It might be the fact that at seven and a half months pregnant, I am just in a perpetual sour mood--this pregnancy has been a lot harder on the old body than the first one was--but I am becoming more and more irritated by Johnson & Johnson's baby wash commercials and sponsorships, and have lost my patience completely with blogs and television shows that accept its advertising dollars and, in my opinion, misleading ads. Case in point, as I was sitting on the couch finishing up some work on my laptop, I flipped on "Amazing Wedding Cakes" on We TV, the "Women's Network." Don't ask why, but ever since my wedding, in which artiste extraordinaire Robin of Gateux, Inc., made my "pile of books" cake, I have been transfixed by the artistry of cakemaking. Anyway, a commercial comes on for a new WE show, called The Mom Show. Sounded dumb almost from the start, but I had to keep looking. Apparently the network is putting together some show that is a thinly veiled paid advertisement for various baby products, most notably Johnson & Johnson's Baby Wash.

J&J's Baby Wash. Sigh. Yes, if you're around my age--thirty or so--then you were probably bathed in this stuff as an infant. Like me, you've probably grown to love the smell of it. But, if you're on this blog, you might already know that it is one nasty chemical soup that, in my opinion, should be nowhere near a baby. In 2008, the journal Pediatrics effectively agreed with me, publishing research that linked phthalates to a host of health issues in little ones and women, in particular. Johnson & Johnson's Baby Wash contains, among other things, a phthalate. Of course, as soon as the study came out, the company scrambled to convince moms that the phthalate they use is safe, that the research done by the folks in the Pediatrics article was flawed, and then, most laughably, they offered the "expert advice" of a panel of "scientists and physicians" known collectively as the CIP, who claimed products containing phthalates are safe. The CIP--Cosmetics Ingredient Review--was founded and is funded by the cosmetics, toiletries, and fragrance industries, which live and die by phthalates. For concerned parents, if you hear from a company that an "independent panel" has made a finding that sound suspiciously convenient for that company's bottom line, check into the acronyms--chances are you'll find a front group.

Anyway, I was so aggravated by this "Mom Show" host singing the praises of Johnson & Johnson's baby wash, "as gentle to the eyes as water" that I wanted to kick in the TV, but my pregnancy heft wouldn't allow me to get off the couch in time. It's one thing to see ads that sing chemically problematic products' praises--at least we know they are ads and know to be skeptical. But television shows that masquerade as concept programs but are really just venues for advertisers to sell their products are gross and misleading.

Luckily, most of us are too smart for this. One of the most heartening things that I've seen happen in the three years since I started this blog is the way moms have done their research and are becoming skeptical to corporate claims of safety and nontoxicity. We are seeing that chemical companies, for example, have underestimated the average mother's intelligence--the BPA fiasco is an example, as is the companies' desperate attempt to convince us that BPA is safe. It's time we talk about Johnson & Johnson's "safe as water" bullshit and stop buying the product until they remove phthalates from their list of ingredients. Some truly wonderful options are available, including my favorite, Burt's Bees Baby Bee Shampoo and Baby Wash (whose formulation has not changed since Clorox bought the company). I will be taking a bottle to the hospital this September so my second baby isn't doused in J&J's baby wash, as my first, unfortunately was, during his first bath. I suggest everyone who is expecting consider doing the same. One note about Burt's Bees Baby Bee Shampoo and Body Wash: it is Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, paraben, and phthalate-free. However, it does include "fragrance," which suggests a small amount of synthetic fragrance. However, I am completely comfortable with it because the fragrance doesn't contain SLS or phthalates, which are the chemicals of concern when you see "fragrance." In addition, my son, whose skin is uber-sensitive (he broke out in horrible eczema after using California Baby!), has zero reaction to BB. However, it's important to know that even this product isn't 100% natural (I think it's 98.2%).

Test Kits for Melamine in Baby Formula!?

2009-07-23T08:19:00.002-05:00

Yes, it's come to this. We now need a test kit that will test baby formula for the presence of melamine. University of Minnesota researchers identified an enzyme that can create a color change in milk or formula that has been laced with melamine. As a reminder, last year, six Chinese babies died and more than 150,000 were hospitalized after drinking formula that had been treated with melamine, in order to fool protein tests (melamine can look like protein when added to milk and formula).

This is good news for a really sad problem. BIOO Scientific, which specializes in food safety testing equipment, is going to test the kit in the near future. It sounds like the test will be used mainly by companies and corporations, but I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point, a home test kit becomes available.

Sometimes a Comment Launches a Post

2009-06-22T12:40:00.006-05:00

I had to share this comment I received on my latest posting about nontoxic cribs and BPA-free baby bottles. Miranda wrote:

Isn't a better solution just not buying all this crap in the first place? If you cosleep, you don't need a crib or crib mattress. A bed with a towel thrown on is just as effective as buying a changing table. You don't need BPA-free bottles if you breastfeed exclusively.

I don't think she meant it to sound quite as harsh as it sounds, but I'm glad she posted this comment because it brings up an argument I find maddening. First of all, women who breastfeed exclusively also utilize bottles. As I told her in my reply, I breastfed my son exclusively for twelve months. He self-weaned and was moved directly on to cow's milk. However, I also pumped extensively (ask my husband--the sound of the motor kept him up at night) because I also had to leave the house from time to time without my son--client meetings, hair appointments, doctor's appointments, and so on. My mother watched him during these times and certainly couldn't breastfeed him herself. My son ate every two hours. I had to leave bottles of expressed breast milk for him, hence the BornFree baby bottles.

However, what I find much more disturbing is this idea (and I don't know that Miranda meant this idea to come across, but it's there) that if we'd only breastfeed our babies, we wouldn't have to worry about BPA or if we'd only change our babies on our mattresses, we wouldn't have to worry about formaldehyde. Such an argument lets chemical companies off the hook--let them continue using BPA, we'll just breastfeed our babies. And to hell with the babies who have to use baby bottles because, oh, their mothers are, say, single mothers who have to work in order to feed and shelter that baby. Or because their breastfeeding mama had to run out to do a chore and grandma needed a bottle. Such an argument is so inward looking that it rings horribly unfair. I would hazard a guess that the majority of mothers up in arms about BPA in baby bottles are breastfeeding mothers who care about all babies--formula fed or breast fed. We come together as a community to get rid of these toxins because they are what's best for all of us, not just those of us who chose (or even had the luxury) to breastfeed or co-sleep.

And it goes without saying, of course, that the vast majority of canned foods contain a BPA lining. If only we'd stop eating canned foods, then we wouldn't have to worry about this, right? What about the people who eat food from cans--pretty much everybody in the world, at least once in a while? Damn 'em. Let us not pressure the bottle makers and the furniture makers to use different components. What's left unsaid in this argument, too, is that the obstacles to breastfeeding are most numerous in the poorer classes of this society. Single mothers have to work; few workplaces make lactation rooms available. Two income households--same problem. Believe it or not, many women have to work in order to provide for their children, and they do not have the luxury at McDonald's or even at big firms, to retire to a lactation room and pump out a supply of breastmilk. Telling them that if only the'd breastfeed their children would be safe is disingeous and ungenerous. And this comes from a woman who was lucky enough to be able to breastfeed her baby for as long as he wanted.

Miranda's comment, innocent though it may be, did give me an excuse to post about this idea as well as the more minor issue of baby bottles = formula and breastfeeding = no baby bottles. Not only are those equations false, but a comment like hers suggests that we shouldn't even worry about the babies being fed formula for whatever reason--let them ingest the chemicals due to their mothers' "bad behavior."

The Frugal Nontoxic Mama

2009-06-20T22:01:00.002-05:00

I was Safe Seal-ing my bassinet the other day and thought about a conversation I had with my youngest sister, who is hoping to become a mother soon. I was telling her about the new No Compromise crib mattress I had had to purchase for my baby's room--re-using my son's crib--and told her that Mom and I would chip in to buy her one for her nursery when the time came. She looked at me and said: "Just so you know, I won't be doing all the nontoxic stuff you do." I just stared at her: "What do you mean?" She responded: "I just can't afford it."

At first I bristled--wait, I can "afford it"? No, I'm part of a young family with only one member who is employed full-time. However, as I continued sealing my bassinet, I thought to myself--my sister is not the only one who thinks a nontoxic nursery is out of reach. The truth is, I can't afford "it" either, when "it" is the $2000 totally nontoxic nursing rocker from Q Collection Junior, their companion crib, which runs $1100, the Pacific Rim Crib at $750 plus, and so on. While I think it's very important that people buy these products so that there is demonstrated interest in the marketplace and, ideally, more products produced at affordable prices, I know few (no one, really) who can afford a nontoxic nursery at that price.

But it's actually really easy to provide a safe environment for your baby, and it's actually less expensive than buying new: used furniture. I just bought a different changing table off Craig's List, a Pali natural wood changer which contains particleboard. However, it has been owned by two different families over the course of about four years. It has sufficiently off-gassed. My son's crib was actually nontoxic to begin with, with zero particleboard or formaldehyde glue--but it was new and cost less than just about every other crib I looked at (the Alpha Crib from Dax Stores, manufactured by Million Dollar Baby, which makes lots of formaldehyde-free cribs). My new baby will be using this crib. Baby bottles without BPA are now the norm, and no more expensive than the old BPA-containing bottles. Yes, Burt's Bees baby wash is more expensive than Johnson & Johnson's, but spending eight bucks for a bottle that lasts about two months seems feasible when we are talking about the difference between a load of phthalates and zero phthalates. And of course, the one big "expensive" thing is the crib mattress. It was a big purchase for me with my first, and it was a big one for my second. In my case, I worked extra editing jobs to pay for it. For others, the answer might be setting aside $25-30 a month over the course of your pregnancy--that will bring you to the purchase price of about $259. When looked at from that perspective, it seems completely doable.

What isn't necessary, in my opinion, are organic fabrics. I urge the use of cotton, not polyester, because when it comes to baby items, polyester is often doused in PBDEs or fire retardant. But I just bought a crib set that has polyester bumpers. They "off-gassing" as I type.

I can't emphasize enough how great used furniture is when you're trying to construct a nontoxic nursery. Stores like Once Upon a Child stock used cribs that look like new, are not on the recall list, and are safe for your baby to sleep in. Craig's List is another great resource. Let's keep this stuff out of the landfill and keep the toxic fumes of formaldehyde-containing particleboard out of our nurseries. I can't tell you how many e-mails I get from parents saying--"so THAT is what the smell is."

Here we go again...

2009-06-09T12:34:00.003-05:00

My second baby is due at the end of September and we have just finished moving our toddler into his new "big boy" room with his new "big boy bed." We bought a used toddler bed at a thrift store, which solves any off-gassing issues (although this bed was made entirely of solid wood, there was a dark stain that I can only assume was rather odoriferous when it was first purchased). He did take with him his No-Compromise crib mattress, the one I've gone on and on about. The recap: the No-Compromise crib mattress by Naturpedic is free of PVC/vinyl, PBDEs (toxic fire retardants), dust mite barrier, organic cottn, meets all standards, fits all cribs (and toddler beds), and is just all around wonderful. From one of my earlier posts about this mattress:

Crib Mattress
This one is easy. No-Compromise Crib Mattress. This one is widely available; I recently bought one as a baby gift for my sister-in-law off Amazon. They are PVC/vinyl-free, utilizing polyethylene instead (food-grade). They do not contain noxious fire retardants found in most crib mattress; instead the compay uses a fire protection system (detailed in exhaustive detail on the website) that is free from those possibly carcinogenic toxins. This is an expensive mattress. There is no question about that. But for me, it was what I splurged on because it gave me peace of mind. Maybe I didn't get that ridiculously expensive diaper bag, and I guess I didn't buy all the wall decorations and nursery accessories that I might have otherwise. But this mattress was, to me, far more important than any of those other nursery furnishings. One note: I noticed at Babies R Us that Serta is selling a "safe" baby mattress. I'm glad large companies are taking note of the dangers of polyurethane foam mattresses; but be sure to read the fine print and note if these companies are still dousing their mattresses in fire retardant.

Anyway, the new baby needs a new mattress, so I just ordered another No Compromise crib mattress, though this time I ordered their new "seamless" crib mattress--it was the same price but is more of a square shape and doesn't have the high side seams that my son's mattress has. I don't really see any advantage to this, but I thought I'd mix it up a little. I also decided to buy a No Compromise bassinet mattress this time around. My son didn't like to spend any time in the bassinet but I'm hoping my little girl will. I ordered both from Baby Earth, which offers free shipping.

In other nursery news, I've decided to repaint and will be using Olympic no-VOC paints (available exclusively at Lowes) as they are cheaper than other no-VOC paints and I have used them successfully in the past.

Notes from a Desperate Industry

2009-06-01T23:23:00.002-05:00

Some heroic soul who attended a brainstorming session between plastics industry executives gave the notes of that meeting to a reporter at the Washington Post. Concerned about the viability of BPA-containing plastics, they apparently huddled for hours and tried to figure out how to keep more states from legislating bans, keep consumers from learning about (or believing)the research that links BPA to a host of negative health effects, and how to essentially keep BPA on the market. The notes are both chilling and pathetic.

An example for how to scare mothers--whom they identified as their key target because of their passionate concern for the health of their babies--was particularly absurd: ask them "do you want to have access to baby food anymore?" This is linked to the potential BPA ban many states are considering for food containers. The industry is even more trouble than one might think if they actually believe this would be an effective strategy. The term "fear tactics" was used in the meeting, unsurprisingly.

One of the more heinous details is this one: "Their 'holy grail' spokesperson would be a 'pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA,' " the notes said."

Words fail me. Read more about this inside baseball on the Washington Post, linked here.

Minnesota Bans BPA (Or: Why I'm Proud to Be a Minnesotan Today)

2009-05-08T20:55:00.004-05:00

Some of you may have followed the saga of the Toxic-Free Kids Act and BPA Ban that has been ongoing here in the state of Minnesota for a few years now. Healthy Legacy, an advocacy nonprofit out of Minnesota that has worked tirelessly--and I do mean tirelessly--to keep BPA out of baby bottles and sippy cups, and to limit our children's exposure to phthalates can take credit for helping Minnesota become the first state in America to ban, outright, the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. In addition, the Toxic-Free Kids Act creates a system by which the state must address the problem of toxins found in children's products (a daunting task, one that the FDA has not been up to).

The reason this victory is so sweet is because the last time the Minnesota legislature passed legislation like this, our governor, Tim Pawlenty, vetoed it, for reasons that still remain unclear to me. However, this time, the bill passed again, overwhelmingly, and it when it reached his desk, Pawlenty signed it into law. I applaud him for reversing course on this. I believe he said, last time, that the "science wasn't in." In the year that has passed, the science has proven almost conclusively that Bisphenol-A is leached from baby bottles and sippy cups containing it in amounts that are clearly problematic. In fact, more than 200 studies have shown that even in low doses, BPA is linked to reproductive problems, cancer, heart disease, and neurological issues. As you are probably well aware, the Bush-era FDA found BPA risk-free--but that finding was blasted when it became known that the agency, for some truly bizarre reason, chose to use only American Chemistry Council-funded studies of the chemical. The American Chemistry Council is the industry group for the chemical industry, which has a huge stake in keeping BPA on the market.

The Toxin-Free Kids Act is another groundbreaking piece of legislation. There is currently near-zero federal oversight in the use of new chemicals in household products, including, amazingly, children's products. That's why you end up with formaldehyde in children's bath soap or 1, 4 dioxane. That's why you end up with lead in toys and phthalates in everything from lotions to teething rings. This key piece of legislation, which Pawlenty signed into law, forces the Minnesota Department of Health to evaluate chemicals used in consumer products and gauge their toxicity levels.

What makes all of this so exciting is the push these laws in Minnesota will undoubtedly give Feinstein and Markey's bills in Congress, banning BPA from food and beverage containers.

I Want This...

2009-04-30T22:12:00.005-05:00

Trying to escape news of Swine Flu, I have been looking for an "eco-friendly" (read: formaldehyde-free) nursery rocker. I didn't have one of these when I nursed my son, and as a result, was always trying to find a comfortable position in which to nurse. Most often, I ended up in bed, which is fine. But we just finished up my two-year-old son's new room, moving him out of the nursery and into his big boy room, and I am thinking about the new baby's room. We've got the crib covered--the excellent nontoxic Alpha Crib from Dax Stores, which I've written about before. We have a leftover changing table (Jardine, I think?) which was not a "green" product but which has probably off-gassed more than enough. Now I want that glider I never had.

And of course, I have to find one that is $2,000 and gorgeous. And I want it. Bad. It's the Alberto Winged Glider, part of the very cool Q Collection Junior line. The company makes truly eco-friendly and lung-healthy furniture products for nurseries, and they are priced accordingly. Even their changing tables top $1,000. But they know their stuff. This isn't simply "We use FSC-certified wood (but use formaldeyde-containing glue to put it together!)". It's the whole she-bang.

So I see this gorgeous piece of furniture and now I'm trying to think of all the ways I can make some extra money to make this mine. Even with the fiction prize and two fellowships I recently won (yes, after several drought years, someone finally took pity on me)I can't funnel the money to this purchase; considering the fact that we just learned how much we're going to have to shell out for Hudson's first year at Montessori school, I can safely say this will remain a chair of my dreams. But for anyone out there who can drop $2,000 on a nursery rocker and wants one that is beautiful and truly nontoxic, check out the Alberto Winged Glider. Know that each one is made to order, so you need to order 6-8 weeks in advance. There is also a $200+ delivery fee.

Childhood Obesity Linked to Phthalates: from today's Times

2009-04-17T15:31:00.001-05:00

From today's New York Times:

Child Obesity Is Linked to Chemicals in Plastics
By Jennifer 8. Lee
Exposure to chemicals used in plastics may be linked with childhood obesity, according to results from a long-term health study on girls who live in East Harlem and surrounding communities that were presented to community leaders on Thursday by researchers at Mount Sinai Medical Center.

The chemicals in question are called phthalates, which are used to to make plastics pliable and in personal care products. Phthalates, which are absorbed into the body, are a type of endocrine disruptor — chemicals that affect glands and hormones that regulate many bodily functions. They have raised concerns as possible carcinogens for more than a decade, but attention over their role in obesity is relatively recent.

The research linking endocrine disruptors with obsesity has been growing recently. A number of animals studies have shown that exposing mice to some endocrine disruptors causes them be more obese. Chemicals that have raised concern include Bisphenol A (which is used in plastics) and perfluorooctanoic acid, which is often used to create nonstick surfaces.

However, the East Harlem study, which includes data published in the journal Epidemiology, presents some of the first evidence linking obesity and endocrine disruptors in humans.

The researchers measured exposure to phthalates by looking at the children’s urine. “The heaviest girls have the highest levels of phthalates metabolites in their urine,” said Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, a professor of pediatrics at Mount Sinai, one of the lead researchers on the study. “It goes up as the children get heavier, but it’s most evident in the heaviest kids.”

This builds upon a larger Mount Sinai research effort called “Growing Up Healthy in East Harlem,” which has looked at various health factors in East Harlem children over the last 10 years, including pesticides, diet and even proximity to bodegas.

About 40 percent of the children in East Harlem are considered either overweight or obese. “When we say children, I’m talking about kindergarten children, we are talking about little kids,” Dr. Landrigan said. “This is a problem that begins early in life.”

The Growing Up Healthy study involves more than 300 children in East Harlem, and an additional 200 or so children in surrounding community.

The phthalate study follows a separate group of about 400 girls in the same communities, who range in age from 9 to 11.

One thing researchers have found is that the levels of phthalates measured in children in both studies are significantly higher than the average levels that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have measured for children across the entire United States.

The findings may presage a new approach to thinking about obesity — drawing environmental factors into a central part of the equation. “Most people think childhood obesity is an imbalance between how much they eat and how much they play,” Dr. Landrigan said.

But he thinks the impact of endocrine disruptors on obesity could be more significant than many people believe. “Most people think it’s marginal,” he said, paling in comparison with diet and exercise.

But he likened it with the impact of lead on a child’s I.Q. “Lead never makes more than 3 or 4 percent difference in margin, but 3 to 5 I.Q. points is a big deal,” he said.

Of course, at this stage, researchers cannot say if the exposure actually causes obesity, simply that it seems to be linked. “Right now it’s a correlation; we don’t know if it’s cause and effect or an accidental finding,” Dr. Landrigan said. “The $64,000 question is, what is causal pathway? Does it go through the thyroid gland? Does it change fat metabolism?”

The National Children’s Study, which will follow 100,000 children from across the country from birth to age 21, will look more broadly at endocrine disruptors and other issues.

“Some of the clues that come out of East Harlem will actually be pursued in the larger one,” Dr. Landrigan said.

Meanwhile, Dr. Landrigan advised people to reduce their exposure to phthalates as a precautionary measure. “You can’t avoid them completely, but you can certainly reduce their exposure,” he said.

It’s somewhat difficult to do, since many things do not contain labels identifying phthalates, and in the case of perfumes they can simply be labeled as “fragrance.”

Phthalates are found in certain personal care products (like nail polish and cosmetics), though recent regulation has encouraged companies to reduce or eliminate them.

They are also found in common everyday objects, including vinyl siding, toys and pacifiers. A number of environmental Web sites, including The Daily Green, have advised certain strategies, including learning to recognize the abbreviations for certain common phthalates and to prefer certain kinds of recyclable plastics over others.

Parabens in...: Toddler Toothpaste and Eye Makeup Remover

2009-04-15T14:21:00.005-05:00

I am continually amazed to discover how many products contain parabens. I ran out of eye makeup remover ages ago and had pregnancy brain and couldn't remember to pick it up at the store the last few times I was there. Besides, I reasoned that I don't get myself together to the point where I actually get to apply my makeup most days, so it didn't seem pressing. But on a recent shopping trip to Target, I finally remembered to peruse the aisles. Literally every single eye makeup remover I picked up--Cover Girl, L'oreal, Physicians Formula, etc.--contained parabens and one even contained diazodinyl urea. Why? After circling the aisles in increasing desperation, I finally spotted an Almay brand--Almay Oil Free Eye Makeup Remover--that was paraben free. I snatched it up. Comparable in price to the other eye makeup removers, this one contains no parabens and no urea, but the packaging doesn't advertise this.

Then I was looking for a toddler toothpaste for my son. We have little to no fluoride in our water because of a filtration system I put in place for that reason, and he's just about over the Jason/Earth's Best non-fluoride toothpaste. Toothbrushing is serious toddler business now, and he wants to move up from the farm league. So I perused the offerings at Target. Again, the paraben spectre reared its ridiculous head. Orajel's Toddler Training Toothpaste--in all flavors--contains parabens. And by the way, can we talk about the complete uselessness of flavoring toddler toothpastes with variations like "Berry Blast," "Bubble Burst," "Fruit Splash," and "Tooty Fruity"? Isn't the goal to get them to spit the toothpaste out, not ingest it like liquid sugar? But I digress. From the Orajel website, here is the list of inactive ingredients:

Inactive ingredients purified water, sorbitol, propylene glycol, glycerin, carboxymethylcellulose sodium, flavor, citric acid, methylparaben, potassium sorbate, sodium saccharin, propylparaben

I'm annoyed.

Just to reiterate, parabens mimic estrogen. This is a problem for many reasons. An example, a study published in 2004 (Darbre, in the Journal of Applied Toxicology) detected parabens in breast tumors. They can disrupt the endocrine system, and the jury is still out on how they affect fetuses and infants. But bear in mind that any chemical that affects an adult typically affects, to a greater degree, smaller people like children and babies. Parabens are found in the urine of most people, according to a CDC report.

Lesson: read the labels of everything. Reject anything that contains a paraben: butylparaben, methylparaben, etc, etc. Even if it means looking around the store for longer than you'd like to, or even postponing a purchase to buy it online.

Rocket Fuel in Formula: Part Deux

2009-04-03T08:11:00.007-05:00

NOTE: Links below, including one that allows you to find out if perchlorate has been detected in your water:

The CDC reported last month (quietly, it seems) that scientists there found perchlorate or rocket fuel in several brands of formula, in levels that "could" exceed levels that are safe for adults. While this is terrible news, it is not exactly surprising. As I reported last year, percholorate is found in water supplies across the country and, as a result, in a lot of food. Much of this is due to contamination from defense contracting sites (which, incidentally, many of these contractors flatly refuse to clean up). Large amounts of the chemical can affect thyroid function but no long term studies have been done on the effects of ingestion over long periods of time or in babies. Note that this study did not assess the risks of Perchlorate, however. It merely showed that the chemical was present in baby formula.

What's even more useful (sarcasm intended) is that the author sof the study refused to disclose which formula brands contained the chemical. They only went so far as to say that it was cow milk-based formulas that contained the highest amount of perc.

If you feed your baby formula, don't panic. While I am a proponent of breastfeeding and believe it vastly superior to formula feeding, I am a realist. Not everyone can or wants to do it. If you are a formula feeding mom or dad, don't stop feeding your baby formula because of this report. He/she needs it if not breastfeeding, and the benefits clearly outweigh the drawbacks at this point. We simply don't know enough to make any informed decisions, such as which formula brands are the culprits. As an aside, I've seen several self-righteous blog postings by breastfeeding moms who say, 'whew, this is why I'm glad I breastfeed!' Sadly, breastfeeding does not keep our children safe from this chemical. If you drink water, you probably have perc in your system and that is probably excreted into your breastmilk. This was a sad realization I had when I was breastfeeding my son--although, luckily, the Tap Water Quality database indicates that the water I drink in my city is not contaminated by perchlorate. Nothing gets you on the bandwagon quicker than realizing that even breastmilk isn't pristine because of the industrial waste and exposure we are forced ot live with. This is why everyone--absolutely everyone--has a stake in getting this shit out of our groundwater.

My single biggest piece of advice, at this time, when it comes to perchlorate (and use the search field on this site to search for my earlier post on this chemical) is to get some kind of water filtration system. If you mix your baby formula with filtered water you will drastically cut back on the amount of perchlorate your baby is exposed to if you live in one of the parts of the country that has this problem. We have a Culligan system that costs $30 a month.

More information from the Organic Consumers Association on perchlorate contamination of our water and food supply. I also want to draw your attention to the inability or unwillingness of local and federal legislators to do anything about this issue. Only Diane Feinstein of California has had the balls to propose any kind of legislation that would force clean-up of these sites. Rest assured, though, that the media attention on this issue will suddenly make legislators very...attentive...to this issue. It would help, though, to send letters to your local and federal legislators. It's always important to write your local representatives because, as we've seen with BPA, sometimes the state governments and even municipal governments, take action before the sluggish federal monster awakens.

Finally, look up your state's exposure to perchlorate in the water supply at the National Tap Water Database. In Minnesota, for example, the cities of Moorhead and Minneapolis had perchlorate contamination of their water supplies. Click on "Find Your Water Company" to see the report on your city's water supply. You might have to search for perchlorate. For my city, for example, it was down in a long list of chemicals "tested for but not detected."

The (Pregnant) Compromises

2009-04-01T19:36:00.006-05:00

Some of you who regularly follow my blog may have noticed that my postings have been scarce since January. There is a reason: I'm pregnant. And while I had morning sickness with my first baby, the first trimester of this pregnancy has been a different ballgame. The morning sickness rendered me mummy-like--totally useless and just taking up space. I had all-day morning sickness which became more debilitating as the day wore on. The fatigue was unlike any fatigue I've ever known.

Throughout these difficult 12 weeks, I did not gain a pound. In fact, I lost a few. And not because I wasn't eating. I tried to continue eating the various foods--healthy, organic, all the sorts of things I ate when I wasn't pregnant and which have become an integral part of my life, but the very thought of these foods soon became vomit-inducing. I couldn't bear to cook and couldn't bear to have my husband cook. The smell of cooking food was enough to drive me to my bed. My mom took to making casseroles for us, but she had to cook them at her house. Soon my diet consisted of Kettle potato chips, Dilly Bars, and, to my great shame (having read Fast Food Nation), McDonalds. I literally could not bear anything else. The insistent drumbeat urging me into the drive through was impossible to ignore. And this is exactly the kind of food I steer clear from--non-organic milk, meat that is likely NOT antibiotic and hormone-free, etc. But I ate there. And I ate there a lot. It was the only thing I could keep down, and as soon as I had that first French fry in my mouth, I had the relief a heroin addict must feel when that needle goes in his arm. My husband, who, if given the choice between a McDonalds extra value meal and a bowl of earthworms might actually choose the worms, was, I'm sure, horrified. But: care? I didn't.

Luckily, now at fourteen weeks, these cravings have disappeared and I can cook again. However, the whole situation made me think about my whole you-must-do-this-during-pregnancy ethos. While I was able to follow most of my own rules: no paraben-containing body lotions or cosmetics, no phthalate-containing personal products, organic milk only, organic fruit, and so on, when the going got really rough, I did what I had to do. And this, to me, is an excellent illustration of the principle of doing what you can. Many people have e-mailed me since I started this blog saying they are overwhelmed by all the toxins (toxicants) they have to avoid, the cost of organic foods, the cost of safe baby products, and so on. My response is always to do your honest best with the resources you have. The short-term goal is to minimize exposure. We don't have to be, and we can't, be perfect.

Science for Sale PSA: Radon Mitigation

2009-03-18T08:15:00.002-05:00

My husband, son, and I live in a 102-year-old house, one of the first homes to be homesteaded in "West Minneapolis." When we bought the house, it was full of the idiosyncracies of the most recent owners, who really wanted to be living in a cabin in the North Woods. It's been a painstaking task to go room by room and remove century-old wallpaper, patch walls, pull up musty carpet and refinish the original fir floors. By doing a little bit of a time, we've been able to afford small renovations.

And while I was vigilant during the closing process--checked the area for Level 3 sex offenders (didn't stop one from moving in last week, though), for example--my husband and I did not think to have the place tested for radon. Radon is a naturally occuring radioactive gas formed by uranium in the earth's crust. It's odorless, tasteless, colorless. And, unfortunately, it is currently the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the United States. Long story short, radon is found more often in certain parts of the country, and Minnesota is one of those places.

We tested our basement a month ago, hiring a radon tester who does not also have a mitigation company. I feel this is a conflict of interest. This guy was actually a home inspector who specialized in radon testing. The test came back at 8 pico couries/liter (pCi/L). This is frighteningly high. The EPA recommends no long-term radon exposure above 4 pCi/L. Mitigation was a must. We prepared ourselves for a huge expense, but after getting several estimates, we found it wouldn't be more than about $1200 for our particular house. This is not a small chunk of change, basically our entire tax return, but if we'd had to borrow from Payday Loans, we would have. This is not an optional cost. This is necessary.

Yesterday, the guys from the mitigation company came by and installed our system. Unfortunately because our home is old and weird, they couldn't put the fan inside our house, which leaves us open to the possibility of fan freeze should the temp dip to 25 below zero, which it will. Anyway, They drilled a deep hole in the slab of our basement, removing 15-20 gallons of dirt, inserted a PVC pipe, sealed. That pipe was routed to the outside of our home, installed vertically, threaded through our gutter and roof, and routed out of our house, ten feet from any window. A small fan was installed as well. The way these systems work is that by sucking the radon from beneath the slab, the fan then propels it out of the house entirely. Our company guarantees to 2.0 pCi/L or less, so we will test beginning tomorrow.

I tell this story because even today, people don't think to test for radon. Sometimes it's lack of information; sometimes it's fear--what if we have to drop $1,000 to fix this? But for the well-being of your family, I urge you to do this simple test. The benefits so outweigh the costs. I can feel my blood pressure reducing as I type.

If you do choose to mitigate, choose a company that is recommended by your state's Department of Health. Most of them have a list of licensed, bonded companies. That's how we found ours.

Minnesota Dogfight: Passing the BPA/Phthalate Bills Despite Pawlenty and his ACC Friends

2009-03-17T06:33:00.006-05:00

There's a fight going on in the legislative halls of Minnesota right now, thanks to the Herculean efforts of the people at Healthy Legacy. Thank you to Lisa Wolf for this information. As some of you may remember, the Minnesota Legislature took the important step of voting on and passing a bill that would outlaw BPA and phthalates from children's products sold in Minnesota. While the federal government has outlawed phthalates and lead, the FDA has not declared BPA harmful in any way, and so there has been no move to ban it from baby products on a nationwide level. Thankfully, many manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to simply phase it out and eliminate the chemical from their processes altogether. This is because parents and other concerned citizens spoke with their dollars and stopped buying BPA-containing baby bottles, for example. (However, BPA remains in a number of other products, including canned food linings.)

Minnesota citizens didn't want to wait for the federal government, so legislators, under pressure from their constituents, passed this important bill with bipartisan support. Then our governor, Tim Pawlenty, vetoed it. Why? For a long time, it was unclear. But then the other day, Representative Margaret Anderson Kelliher referenced Pawlenty's letter to the legislature explaining his veto. It was chock full of incorrect information and read like an American Chemistry Council press release. NOTE: Lisa Wolf kindly pointed out to me that BPA was no longer on the bill when Pawlenty vetoed it--BPA was taken off the bill in committee because legislators thought it would give it a better chance to pass without it. Phthalates and deca-BDE remained on the bill. And so Pawlenty did not actually veto a BPA-ban.

It is inexcusable and frankly unforgivable that a poltician at Pawlenty's level relies on industry science to make decisions like this. Is it incompetence? Is it collusion? Deviousness? Any of these options are terrifying. So, with this as background, the legislature is gearing up again to reconsider this issue, and this time we need a veto-proof majority. That's where Healthy Legacy is coming in again. The organization has been tireless in rallying around this issue, and has come up with a strategy to make sure the bills (The BPA-Free Baby Products Act and the Toxic Free Kids Act) are passed this time, regardless of Pawlenty's reliance on the ACC's "research" and his own veto power. Below, take a look at these strategies. If you don't live in Minnesota but care about this issue, why not implement some of the strategies yourself, looking up the information for your local representatives, and sending letters. As you can see, municipalities and states across the country are taking it upon themselves to regulate harmful chemicals since the federal government, up to now, has been incapable or unwilling to do so themselves.

Here is our recipe for success:

1. We need massive constituent pressure. If you have any membership, family, or friends in these areas please have them call their legislator as soon as possible. Every call counts!
Folks we need to talk to:

Sen. James Metzen (DFL 39) CHAIR- West St. Paul, Mendota, Inver Grove Heights 651.296.4370http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/member_bio.php?mem_id=1037&ls=85

Sen. Kathy Saltzman (DFL 56) VICE CHAIR- Woodbury, Lake Elmo, Oak Park Heights 651.296.4166
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/member_bio.php?mem_id=1114

Sen. David Tomassoni (DFL 05)- Iron Range 651.296.8017
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/member_bio.php?leg_id=10669

Sen. Thom Bakk (DFL 06)-North shore, Grand Marais, Ely, Babbitt, Duluth 651.296.8881
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/member_bio.php?leg_id=10027

Sen. Geof Michel (R 41)- Edina 651.296.6238
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/member_bio.php?district=41

Sen. Julie Rosen (R 24) Fairmount, Blue Earth 651.296.5713
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/member_bio.php?leg_id=10803

Sen. Dan Sparks (DFL 27) Albert Lea, Austin 651.296.9248
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/member_bio.php?ls=85&mem_id=1062

2. We will be hosting regular staff and volunteer phonebanks in the next few weeks and I will email out the schedule soon. So, any volunteers or staff that could dedicate some time in the evenings would be great!

3. We will need massive turnout to this committee hearing but alas we don’t have a schedule yet. Another reason to CALL Senator Metzen.

4. Letters to the Editor in any local papers would be phenomenal.

Simple Sample Constituent Phone Call:
Hi Senator________,
My Name is __________ and I am from _____________. I am calling because I am concerned about toxins in children’s products. That is why I am counting on you to support the Toxic Free Kids Act and the BPA Free Baby Products bill. Thank you,

More in-depth call:
Hi Senator_______________,
My Name is __________ and I am from _____________. I am calling because I am concerned about toxins in children’s products. Bisphenol A and other chemicals are turning up in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula cans, teething rings and baby’s bath products. Health impacts include diabetes, cancer, hormone disruption and much more. Safer alternatives exist and frankly, we have not met our potential for jobs in Minnesota through the manufacture and sale of safe plastics and green chemistry. That is why I am counting on you to support the Toxic Free Kids Act and the BPA Free Baby Products bill. These bills will phase out harmful toxins from children’s products while opening the door to a new sector of the economy in Minnesota.

A New Regime

2009-03-11T20:33:00.003-05:00

It's been hard to keep up with all the good news since administrations have changed in Washington. I hardly know what to rail against anymore! OK, well maybe the changes have been that dramatic, but let's talk about some huge victories for anyone interested in seeing science free from political interference.

Earlier this week, President Obama released an official memorandum to the Office of Science and Technology Policy directing them to build a strategy to prevent political interference in science. He vowed to make the role of science in the federal government sacrosanct (or at least independent and free from political and industry pressure) by ensuring that "scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda--and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Some beautiful highlights:

*"Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions."
*"The selection of scientists and technology professionals for positions in the executive branch should be based on their scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity."
*"When scientific or technological information is considered in policy decisions, the information should be subject to well-established scientific processes, including peer review where appropriate, and each agency should appropriately and accurately reflect that information in complying with and applying relevant statutory standards"
*Each agency should adopt such additional procedures, including any appropriate whistleblower protections, as are necessary to ensure the integrity of scientific and technological information and processes on which the agency relies in its decisionmaking or otherwise uses or prepares.

I could just go on and on. When dealing with federal officials, it's always best to be guarded, and I will remain so. Industry can be devious and ingenious in the way it worms itself into the process. But after eight years of science being pushed to the side, treated as just another ideology, scientists silenced, their research censored or altered, I find it hard, admittedly, to contain my excitement.

If you're interested in reading this historic document, check it out online here.

Transparency Makes the Difference

2009-02-28T10:14:00.002-06:00

I've been lax on posting recently because I've been quite under the weather. Still am, but have to, like all parents, continue doing the parenting thing no matter how sick I am. One thing we are in the process of doing is transitioning my 22-month-old into a "big boy bed." As with our crib purchase, we enter the minefield of particleboard, formaldehyde, and other annoyingly omnipresent components in furniture. What makes these kinds of purchasing decisions much more difficult is that companies are rarely clear or up-front about what kind of materials are used in their products. (Take my Pottery Barn fiasco as an example).

I wanted to briefly spotlight one company whose transparency makes my job much easier. Ikea certainly stocks plenty of furniture items constructed with particleboard--hey, that's how it keeps its prices so low. But it also sells a lot of sustainable wood-only products. And determining one from the other is extremely simple: each Ikea furniture product contains its entire component material list on its tag or on the website. So, for example, we are looking at Ikea's selection of children's beds. Some of them include particleboard or fiberboard; some of them don't. I don't have to guess. And although the selection of non-particleboard furniture is not huge, it exists, which is more than a lot of large retailers can claim. I love that many of their products are completely particleboard free.

This rings true not just for children's beds, but also for TV consoles and other living room furniture. Once we've made a choice on the big boy bed, I'll post about it, but if you are in the same boat as me, consider shopping at Ikea and reading the tags.

States and Cities on BPA: We'll just ban it ourselves

2009-02-16T11:48:00.003-06:00

As has been exhaustively detailed on this blog, the FDA has failed, time and time again, to protect U.S. citizens from toxic chemicals. Perhaps the most egregious of these failures, at least in recent memory, is its unwillingness to regulate BPA, the endocrine-disruptor found in countless plastics, including baby bottles. I won't get into the science, which has found, overwhelmingly, that small amounts of the chemical affect serious changes in the human body, most particularly in the infant body. Instead, I'll focus on some really heartening news. Cities and states are now taking it upon themselves to simply ban BPA themselves.

Let's talk about Chicago. Last week, the Finance Committee of the Chicago City Council held hearings on a proposal to ban BPA from children's products (by the way, I am waiting for someone from the chemical industry to pull an "Insider" and blow the whistle on the "science" being produced by the industry to keep BPA on the market). According to the Chicago Tribune,

Ald. Edward Burke (14th) and Ald. Manny Flores (1st) have sponsored a resolution that urges the FDA "to expedite its current review of the safety of bisphenol A . . . and take appropriate action." The resolution says that if the FDA doesn't take action by April 30, Chicago will "aggressively pursue" a city ban on BPA.

In Minnesota, a bill to ban BPA as well as one to ban phthalates, both in children's products, passed the state legislature, only to be vetoed by our governor, Tim Pawlenty, for reasons that remain a complete mystery. In fact, I've been told by a source that after being questioned about these vetoes, Pawlenty seemed ill equipped to participate in any intelligent conversation regarding either of these two toxins. He seemed surprised to learn how toxic--and ever-present--phthalates, in particular, are. In any case, Healthy Legacy has again written a bill to ban BPA from children's products. I cannot imagine that if this bill passes the legislature again that Pawlenty can veto it. The outcry over BPA has only grown, especially in Minnesota. That the bill has appeared in two consecutive legislative sessions suggests that the people who elected Pawlenty want this bill passed and want their children protected. I urge anyone who lives in Minnesota to visit the governor's website and take the time to write him an e-mail demanding that he leave the bill unmolested should it pass. You may e-mail Tim Pawlenty at: tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us

Step One: The Review

2009-02-05T03:26:00.002-06:00

As many of you know, I am a vocal critic of the FDA. I feel the agency has failed us, time and time again. The BPA fiasco is only one example. The outrageous failures regarding the salmonella outbreak from the peanut factory in Georgia is another. Some of this has to do with blatant scientific interference and incompetence; some of it has to do with the fact that the FDA is hamstrung by idiotic rules. Example: the FDA could not compell the Georgia factory to send its salmonella-positive results, nor could it compell a mandatory recall of the contaminated peanut butter and paste that sickened hundreds and killed--killed--eight people. And of course a large portion of its failure to "catch" things is directly linked to the budget slash-fest courtesy of former president Bush.

You also know that I advocate pressuring agencies and corporations to shape up. I took some of my own advice two weeks ago and wrote in to the Obama Administration, having heard that the administration actually does read the letters it receives from the public. In fact, I read that Obama receives two binders every morning: one containing important security and policy information, and one containing letters from the public. I don't know if this is true. But on the off chance it was, I felt I had to chime in about the FDA and ask Obama to consider completely reworking it.

Then, this week, this news: President Obama has ordered a full review of the workings of the FDA. In an interview this week, Obama said, the FDA had been marked by “instances over the last several years” in which “the FDA has not been able to catch some of these things as quickly as I expect them to catch.” Of course, being the even-tempered, cool-headed man that he is, his words are measured. I would have been far harsher. But then that's why I'm writing this blog and am not running the country! He continued: “At bare minimum, we should be able to count on our government keeping our kids safe when they eat peanut butter."

And, finally, in words I have been longing to hear for years: "We are going to make sure that we retool the FDA, that it’s operating in a highly professional fashion and, most importantly, that we prevent these things, as opposed to trying to catch them after they’ve already occurred.” I hope President Obama will add to that agenda that scientific interference and industry interference in science will also be on the table for examination.

The CSA Chronicles: Starting Again

2009-01-26T14:37:00.004-06:00

I didn't think I'd be writing my next installment of The CSA Chronicles until I got my first produce box some time in June, but in the last two weeks, something unfortunate has happened to Matonya's CSA. I received the following e-mail from James and Jane, the young farmer-couple who was planning to launch their CSA this summer:

Ashley,

We have some very unfortunate news to share with you. Due to unavoidable reasons, we have lost our access to land on which we had planned to run our CSA this coming growing season. This is becoming a large problem in our country as land is valued in such a way that people wishing to produce real, healthy, local food are becoming more and more unable to do so. We are saddened and disappointed that we will not be able to share with you all that we had hoped for. Fortunately for you, Minnesota has one of the best local food networks in the country and we strongly urge you to join another CSA. Our friends at Easy Bean Farm run a tremendous CSA and we strongly reccommend them. (http://www.easybeanfarm.com/) If they do not suite your needs, there are many other resources to be had. The Land Stewardship project (www.landstewardshipproject.org/) will post its brochure of upcoming CSAs at the beginning of March and this is an excellent resource to compare and decide on which CSA is right for you. Also local harvest is an excellent resource as well. And finally Minnesota Grown (www.mda.state.mn.us/food/minnesotagrown/) will also be compiling its annual brochure for you to choose just what works for you and your family.

Again we are extremely sorry that our commitment has fallen through, but strongly urge you to consider another option. This way of economics, food production, and community building is one of the first steps we as a nation must take in order to see this "change we can believe in." You will be fully refunded for your deposit in the coming week so please watch for that in the mail. And let us know if there is any other way in which we can help you.

Peace, Jane and James

I was very sorry to hear this. It seems to me they lost access to some land they planned to lease specifically for the CSA because someone felt what they produce might not have been as lucrative as what another tenant might produce. I plan on visiting them this summer at the Minneapolis Farmers Market to see what really happened. In the meantime, I did decide to take James and Jane up on their recommendation of Easy Bean Farm and sent my deposit in this weekend. I will report back, both on my CSA adventures and James and Jane's saga. In the meantime, here are the questions I want to explore during my CSA experience:

1.) Will I receive better quality organic food straight from the farm than I do from the organic aisle at Cub? Will it look different? Better? Will it taste different? Better?
2.) Financially, will my initial layout be worth it in terms of the amount of produce I get vs. what I spend at Cub every two weeks. One advantage the CSA has over Cub already, in terms of produce, is that because I shop only once every two weeks, our produce bins have tumbleweeds in them by the time I'm heading to Cub again. Getting fresh vegetables once a week will make a huge difference.
3.) How will it be cooking with vegetables that I am only marginally familiar with? Easy Bean Farm's CSA boxes will contain, among other things, mustard greens, swiss chard, kohlrabi, radishes, beets, pac choi, etc.

Anyway, I'm still terribly excited and look forward to cutting out about six links of the supply chain so that it's just the farmer and me.