Even on this glorious cloudless morning, the horizon hints of brown. :(
So as to avoid beating a dead horse, I will simply encourage you to read the article that I referred to before about phthalates linked to smaller penises and feminized male genitalia. (Who know s what the heck happens to the inside of girl babies.) The scientific article in whole is available only through purchase so this is the next best thing - a comprehensive summary.
Please note the reference by the ACC. At least the writer did justice to who the ACC actually represents and what their first priority is.
Please keep in mind that phthalates are everywhere. Please read the ingredients in personal care products, particularly lotions and hair products. Phthalates are added to plastics to make them soft. And most importantly, keep soft plastic toys away from kids who still put things in their mouth. Those damn rubber duckies...
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
SIGG - Still Not Green and Here's Why
Perfectly clear morning, more color popping up.
It is time to update some facts and commentary with regard to the previous SIGG vs Klean Kanteen blog. There are 3 areas of "greenness" that I would like to update and clarify.
At the top of the list is the amount of energy required to make the product, its carbon footprint and pollution, typically the first and most important eco criteria of any "environmental" product.
First stainless steel. There is no doubt that producing stainless steel is energy intensive and grossly polluting, pumping out 2-8 tons of CO2 per ton of steel. Using recycled steel greatly reduces CO2 by as much as 60-75%. Luckily this has been common practice for so long that 66% of the steel is from recycled steel. A Klean Kanteen spokes person verified that their steel is 50% recycled content prior to the introduction of the alloys. In addition, there is no lead in either aluminum or stainless steel, the seams in the KK bottles are welded (melted) not soldered.
The manufacturing of virgin aluminum is more polluting than steel, releasing 18 tons of CO2 per ton of aluminum. One source says that manufacturing aluminum releases 10 times the CO2 vs steel, per ton. The manufacturing of aluminum is responsible for 1% of the CO2 released world wide with most of the energy needed in the initial smelting phase. Using recycled aluminum saves 95% of the energy, CO2 and pollution. Recycled aluminum offers the greatest opportunity of reducing CO2 compared to any other recyclable product while at the same time not losing any of its integrity.
In the perfect world we would have a water bottle made out of impervious non-breakable 100% recycled content glass. But our world isn't perfect and so we pick and choose what's next in line. With Carbon Footprint in mind, using part recycled stainless steel over virgin aluminum wins hands down. If all the soda cans can have a high recycled content, so can SIGG. I will maintain my position on this as I find it incomprehensible that SIGG washes itself environmental yet uses virgin aluminum, while recycled aluminum would only use 5% of the energy.
With regard to the potential of BPA in the SIGG lining, this is considered a product's chemical footprint. For review, SIGG's only one test for BPA did not show any BPA "detectable" above 2 parts per billion, PPB. They did not test below 2 PPB. Since my first blog about SIGG vs KK, more research has shown disturbing findings of hormonal disruption from gender bending chemicals - BPA, Phthalates and pesticides. In one study the serious affects of BPA showed at 1 PPB, with affects also down at 1 parts per trillion, PPT. The gold standard is to test using the calibration of PPT, parts per trillion, not PPB. SIGG claims 0% leaching but what they don't put in parenthesize is (above 2 PPB). Is this a big deal? My opinion is if genitalia are being deformed at PPT, then BPA seems to be a problem. BPA has traditionally been part of an epoxy mix and until proven innocent, I think it is fair to be cautious given that continued research shows that minute levels of gender benders do bend the genders. A quote from Environmental Defense of Canada, "Concentrations at much lower levels (parts per trillion) have been found to cause adverse health effects in animal studies." From a biological stand point, humans are part of the animal world.
The last area is labor issues. Most of us would prefer if products were made in our own back yard (unless it is polluting then its okay to have it made in China) (you know that is sarcasm, right?), employing our neighbors and feeding our own economy. I am not happy that KK is made in China, and as a reminder, the new SIGG stainless steel bottles are also made in China. So KK visits their factories 4-5 times per year and SIGG says they have full-time employees located there. I am not sure where "there" is - could be in the next city over - but I hope to find out. Either way, being made in China goes against the grain of many. However, the global economy is here to stay. China is where the steel is made. So either, you don't get steel, or you work with China to change and improve their labor issues. Both SIGG and KK have tried to be responsible in addressing this labor issue. Some small stainless steel water bottle makers have no idea where the factories are even located. So at least the 2 biggest manufacturers of water bottles are taking steps to insure good manufacturing practices. Not my preference by any means, but it is a start. As consumers, it is our job to hold companies accountable for their labor conditions - so go forth and question. China has been in hot water recently but it is also a huge country. Just like we would not want the world to assume that all of our banks are corrupt, (my local bank is fantastic) so we should not assume that all of China has bad working conditions. To do so is...uh...prejudice.
So let me recap:
1 - Klean Kanteen's partly recycled stainless steel produces 10 times less CO2 than SIGG's virgin aluminum..and the winner is...Klean Kanteen.
2 - Klean Kanteen's food grade stainless steel is not lined while SIGG's aluminum is lined with an undisclosed epoxy lining that has not been tested below 2 PPB, where levels show birth and genitalia abnormalities... and the winner is... Klean Kanteen.
3 - Klean Kanteen's factories are in China, supervised and visited 4-5 times per year. SIGG's aluminum bottles are made in Switzerland and the stainless steel bottles are made in China with full time employees. It is my opinion that you can not assume that a factory in a given country has a given working condition. Yes there are trends to be sure, but the subjectiveness of this comparison can not guarantee anything...and if there has to be a winner...SIGG.
So in summary, my personal eco criteria considers carbon footprint first, followed by chemical footprint, followed by social footprint. This is an environmental blog first, not a humanitarian blog, though it does not diminish my personal interest and commitment to social and labor issues. Therefore, I stand by my original assessment which is: SIGG aluminum water bottles are not green in and of themselves, only in that they are reusable, and that Klean Kanteen is the greenest choice for reusable water bottles.
Whew.
It is time to update some facts and commentary with regard to the previous SIGG vs Klean Kanteen blog. There are 3 areas of "greenness" that I would like to update and clarify.
At the top of the list is the amount of energy required to make the product, its carbon footprint and pollution, typically the first and most important eco criteria of any "environmental" product.
First stainless steel. There is no doubt that producing stainless steel is energy intensive and grossly polluting, pumping out 2-8 tons of CO2 per ton of steel. Using recycled steel greatly reduces CO2 by as much as 60-75%. Luckily this has been common practice for so long that 66% of the steel is from recycled steel. A Klean Kanteen spokes person verified that their steel is 50% recycled content prior to the introduction of the alloys. In addition, there is no lead in either aluminum or stainless steel, the seams in the KK bottles are welded (melted) not soldered.
The manufacturing of virgin aluminum is more polluting than steel, releasing 18 tons of CO2 per ton of aluminum. One source says that manufacturing aluminum releases 10 times the CO2 vs steel, per ton. The manufacturing of aluminum is responsible for 1% of the CO2 released world wide with most of the energy needed in the initial smelting phase. Using recycled aluminum saves 95% of the energy, CO2 and pollution. Recycled aluminum offers the greatest opportunity of reducing CO2 compared to any other recyclable product while at the same time not losing any of its integrity.
In the perfect world we would have a water bottle made out of impervious non-breakable 100% recycled content glass. But our world isn't perfect and so we pick and choose what's next in line. With Carbon Footprint in mind, using part recycled stainless steel over virgin aluminum wins hands down. If all the soda cans can have a high recycled content, so can SIGG. I will maintain my position on this as I find it incomprehensible that SIGG washes itself environmental yet uses virgin aluminum, while recycled aluminum would only use 5% of the energy.
With regard to the potential of BPA in the SIGG lining, this is considered a product's chemical footprint. For review, SIGG's only one test for BPA did not show any BPA "detectable" above 2 parts per billion, PPB. They did not test below 2 PPB. Since my first blog about SIGG vs KK, more research has shown disturbing findings of hormonal disruption from gender bending chemicals - BPA, Phthalates and pesticides. In one study the serious affects of BPA showed at 1 PPB, with affects also down at 1 parts per trillion, PPT. The gold standard is to test using the calibration of PPT, parts per trillion, not PPB. SIGG claims 0% leaching but what they don't put in parenthesize is (above 2 PPB). Is this a big deal? My opinion is if genitalia are being deformed at PPT, then BPA seems to be a problem. BPA has traditionally been part of an epoxy mix and until proven innocent, I think it is fair to be cautious given that continued research shows that minute levels of gender benders do bend the genders. A quote from Environmental Defense of Canada, "Concentrations at much lower levels (parts per trillion) have been found to cause adverse health effects in animal studies." From a biological stand point, humans are part of the animal world.
The last area is labor issues. Most of us would prefer if products were made in our own back yard (unless it is polluting then its okay to have it made in China) (you know that is sarcasm, right?), employing our neighbors and feeding our own economy. I am not happy that KK is made in China, and as a reminder, the new SIGG stainless steel bottles are also made in China. So KK visits their factories 4-5 times per year and SIGG says they have full-time employees located there. I am not sure where "there" is - could be in the next city over - but I hope to find out. Either way, being made in China goes against the grain of many. However, the global economy is here to stay. China is where the steel is made. So either, you don't get steel, or you work with China to change and improve their labor issues. Both SIGG and KK have tried to be responsible in addressing this labor issue. Some small stainless steel water bottle makers have no idea where the factories are even located. So at least the 2 biggest manufacturers of water bottles are taking steps to insure good manufacturing practices. Not my preference by any means, but it is a start. As consumers, it is our job to hold companies accountable for their labor conditions - so go forth and question. China has been in hot water recently but it is also a huge country. Just like we would not want the world to assume that all of our banks are corrupt, (my local bank is fantastic) so we should not assume that all of China has bad working conditions. To do so is...uh...prejudice.
So let me recap:
1 - Klean Kanteen's partly recycled stainless steel produces 10 times less CO2 than SIGG's virgin aluminum..and the winner is...Klean Kanteen.
2 - Klean Kanteen's food grade stainless steel is not lined while SIGG's aluminum is lined with an undisclosed epoxy lining that has not been tested below 2 PPB, where levels show birth and genitalia abnormalities... and the winner is... Klean Kanteen.
3 - Klean Kanteen's factories are in China, supervised and visited 4-5 times per year. SIGG's aluminum bottles are made in Switzerland and the stainless steel bottles are made in China with full time employees. It is my opinion that you can not assume that a factory in a given country has a given working condition. Yes there are trends to be sure, but the subjectiveness of this comparison can not guarantee anything...and if there has to be a winner...SIGG.
So in summary, my personal eco criteria considers carbon footprint first, followed by chemical footprint, followed by social footprint. This is an environmental blog first, not a humanitarian blog, though it does not diminish my personal interest and commitment to social and labor issues. Therefore, I stand by my original assessment which is: SIGG aluminum water bottles are not green in and of themselves, only in that they are reusable, and that Klean Kanteen is the greenest choice for reusable water bottles.
Whew.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
EPA Choked by ACC
Glorious fall day. Dots of changing colors here and there.
The poor EPA - under staffed, over worked, under funded, disrespected and very vulnerable.
The EPA, born out of the 1969-1970 concern for the environment and propelled by the book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, was formed by the Nixon Administration to address our exploding pollution issues. The unregulated industrial revolution and post war chemical tactics had finally caught up with us and our country was disgustingly polluted. The litter bug mentality needing reigning in.
Like many government agencies, they shovel against the wind but in particular it seems the EPA just can't keep up. With over 80,000 chemicals to keep track of and only 5,500 scientists employed, the ratio means there is so much to do with so little time and staff. The pace of added chemicals and industrial commitment has far exceeded the ability of the EPA to keep us safe.
Now throw in the additional reality of lobbying, bribes, and pressure by outsiders and you can see how things get really mucky. Back in April, a survey revealed that over 800 of the EPA scientists complained of political interference and pressure from superiors to skew their research findings, pressure that has been escalating the last 5 years. Hhhmm. The Bush culture has blatantly succumb to the all too powerful oil and chemical companies and has even fired leading researchers after the lobbyists jumped up and down about conflict of interest. (Talk about conflict of interest!)
So as scientists are able to catch up to our polluted state, create instruments for testing and provide good research, not only on animals but also on humans, (most relevant eh?) we still have news reports sabotaged by the ACC. Yesterday's report about maternal phthalate levels and genital alterations in baby boys is of grave concern. Or at least it should be. Until of course you get to the end of the article and there it is, the doubt meister called the ACC, the American Chemistry Council gets quoted once again to set every one's mind at ease, applauding the safety of phthalates and that a messed up penis is no big deal.
How does the ACC get to even be in an article anyway? Was it to "balance" the reporting? Talk about conflict of interest. Shame on those reporters. The ACC is a 119 million dollar/year lobbying trade association, protecting their chemical industry's interests, who gets to be quoted on a regular basis. The ACC is NOT a or the professional organization of chemists, the American Chemists Society holds that honor. And how often do you hear the ACS quoted? I never have. The ACC seems interested in only protecting their profits. The ACC also carries a big stick in Washington and has set up camp inside the EPA. And I am tired of it. The article was well written right up until the "balancing" part. That's like reporting on global warming and then quoting someone who blogs about junk science.
Does this really matter? YES. I can't tell you how many times people have the come back "the levels probably aren't high enough to do any real harm" to the concerns about certain chemicals and recent findings. Define "real" harm anyway. This attitude is a result of the ACC spinning the doubts and unfortunately it is working. We, our children and our future can not afford the ACC damage control tactics. If you have the activist bug in you, hold these reporters accountable for their reporting. Explain to them that quoting the ACC is like asking the fox which chicken looks good. With any luck, that reporter won't take that free dinner any more.
The poor EPA - under staffed, over worked, under funded, disrespected and very vulnerable.
The EPA, born out of the 1969-1970 concern for the environment and propelled by the book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, was formed by the Nixon Administration to address our exploding pollution issues. The unregulated industrial revolution and post war chemical tactics had finally caught up with us and our country was disgustingly polluted. The litter bug mentality needing reigning in.
Like many government agencies, they shovel against the wind but in particular it seems the EPA just can't keep up. With over 80,000 chemicals to keep track of and only 5,500 scientists employed, the ratio means there is so much to do with so little time and staff. The pace of added chemicals and industrial commitment has far exceeded the ability of the EPA to keep us safe.
Now throw in the additional reality of lobbying, bribes, and pressure by outsiders and you can see how things get really mucky. Back in April, a survey revealed that over 800 of the EPA scientists complained of political interference and pressure from superiors to skew their research findings, pressure that has been escalating the last 5 years. Hhhmm. The Bush culture has blatantly succumb to the all too powerful oil and chemical companies and has even fired leading researchers after the lobbyists jumped up and down about conflict of interest. (Talk about conflict of interest!)
So as scientists are able to catch up to our polluted state, create instruments for testing and provide good research, not only on animals but also on humans, (most relevant eh?) we still have news reports sabotaged by the ACC. Yesterday's report about maternal phthalate levels and genital alterations in baby boys is of grave concern. Or at least it should be. Until of course you get to the end of the article and there it is, the doubt meister called the ACC, the American Chemistry Council gets quoted once again to set every one's mind at ease, applauding the safety of phthalates and that a messed up penis is no big deal.
How does the ACC get to even be in an article anyway? Was it to "balance" the reporting? Talk about conflict of interest. Shame on those reporters. The ACC is a 119 million dollar/year lobbying trade association, protecting their chemical industry's interests, who gets to be quoted on a regular basis. The ACC is NOT a or the professional organization of chemists, the American Chemists Society holds that honor. And how often do you hear the ACS quoted? I never have. The ACC seems interested in only protecting their profits. The ACC also carries a big stick in Washington and has set up camp inside the EPA. And I am tired of it. The article was well written right up until the "balancing" part. That's like reporting on global warming and then quoting someone who blogs about junk science.
Does this really matter? YES. I can't tell you how many times people have the come back "the levels probably aren't high enough to do any real harm" to the concerns about certain chemicals and recent findings. Define "real" harm anyway. This attitude is a result of the ACC spinning the doubts and unfortunately it is working. We, our children and our future can not afford the ACC damage control tactics. If you have the activist bug in you, hold these reporters accountable for their reporting. Explain to them that quoting the ACC is like asking the fox which chicken looks good. With any luck, that reporter won't take that free dinner any more.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Dryer Balls - Made Out of PVC, an Eco Oxymoron
I remember when I first came across dryer balls - they're funny looking, almost cute. Dryer balls are a soft plastic with spikes that are meant to bounce around in your dryer and lift the clothes so they will dry faster, some claim as high as 40% faster. Some claim to reduce static too. Well, hold on to your seat.
I found 3 dryer balls on the market: Dryer Max Dryer Balls, The Original Dryer Balls by Mystic Wonders and Nellie's Natural Dryer Balls. Most reviews I found said the balls didn't live up to their claim but did reduce drying time on the average of 10-20%. Reviews also were very mixed about the anti-static properties, some yeahs, some nays.
So what's the big deal? Here's the part that I (and I hope you will too) find absolutely outrageous. All 3 of these balls are made out of PVC, Polyvinyl chloride, . The Original Balls boast of being made out of high grade virgin PVC, like that is suppose to be better or something. But this is my favorite - Nellie's Natural Dryer Balls, are also made out of PVC. There ain't nothin natural about PVC. THEN (sorry about the caps but this is legit) goes on to claim "it's toxic-free, environmentally friendly". How this claim is allowed to continue to be marketed is beyond me. So here's some scoop on PVC, Polyvinyl chloride, the most toxic of all plastics, and nothing natural about it.
PVC, number 3 plastic, is the worst of the worst of plastics. It is the most toxic in production, presents problems during its use, creates a nightmare for disposal, with recycling barely and rarely done. In order to soften it, like some toys that are now banned in Europe, additives are added to the PVC. These additives are also very unhealthy, some say toxic, and include chemicals such as the phthalates and lead. PVC is considered the the most damaging plastic to the environment.
You know all the warnings recently about vinyl showers curtains and that new car smell we keep hearing about. Well that's all PVC off-gassing some pretty seriously bad stuff. Released chlorinated dioxins and furans are unwanted byproducts of the manufacture, off-gassing and burning of PVC. A lot of literature considers this to be the most toxic environmental hazard known to man. No point in making a list here, it's too long, please click through to all the links.
So getting back to Nellie's Natural Dryer Balls made out of PVC. What's wrong with this picture? Maybe I missed something on Nellie's website. Maybe PVC means something else that I don't know about. Maybe it is a misprint. It's all too hard to believe. Imagine, you heat these soft things up in the dryer and let them bounce around all the clothing. What chemicals are being released from the PVC onto the clothing that causes the anti-static cling? Is there a film or layer of plastic coating on the clothing giving it the softness and reducing the static? PVC is notorious for degrading with heat unless you add more additives to stabilize it. Hmmmm. Kind of makes me sick to think about it. This is PVC we're talking about, the skull and cross bones plastic, and then you heat it up to boot.
And, and, and...dryer balls are suppose to be eco-friendly because they cut down a little on the drying time? Who said it was eco friendly to even use your dryer? Aren't we as eco minded enthusiasts suppose to be encouraging line drying clothing? (okay, maybe a final 5 minute max dry time fluffs up the shirts and towels, though still hypocritical) Given that the dryer is the second energy hog in the house next to the frig it is really hard to justify its use. Co-op America makes it clear that hang drying your clothes is the green way to dry. And with the latest news that CO2 is way up compared to last year, exceeding expectations with the dire consequences to come, anyone who wants to even pretend to have an environmental bone in their body should not be using their dryer.
Any green, earth friendly, sustainable, organic, natural, environmental business worth their weight in gold should not even be carrying these dryer balls, made out of toxic PVC, (which continue to promote using a dryer). My goodness, this has to be the eco oxymoron of this century.
I found 3 dryer balls on the market: Dryer Max Dryer Balls, The Original Dryer Balls by Mystic Wonders and Nellie's Natural Dryer Balls. Most reviews I found said the balls didn't live up to their claim but did reduce drying time on the average of 10-20%. Reviews also were very mixed about the anti-static properties, some yeahs, some nays.
So what's the big deal? Here's the part that I (and I hope you will too) find absolutely outrageous. All 3 of these balls are made out of PVC, Polyvinyl chloride, . The Original Balls boast of being made out of high grade virgin PVC, like that is suppose to be better or something. But this is my favorite - Nellie's Natural Dryer Balls, are also made out of PVC. There ain't nothin natural about PVC. THEN (sorry about the caps but this is legit) goes on to claim "it's toxic-free, environmentally friendly". How this claim is allowed to continue to be marketed is beyond me. So here's some scoop on PVC, Polyvinyl chloride, the most toxic of all plastics, and nothing natural about it.
PVC, number 3 plastic, is the worst of the worst of plastics. It is the most toxic in production, presents problems during its use, creates a nightmare for disposal, with recycling barely and rarely done. In order to soften it, like some toys that are now banned in Europe, additives are added to the PVC. These additives are also very unhealthy, some say toxic, and include chemicals such as the phthalates and lead. PVC is considered the the most damaging plastic to the environment.
You know all the warnings recently about vinyl showers curtains and that new car smell we keep hearing about. Well that's all PVC off-gassing some pretty seriously bad stuff. Released chlorinated dioxins and furans are unwanted byproducts of the manufacture, off-gassing and burning of PVC. A lot of literature considers this to be the most toxic environmental hazard known to man. No point in making a list here, it's too long, please click through to all the links.
So getting back to Nellie's Natural Dryer Balls made out of PVC. What's wrong with this picture? Maybe I missed something on Nellie's website. Maybe PVC means something else that I don't know about. Maybe it is a misprint. It's all too hard to believe. Imagine, you heat these soft things up in the dryer and let them bounce around all the clothing. What chemicals are being released from the PVC onto the clothing that causes the anti-static cling? Is there a film or layer of plastic coating on the clothing giving it the softness and reducing the static? PVC is notorious for degrading with heat unless you add more additives to stabilize it. Hmmmm. Kind of makes me sick to think about it. This is PVC we're talking about, the skull and cross bones plastic, and then you heat it up to boot.
And, and, and...dryer balls are suppose to be eco-friendly because they cut down a little on the drying time? Who said it was eco friendly to even use your dryer? Aren't we as eco minded enthusiasts suppose to be encouraging line drying clothing? (okay, maybe a final 5 minute max dry time fluffs up the shirts and towels, though still hypocritical) Given that the dryer is the second energy hog in the house next to the frig it is really hard to justify its use. Co-op America makes it clear that hang drying your clothes is the green way to dry. And with the latest news that CO2 is way up compared to last year, exceeding expectations with the dire consequences to come, anyone who wants to even pretend to have an environmental bone in their body should not be using their dryer.
Any green, earth friendly, sustainable, organic, natural, environmental business worth their weight in gold should not even be carrying these dryer balls, made out of toxic PVC, (which continue to promote using a dryer). My goodness, this has to be the eco oxymoron of this century.
Monday, September 22, 2008
FDA No Cred with BPA
A drizzly peaceful morning here and sorely needed.
On Tuesday the FDA made their long awaited decision on BPA, on the same day the JAMA reported linking BPA to heart disease, obesity and diabetes. The FDA hailed the science that they used to support their decision. However, there were some hic ups that day that normally don't get reported. But thanks to some other dedicated writers, we have more information.
I don't and won't normally do this but this is too important to not get out there. These are the little details that the public doesn't normally see - the little details of the powerful chemical industry's attempt to stop real science and consumer protection. Please read:
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/blog/the-missed-electric-moment
Thank goodness for Dr. Fred vom Saal and his dedication to the truth in science. Without persistent scientists doing the right thing, who knows how much worse off our planet would be.
On Tuesday the FDA made their long awaited decision on BPA, on the same day the JAMA reported linking BPA to heart disease, obesity and diabetes. The FDA hailed the science that they used to support their decision. However, there were some hic ups that day that normally don't get reported. But thanks to some other dedicated writers, we have more information.
I don't and won't normally do this but this is too important to not get out there. These are the little details that the public doesn't normally see - the little details of the powerful chemical industry's attempt to stop real science and consumer protection. Please read:
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/blog/the-missed-electric-moment
Thank goodness for Dr. Fred vom Saal and his dedication to the truth in science. Without persistent scientists doing the right thing, who knows how much worse off our planet would be.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
FDA Says BPA Okay - FDA Wimps Out
Pea soup this morning, can't see 50 feet.
The same day the Journal of the American Medical Association releases their largest adult human study regarding BPA, leaving no doubt that there is serious doubt about BPA, our FDA declares BPA safe. What's wrong with this picture?
I was mad yesterday and I am even more mad today. This is deja vu of the tobacco industry's decades of deception all over again, this time being lead by the American Chemistry Counsel. The ACC has continued to cast doubt and is the biggest and most powerful lobbyist for the plastic and oil industry. Without this organization, BPA would probably have been banned years ago. The ACC is the bully on the block and has pulled some pretty scary and unethical behavior.
I strongly urge you to read the links I have provided. They are hot off the press and you can draw your own conclusion. The FDA's and EPA's own scientific advisory program called The National Toxicology Program advised BPA caution after reviewing 261 scientific publications. The FDA drew its conclusion based only on animal studies, a few at that, and studies produced by researchers tied to the chemical industry. (talk about 10 foxes guarding the chicken coop)
With over 83,000 chemicals available for human contact, and many known for their questionable safety issues, it is unbelievable that we are ignoring top scientists and hundreds of research projects. Again, I urge you to review the links provided.
The ACC is the mouthy parent in the stands playing the ref, so the ref (FDA and EPA) can't do their job and succumb to pressure. Pretty wimpy if you ask me.
The same day the Journal of the American Medical Association releases their largest adult human study regarding BPA, leaving no doubt that there is serious doubt about BPA, our FDA declares BPA safe. What's wrong with this picture?
I was mad yesterday and I am even more mad today. This is deja vu of the tobacco industry's decades of deception all over again, this time being lead by the American Chemistry Counsel. The ACC has continued to cast doubt and is the biggest and most powerful lobbyist for the plastic and oil industry. Without this organization, BPA would probably have been banned years ago. The ACC is the bully on the block and has pulled some pretty scary and unethical behavior.
I strongly urge you to read the links I have provided. They are hot off the press and you can draw your own conclusion. The FDA's and EPA's own scientific advisory program called The National Toxicology Program advised BPA caution after reviewing 261 scientific publications. The FDA drew its conclusion based only on animal studies, a few at that, and studies produced by researchers tied to the chemical industry. (talk about 10 foxes guarding the chicken coop)
With over 83,000 chemicals available for human contact, and many known for their questionable safety issues, it is unbelievable that we are ignoring top scientists and hundreds of research projects. Again, I urge you to review the links provided.
The ACC is the mouthy parent in the stands playing the ref, so the ref (FDA and EPA) can't do their job and succumb to pressure. Pretty wimpy if you ask me.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Lead in Toys Is Dead - Almost
A surprisingly sunny, clear morning, just lovely.
Lead in toys - still? Are you serious? Yes, that's right. But wasn't it 30 years ago, in 1978, that lead was banned in paint? (I guess they meant only wall paint?)Yes, that's right. And wasn't it banned because 13 million children had elevated blood levels of lead? Yes, that's right. Isn't lead poisoning really serious? Yeees, that's right. So 30 years later we're just now talking about getting the lead out of toys? Hmm, you guessed it - Yes, that's right.
It is beyond mind boggling that we are just now restricting lead in toys - you know, any toy, that a baby can bang, pick or suck. Are we so naive to assume that if our government is going to declare lead in paints unsafe for children and ban lead in all paints ( how many children eat paint chips compared to sucking on toys - hello???) that our government would also apply that same safety concern to all products that might be part of a baby's life? Well silly me! We're talking toys here, baby's best buds, 24/7.
However, this is what makes me so mad. The new lead limit became law on August 14th, 2008. (yes, that's limit, not omission-limited to 600 parts per million phasing down to 100 ppm ?*%!@#!) But, and here I go getting more wound up, it does not go into effect until February 10, 2009. That's after Christmas and after post holiday sales. How conveeeeenient. (and we know who really is in charge in D.C.) And guess which toys will have huge Pre Christmas sales in order to dump all their leaded inventory?
Luckily, despite pressure from the toy industry, leaded toys will not be grandfathered so all toys with lead levels above 600 ppm must be off the shelf Feb. 10th. Whew. Already some toy companies are whining that they have produced their Spring 2009 leaded toys and will lose lots of money. Oh Pleeease. If they had been doing business ethically in the first place, they wouldn't be in this mess.
What's a concerned parent to do? My advice is stick to classic plain old wooden toys. They are usually made with locally harvested wood, made in the USA and support local small businesses. And, it takes out the guesswork and worry factor.
It has taken 30 years to make the leap from lead in our paint to lead in our toys. Now that's a disappointment (lots of other words come to mind but...) Doesn't it make you wonder what else has lead in it? I'm sorry, I just can't go there today...
Lead in toys - still? Are you serious? Yes, that's right. But wasn't it 30 years ago, in 1978, that lead was banned in paint? (I guess they meant only wall paint?)Yes, that's right. And wasn't it banned because 13 million children had elevated blood levels of lead? Yes, that's right. Isn't lead poisoning really serious? Yeees, that's right. So 30 years later we're just now talking about getting the lead out of toys? Hmm, you guessed it - Yes, that's right.
It is beyond mind boggling that we are just now restricting lead in toys - you know, any toy, that a baby can bang, pick or suck. Are we so naive to assume that if our government is going to declare lead in paints unsafe for children and ban lead in all paints ( how many children eat paint chips compared to sucking on toys - hello???) that our government would also apply that same safety concern to all products that might be part of a baby's life? Well silly me! We're talking toys here, baby's best buds, 24/7.
However, this is what makes me so mad. The new lead limit became law on August 14th, 2008. (yes, that's limit, not omission-limited to 600 parts per million phasing down to 100 ppm ?*%!@#!) But, and here I go getting more wound up, it does not go into effect until February 10, 2009. That's after Christmas and after post holiday sales. How conveeeeenient. (and we know who really is in charge in D.C.) And guess which toys will have huge Pre Christmas sales in order to dump all their leaded inventory?
Luckily, despite pressure from the toy industry, leaded toys will not be grandfathered so all toys with lead levels above 600 ppm must be off the shelf Feb. 10th. Whew. Already some toy companies are whining that they have produced their Spring 2009 leaded toys and will lose lots of money. Oh Pleeease. If they had been doing business ethically in the first place, they wouldn't be in this mess.
What's a concerned parent to do? My advice is stick to classic plain old wooden toys. They are usually made with locally harvested wood, made in the USA and support local small businesses. And, it takes out the guesswork and worry factor.
It has taken 30 years to make the leap from lead in our paint to lead in our toys. Now that's a disappointment (lots of other words come to mind but...) Doesn't it make you wonder what else has lead in it? I'm sorry, I just can't go there today...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)