In this week’s New York Times there was an interesting article about Detoxifying the Home that I thought you might enjoy. The reporter, Penelope Green, wrote about hiring a consultant to come into her NYC apartment and assess how safe it was from a toxins/chemical exposure perspective. The consultant, Matthew Waletzke, is “a 35-year-old triathlete-in-training with a degree in psychology, who turned to building biology as a way to “detox” Simply Vibrant, his Rockville Centre, N.Y., wellness center. He was treating a lot of autistic children, he said, and after learning that some studies indicate their immune systems have a difficult time processing toxins, he wanted to create as benign an environment as possible there.”

So Mr. Waletzke goes through Ms. Green’s apartment with a fine tooth comb, so to speak, and enlightens her on everything from electromagnetic radiation, to cleaning product toxins, to mold and mildew.

Anyway – it’s a pretty interesting and a somewhat entertaining read so definitely check it out if you have a minute – you can click here to read the complete article. (Note: the photo credits go to the NYT article)

BPA and Phthalates. I swear I could blog continually about new tests showing the dangers of these two chemicals. So this week, a report called  No Silver Lining, was released reviewing a study conducted by The National Workgroup for Safe Markets, a coalition of U.S. public health- and environmental health-focused non-governmental organizations. The study reported on the presence of BPA in canned foods, and the results were reviewed by research scientists in cellular biology from Tufts University Medical School and a professor of environmental health and chemicals policy from the University of Lowell School of Health & Environment.

The methodology for this study was carefully planned. According to the report:

“We enlisted 20 people from 19 U.S. states and Ontario, Canada to donate 50 food and beverage containers from their home pantry shelves and local groceries. Cans were collected from Alaska, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Ontario, Canada.

In most cases, two cans per location were submitted: one can from a home pantry or kitchen cupboard, and a matching or similar product purchased from a chain grocery store specifically for this project. The double sampling allowed us to investigate the possible correlation between the amount of BPA in the canned food and the age of canned products.

We selected a wide variety of products, including fish, fruits, vegetables, beans, soups, tomato products, sodas, and milks, which are common ingredients and meal options for a wide range of North American consumers.”

So basically they took all of these cans of food and had them sent to an independent testing lab. Here’s where it get icky. Of the 50 cans of food that they tested, 46 were found to have detectable levels of BPA. Yep – 46 of 50. A whopping 93%.  And what I found to be disturbing was the fact that  they discovered that BPA levels in canned food cannot be predicted by the price of the product, the quality, or relative nutrition value of the product, or where it was purchased. So that means more expensive, organic canned products purchased at Whole Foods were just as likely to have BPA as cheaper, lower quality products purchased at a discount store.

Why all the fuss? Well here’s the thing. BPA has been shown (despite what chemical companies want you to think) to have an impact on health that has been documented in numerous studies. On the EWG.org website, you can see a complete chart of these studies. The cumulative impact of eating foods that are packaged in BPA-lined cans can add up quickly in a day – which is especially worrisome for pregnant women, particularly during their first trimester.  No Silver Lining shows an example of a hypothetical diet for a woman in her 20’s. According to the study, “these hypothetical diets show that a pregnant woman may be exposed to potentially harmful levels of BPA that have been shown to alter fetal development in laboratory animals.” Oh. Not good.

And you know what? Canned foods is only ONE way we are exposed to BPA – it’s in many other products as well. Polycarbonate water bottles (unless they say BPA-free), plastic baby bottles and sippy cups (again, unless they say BPA free) and even those big 5 gallon water coolers at your office. BPA was found in the urine of 93% of adults tested in the US by the CDC, and it has been found in the cord blood of newborn babies by the Environmental Working Group BEFORE they have even been exposed to the “real world”. Yikes.

Some states are working to ban BPA in baby products (currently Massachusetts is developing legistlation). But it needs to go further. There are alternatives that are notably safer for can linings. These are outlined in the report as well. So why should we stop at baby bottles – shouldn’t it be banned in all food/beverage products? And shouldn’t it be happening in all states? Seriously. What ARE we waiting for?

Did you know that there is a patch of floating trash in a garbage “vortex” in the Pacific ocean that is the size of TEXAS? According to an article by Greenpeace:

“The North Pacific sub-tropical gyre covers a large area of the Pacific in which the water circulates clockwise in a slow spiral. Winds are light. The currents tend to force any floating material into the low energy central area of the gyre. There are few islands on which the floating material can beach. So it stays there in the gyre, in astounding quantities estimated at six kilos of plastic for every kilo of naturally occurring plankton.  The equivalent of an area the size of Texas swirling slowly around like a clock. This gyre has also been dubbed “the Asian Trash Trail” the “Trash Vortex” or the “Eastern Garbage Patch”.”

And sadly, this isn’t just a hyped up thing to get people’s attention. It’s for real. Apparently each year, worldwide, 100 million tons of plastic is produced (!) and about 10 percent (!!!) ends up in the oceans either as a result of shipping issues or from just regular pollution from land. Isn’t that crazy?

And now, they have just announced that this disgusting, man-made phenomenon is not just a Pacific ocean issue, but they have discovered a smaller, but similar, vortex in the Atlantic ocean. Yesterday an AP article was released that stated:

“Researchers are warning of a new blight on the ocean: a swirl of confetti-like plastic debris stretching over thousands of square miles (kilometers) in a remote expanse of the Atlantic Ocean.

The floating garbage — hard to spot from the surface and spun together by a vortex of currents — was documented by two groups of scientists who trawled the sea between scenic Bermuda and Portugal’s mid-Atlantic Azores islands.”

So aside from just being generally disgusting and a display of the impact of the plastic-crazed, consumptive world we live in, what’s the big deal? Well, this stuff is here to stay. Forever. Really. The process for them to break down is slow and destructive. Here’s another quote from the Greenpeace article:

“A single one litre drinks bottle could break down into enough small fragments to put one on every mile of beach in the entire world. These smaller particles are joined by the small pellets of plastic which are the form in which many new plastics are marketed and which can be lost at sea by the drumload or even a whole container load.  These modern day “marine tumbleweeds” have been thrown into sharp focus, not only by the huge quantities removed from beaches by dedicated volunteers, but by the fact that they have been found to accumulate in sea areas where winds and currents are weak.”

Did you catch that? A SINGLE one liter bottle can break down to into enough small fragments to put one on every mile of beach in the ENTIRE world! Really makes you think, doesn’t it? But not only is it just producing more gunk to clog up our oceans and beaches, it’s really hurting our marine life.

If you’d like to see just how awful the effects of this pollution is, check out Greenwala blog’s  The Ocean’s Top 25 Deadliest Pollution Predators. The visuals on the site (including the one I have here with the turtle) are incredible  – and so sad. They say that “Scientists believe that 100 million sea creatures — including a combination of one million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals and sea turtles — die annually from this foreign and highly toxic diet.” Sigh. Balloons, batteries, cans, dental floss (who knew?), six pack holders – there all there, plus plenty more.

Here’s hoping that someday we can figure out a way to get this whole mess cleaned up. Otherwise, who knows what the consequences will be.

I was at Whole Foods a few weeks ago  (the new one in Dedham, for you local folks – LOVE it!), and there was a woman who was demonstrating a new line of locally produced eco-friendly cleaning products – Modern Mermaids. Although the All Purpose + Glass Cleaner is great (she gave me a sample – smells fresh like peppermint) – I decided to try the “Vitalizing Fruit & Veggie Wash”. I’m always happy to support a local business.

I know – there’s tons of veggie washes out there, but I have never bought one before. I have typically just used either castile soap or very hot water. But neither was really working that great for me. So I’m happy to say this has been great! It’s not cheap (the bottle is $5.29 at Whole Foods and $5.99 online), but it has lasted a long time. And I feel much better about the fruit and veggies we’re eating. Even organic produce has dirt and other stuff that it comes in contact with so this has been a great addition to our kitchen. Plus, with its big trigger spray it’s very convenient and easy to use.

So if you’re interested in supporting a small business and eating healthier, check out Modern Mermaids. They have a complete line of cleaning products, and based on my experience I’m guessing you can’t go wrong with any of them.

It was inevitable. Boys would get sucked into the beauty industry at some point. And it has happened. According to a recent New York Times article, boys from tweens through their 20’s are now targeted heavily by the manufacturers of grooming products like hair products, deodorants, body sprays, colognes, etc. All of these products with all of these scents. Not only are parents getting fed up with the clouds of fragrance trailing their sons (thankfully mine are still too young for this…) – but the kids are getting more than they bargained for.

As Stacy Malkan, the founder of Campaign for Safe Cosmetics says in her blog posting:

“The irony of this story, which the Times missed entirely, is that the ads promise virility and masculinity, yet the products may have the exact opposite effect on the bodies of developing boys. Most fragranced products contain diethyl phthalate, a chemical that has been linked to sperm damage and feminized genitals. Many of the products, from body spray to shampoo, also contain parabens, a chemical that acts like estrogen in the body.

In all, the 18 body-care products used by the above-mentioned teenagers contain roughly 200 synthetic chemicals that the boys are putting on their bodies each day before breakfast. This daily dose includes dozens of chemicals linked to cancer, skin problems, allergies and hormone disruption, according to an analysis of a typical suite of these products on the Skin Deep database.”

Boys have just as much to lose as girls through exposure to these unnecessary chemicals. Teach them at a young age to read labels and avoid the fragrances. Look for natural, essential oil-based products instead – they are out there, they’re just harder to find. Otherwise, the consequences can be serious. And really, they’ll be doing everyone else around them a favor anyway. Have you ever been around a teen doused in Axe. Iiiiicccccckkkkkk.

In the news last week was an announcement from the FDA that they acknowledge that the chemical bisphenol A (or BPA) causes “some concern” and they are going to investigate it further. According to an article in the Boston Globe, while the FDA did say that there is not yet any evidence to further regulate the use of BPA , the Department of Health and Human Services did suggest that people throw away scratched plastic cups and baby bottles with BPA to avoid the ingestion of small amounts of the chemical that can seep out into drinks. It looks like the governmental agencies are showing potential to give this the attention it deserves.

The Health and Human Services has a great posting on their website at :http://www.hhs.gov/safety/bpa/. They give some good explanations of what is being investigated further, and they also list other helpful suggestions – in addition to the one above – to avoid exposing your children to BPA. One interesting fact is that powdered infant formula is generally free of BPA, it’s the liquid version that can be contaminated.

The only tip they offer that I disagree with is the one that says it is generally OK for infants to suck on soft plastic toys. They may be safe from BPA but they are often packed with phthalates (a whole different concern) – so always find out as much as you can about the safety of plastic toys before you allow your infant to suck on them. Wish I’d know about all of this before I had kids. Ugh. It’s scary to think about all that they may have been exposed to!

I have a great disdain for phthalates. I have posted many times about this category of chemicals that are used as a plasticizer and strangely also used commonly in fragrances (both perfumes as well as fragrances/scents for products). All Garden Girl products are phthalate-free for the very reason that there is a lot of research popping up that points to phthalates being a very harmful chemical.

Well now there’s more research to point to the dangers of phthalates. On Monday, Reuters published an article regarding recent research on the chemical.

“Researchers from Turkey found higher blood levels of the most commonly used plasticizer, DEHP (the most common phthalate), in a group of boys with abnormal enlargement of the breasts — a common condition seen in up to 65 percent of adolescent boys called pubertal gynecomastia. The condition usually resolves on its own after boys get through puberty.”

The report goes on to say that boys with the highest levels of MEHP (another type of phthalate) were 25 times more likely to have breast enlargement. Yowzah.

The study was unfortunately very small, so there are many valid issues with the testing process. But it does add to the growing list of concerning information about phthalates. Exposure to phthalates can be from an almost unlimited number of sources, including: personal care products, paints, building materials, household furnishing, clothing, dentures, children’s toys, cleaning materials, insecticides, food, certain medical devices and pharmaceuticals. Ugh.

So until the chemical is banned, the best we can do is avoid what we can. Some tips: avoid using plastics with hot foods, keep them out of the dishwasher and microwave, and try to use alternatives whenever possible. Also – avoid soft plastic toys for babies that might get chewed on, and don’t microwave baby bottles to heat them. If at all possible, try to use glass baby bottles.

Today two friends forwarded me this link from an Op-Ed columnist in the NYT (thanks Melissa and David!). It’s right up my alley – and I thought it would be good to share.

Nicholas Kristoff’s column poses the very interesting questions: “What if breast cancer in the United States has less to do with insurance or mammograms and more to do with contaminants in our water or air — or in certain plastic containers in our kitchens? What if the surge in asthma and childhood leukemia reflect, in part, the poisons we impose upon ourselves?”

Giving the health care system an overhaul does sound like a good time to deeply evaluate our society’s exposure to chemicals and investigate all possible connections to health issues that are nearing epidemic levels – like breast cancer, asthma and food allergies, to name only a few. It’s time we give these issues the attention they deserve, and that we stop succumbing to the pressures of the incredibly powerful and even more dangerous chemical companies.

I get a lot of people asking me what products I use around the house, so I thought I’d make a quick post that summarizes all of the things that I use. I’d love to hear from you if you have other suggestions!

• Vinegar/Water solution (I know you’ve heard me go on and on about this one before so I won’t go into detail – suffice it to say that most general cleaning is done using a spray bottle filled with this. Bathrooms, kitchen, wood floors etc.)
• Trader Joe’s Sage All Purpose Cleaner (good general cleaning spray if I want to use something other than vinegar and water)
• Bon Ami powder (my mom has always used this – it’s excellent for cleaning pots and pans, tubs/showers/sinks/toilet bowls etc. It’s at the grocery store in a yellow can, right next to Ajax and Comet)
• Borax (a great all-purpose powder that you can use to boost the power of your laundry detergent, and you can also use it for scrubbing bathrooms)
• Baking Soda (zillions of uses for cleaning and freshening)
• Green Works toilet bowl cleaner (this is a new find for me – it’s easy to use and very fresh and clean smelling, and surprisingly powerful.)
• Trader Joe’s powder dishwasher detergent (works almost as well as Cascade but it’s earth-friendly and doesn’t have those harsh chemicals)
• Trader Joe’s Laundry Detergent – OR Kirkland Natural Laundry Detergent from Costco. (Both are great! And both work well with front-loading washers).

I know, that was not an especially exciting post, but it gives you a good list of some products to check out if you haven’t tried them already.

The thing that I’m dying to try is a steam cleaner. I’ve got my eye on one, so hopefully soon I will be able to check that out and let you know what I think. If you have one – I’d love to hear from you!

Well, you knew it would happen eventually. Everything else is going “organic” so why wouldn’t dry cleaners jump in too? Apparently, however, this recent trend is again something you should check into. So here’s the scoop. As you may already know, perchloroethylene or PERC is what is used by most dry cleaners. It is a highly toxic chemical (a “probable carcinogen” according to the EPA) that is used to clean clothes. BTW – “dry” cleaning is actually a misnomer – the solvent is a liquid and the clothes do get wet but just not from water. PERC can not only be harmful for those who work at dry cleaners, but also for people who wear clothes that are dry cleaned if they haven’t had enough time to have the chemical smell dissipate. Some states have actually begun to phase out its use.

Anyway – it’s clear that PERC is a no-no. So when environmentally friendly cleaners started popping up, I quickly joined up. We have been using one that I LOVE (or should I now say, loved, sadly…). They are one of the ones that uses an organic process. On their website they say “Customers can rest assured that we clean all garments with high quality, natural, organic solutions and soaps. These solutions break down naturally in the environment and are gentle on clothes. We use the industry’s best lines of detergents and soaps that have been tested to ensure great results, free of chemical odors.” Sounds perfect, right? When I called the company they confirmed that they use a natural, hydrocarbon solvent that is better for the environment. Still sounds good! But then they confirmed that it is something called DF-2000.

This is where the “uh oh” comes in. Turns out, DF-2000 is a petrochemical. Yes it’s natural – meaning it is from the earth, but in the same way as gasoline. It’s derived from crude oil. Not to mention the fact that it’s actually made by Exxon-Mobil – enough said, right? OK so it’s marginally better for the environment and health, but it is still not great. I applaud companies looking for better methods, but it looks like this isn’t the be-all/end-all that it seemed to be.

So be sure to check with your dry cleaner to find out how they are cleaning your clothes “naturally”. If they are using DF-2000, as them if they have considered other options like either a carbon-dioxide cleaning method or an actual wet-cleaning method using water (who knew??). Those are the best not only for the environment and for health. Meantime, I’ll be on the hunt for one near my house. I’ll let you know when I find one!