Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

photo credit: Inferis

Last month, the California legislature missed an opportunity to do the right thing and phase out the use of BPA (bisphenol A) in baby bottles, cups, and baby food cans and jars sold in the state. Contrary to what the critics would have you believe, it would have banned the use of BPA only in products intended for anyone under the age of 3.

Senate Bill 1713, introduced by California State Senator Carole Migden, passed in the Senate, but even after several rounds of amendments and votes, failed to pass in the Assembly. This is a real shame. It had been hoped that the bill, if passed, would lead the way for other states to follow suit.

BPA, in case you haven’t heard, is a chemical additive found in clear, shatterproof plastics and in canned-food liners. It’s also a well-known endocrine disrupter that is linked to a variety of ailments, including infertility and breast and prostate cancer.

Would you want to give a known carcinogen to your baby? Remember, babies are in a state of rapid development, so environmental toxins can play a more harmful role in amounts smaller than is needed to harm adults. It’s no wonder that parental outcry has strong-armed manufacturers to produce alternative baby products that don’t use BPA. (With cups at least. So far, it seems, all cans of baby formula contain BPA. Powdered cans contain less, however.)

Most parents, i.e., voters, are overwhelmingly in favor of SB 1713. I know a few parents who are indifferent to it, but none who are clamoring to include even a suspected toxin in products that developing babies use every day. So who sank it? Primarily, the plastics industry. These are the same people who mailed a flyer misleading voters to believe that the BPA phase out would include a wide range of favorite consumer goods, even those intended for adults.

The American Plastics Council insists the amount of BPA that leaches from BPA-containing cups and bottles into food and drink is safe. Unfortunately, the tobacco companies, after decades of knowingly lying about the dangers of smoking, pretty much ruined the industry safety line for everyone. When companies talk about “acceptable levels of risk” these days, do you believe them unquestioningly?

Of course, the FDA, the European Food Safety Authority, and the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology also claim BPA is safe. But even the American Plastics Council admits that the U.S. National Toxicology Program says there is “some concern” regarding BPA exposure in infants and children and that “more research is needed.” (That phrase always raises my eyebrows.) Non-Toxic Kids has a good graphic that shows that the “some concern” level is no cause for dismissal.

Both Canada and Japan have taken a “just in case” approach and moved to ban the use of BPA in baby products. Don’t our families deserve the same level of precaution?

What’s Next
The fight is not necessarily over. Senator Carole Migden will be replaced by Mark Leno in November. When I called her office, they suggested letting him know you support the proposed ban. He could draft a new bill if enough people voice their support.

More Resources:
“Caution Is the Right Reaction to Chemical,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-fi-lazarus13-2008aug13,0,3672425.column

“California Assembly Rejects Two Bills on Chemical Bans,” The Sacramento Bee, August 19, 2008
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1167258.html

“BPA in Formula: This Is Not a Call to Panic,” on Enviroblog
http://www.enviroblog.org/2007/12/bpa-in-formula-this-is-not-a-c.htm

photo credit: pfly

You don’t mess with the mama bear. That’s what my husband says when I get angry about an issue that could adversely affect our children. It’s also a major reason there is a rising public outcry over bisphenol A, or BPA, for short.

What Is BPA?

BPA is a chemical compound found in most plastic baby bottles, clear plastic sports bottles, infant-formula cans, drink and food cans, plastic utensils, dental sealants, hospital incubators, dialyzers, and more. It’s also linked to a number of health problems, including (but not limited to):

• Infertility
• Breast cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Insulin resistance (a common precursor to Type II Diabetes)
• Early puberty
• Chromosomal abnormalities that can cause miscarriage and birth defects

BPA is so widely used that even those who compulsively avoid BPA-containing products are exposed to it. BPA’s annual production exceeds a billion pounds. It is found in waterways, sediment, estuaries, household dust, and air. In humans, it is found in breast milk, saliva, urine, cord blood, and amniotic fluid. Many researchers say even low level doses of BPA can have a negative effect on developing systems. So, as with most toxins, BPA is of most concern to pregnant women, infants, and very young children.

If BPA Is Potentially Harmful, Why Is It Used at All?

BPA is added to hard plastics to make them less likely to shatter. Anyone who’s ever dropped and broken a glass in the sink is likely to see the merits of a shatter-proof material. In canned foods and drinks, BPA is used as a liner to prevent the ingredients from reacting to the metal in the can.

What’s Being Done About BPA?

Both the U.S. Federal Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority insist that BPA is safe in the levels that a typical adult, child, or infant consumes. Their Canadian counterparts at Health Canada feel differently, however, and say it may pose a risk to infants. They suggest reclassifying BPA as “toxic” to human health and the environment. Canada is moving to ban BPA from baby bottles and other infant products.

In the U.S., BPA remains unregulated and the FDA is unlikely to take any action. Consumer demand, though, is driving change. Many of the most popular makers of baby bottles now offer BPA-free plastic and good old-fashioned glass bottles. Nalgene, the makers of clear plastic sports bottles often used by hikers and other cyclists, are promising to offer a BPA-free version soon too. And stores like Wal-Mart and Toys ‘R Us are demanding alternatives from their suppliers. (People tend to get angrier when babies’ health is involved, so traction on removing BPA from canned food and drink liners is going slower.)

More resources:

“BPA Q&A,” The Globe and Mail, April 28, 2008 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080423.wbpadiscussion/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home/?pageRequested=all

“Timeline: BPA from Invention to Phaseout,” Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/reports/bpatimeline

“A Survey of Bisphenol A in U.S. Canned Goods,” Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/reports/bisphenola

photo credit: TheeErin

Here’s something the dry cleaning industry doesn’t want you to know: You don’t need them. Really. Most items in your closet, even the ones labeled “dry clean only” are hand-washable in mild detergent. I know. I’ve tried it myself on suits for work, wool sweaters, silk shirts, and more. Over the course of a year, I easily save $200-$350 just skipping the dry cleaner.

Save Even More Compared to “Green” Cleaners

I save even more if you compare what I’d spend at a “green” dry cleaner. I tried one once. It cost me $20 compared to the $6 at my standard cleaner, and it shrank my sweater. Good thing 3/4-length sleeves are “in” right now! Though, in all fairness, they did warn me that their environmentally friendly method has a tendency to shrink woolens.

Sure, dry cleaning has its immediate benefits, namely, someone else is doing your washing and pressing. But when you take the economic cost to you and the environmental impact (lots of non-biodegradable plastic bags and wire hangers in the landfill, toxins released into your home and our waterways) and compare it to a little extra work on your part, the choice is clear.
(more…)

photo credit: tom.arthur

With companies like Clorox putting out product lines endorsed by the Sierra Club, should we be concerned about where all this “Go Green” is going?

Back in January 2008, the Sierra Club first announced its partnership with Clorox and the Green Works line of household cleaners—the first new line from Clorox in 20 years. While some consumers remain skeptical that the line is as green as it claims (phosphorus and bleach-free, with 99 percent natural ingredients like coconuts and lemon oil), the Sierra Club says they have fully investigated the line’s “green”ness and are happy to back the products.

But Clorox isn’t the only big-name company getting in the game, Colgate-Palmolive is currently promoting its own line of Eco-friendly, phosphorus-free cleaners, SC Johnson claims its recent Greenlist reformulations have removed 61 million pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from products including Windex, Pledge, and Fantastik Orange Action, and the list is growing steadily. (more…)

photo credit: Photocapy

Whether you’re painting or just passing by a recently painted surface, the smell is unforgettable: strong, deep, “chemical-y,” often lasting for days. Paint fumes are caused by something called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a major source of ozone creation and indoor air pollution. It’s also a major reason I’m willing to live with a wall color I hate longer than anyone should have to. Fortunately, consumer demand for no- and low-VOC paint is growing, and so are the choices.

You can buy no- and low-VOC paints online, at green building suppliers, and at most major paint retailers (including The Home Depot, which began offering its Freshaire Choice line this spring).

How “Natural” Differs from No- or Low-VOC

No- and low-VOC paints fall into two basic categories: those made with synthetic ingredients and those made with natural ingredients such as water, clay, bee’s wax, milk protein, plant oils, and mineral oils. (The latter are often referred to as “natural paints.”)

No-VOC (also called zero-VOC) and low-VOC paints made with synthetic ingredients more closely resemble the performance of traditional polluting paints (durability, consistency) and offer a wider variety of finishes (flat, eggshell, satin, semi-gloss) than natural paints. They cost less than natural paints—typically $30-$40 a gallon compared to $40-$60 or more a gallon—but more than standard paint, which can cost as little as $20 a gallon. You’ll also find no- and low-VOC paints at more retailers.

Why Choose No-VOC over Low-VOC?

The difference between no-VOC and low-VOC is not as simple as you’d think. According to EPA rules, a paint may be labeled no-VOC if it contains less than 5 grams of VOCs per liter. That means some no-VOC paints have no VOCs, but some do.

Kelly Moore’s Enviro-Cote, for example, contains 15 grams of VOCs per liter, even though it’s labeled no-VOC. While I myself don’t consider it a true zero-VOC paint, it’s still quite low when compared to traditional paint base, which can contain 100 grams or more per liter.

Low-VOC paints contain a lower amount of VOCs than traditional paints do (less than 200 grams per liter, under EPA rules). If you’re looking to reduce indoor air pollution, it’s best to go with a no-VOC paint.

Beware: Color Tints Can Add VOCs

Color tints, which you’ll most likely be using, can add even more VOCs, so check that your supplier uses no-VOC tints.

Where to find no- or zero-VOC synthetic paints:

American Formulating and Manufacturing (AFM offfers truly zero-VOC paint)
http://www.afmsafecoat.com

Yolo Colorhouse (truly zero-VOC)
http://www.yolocolorhouse.com

Home Depot (Freshaire Choice line only; truly zero-VOC)
http://freshairechoice.com

Kelly-Moore (Enviro-Cote line only; contains small amounts of VOCs)
http://www.kellymoore.com

Sherwin-Williams (Harmony line only; contains small amounts of VOCs)
http://www.sherwin.com

Benjamin Moore (EcoSpec line only; contains small amounts of VOCs)
http://www.bejaminmoore.com

Where to find natural, nontoxic paints (truly zero-VOC):

Bio Shield
http://www.bioshieldpaint.com

Old Fashioned Milk Paint Company
http://www.milkpaint.com

Anna Sova Luxury Organics
http://www.annasova.com

Last week we wrote about common ingredients in sunscreens that can bleach our coral reefs, where people swim and snorkel. Consumer advocates at the Environmental Working Group (EWG) also warn us about potentially unhealthy ingredients in sunscreen and other personal care products.

photo credit: Aine D

Yet even when armed with lists of ingredients to avoid, it can be a little overwhelming to decipher labels at the store. It’s tempting to take relief in the FDA and personal care industry’s claims that the ingredients used are of no significant harm. That may be the best route. But a growing number of consumers want to better educate themselves on the choices they make.

Here are quick tips you can use to read (and finally understand!) your sunscreen and other personal care labels:

Active v. inactive/other ingredients:
“Active” ingredients are the components that do the real work. In sunscreens, that means the chemicals (avobenzene, zinc oxide, etc.) that protect your skin from the sun’s rays. “Inactive” or “other” ingredients include everything else, from fragrance and preservatives to the components that give sunscreen its lotion-y feel.

UVA and UVB protection:
SPF (sun protection factor) is only part of what you need to know. Some ingredients protect against UVB rays, which cause skin burn, and some others protect against UVA rays, which  have been linked to wrinkles and skin cancer. See EWG’s report for details and specific brand recommendations:
http://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/

The order:
Ingredients are listed in order, from greatest to least: your sunscreen contains the most of the first item listed and the least of the last one.

Less is more:
Fewer ingredients mean less potential to come in contact with harmful ingredients. If you can pronounce the ingredients that’s even better. Some conscious companies now explain in layman’s terms what purpose each ingredient serves.

Watch out for butyl paraben:
What’s suspected to be harmful to the coral reefs is not necessarily suspected to be harmful to humans, but butyl paraben appears on both lists. It’s used as an antifungal.

Look for “-yl”:
This is not a foolproof method as it’s merely a chemistry term, but it’s good for a quick scan. Sodium lauryl sulfate, methyl paraben, butyl paraben, butylated hydroxytoluene are just a few “-yl” containing ingredients you may wish to avoid.

12 ingredients to be aware of:
See the Dirty Dozen Chemicals Guide by Teens for Safe Cosmetics (1 page PDF)
http://www.searchforthecause.org/documents/dirty_dozen.pdf

See how your sunscreen stacks up:
The Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Database contains detailed ingredient information on more than 25,000 personal care products. If your brand is not in the database, you can enter its ingredients and see whether it contains any of the 50 chemicals of concern.
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/index.php?nothanks=1

photo credit: laszlo-photo

For years we’ve been told by doctors to wear sunscreen to protect ourselves from the cancer-causing ultraviolet rays. Now it seems, this protection for humans may come at a cost. According to a report published in the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences journal Environmental Health Perspectives, chemical ingredients found in most sunscreens can cause bleaching in coral reef and are accumulating in fish and other aquatic life.

An estimated 6,000 tons of sunscreen ends up in coral reef areas where people swim and snorkel. And because 60% of the world’s coral reef is threatened by rising sea temperatures, pollution, and excess UV radiation, the sunscreen issue is worth further study and action.

Here are a few ways you can do your part to limit these chemicals in our oceans and still protect yourself from the sun:

1. Wear a long-sleeved rash guard (swim shirt) so less skin is exposed and less sunscreen is needed. You can find UPF-rated clothing at surf shops or online at Coolibar and Athleta.
2. When not in the water, stay in the shade, so you’ll need to reapply sunscreen less often. Bring a beach umbrella and wear hat.
3. Wear sunscreen with biodegradable ingredients. (This is already a requirement in some protected areas in Mexico.) Avoid sunscreen that contains Benzophenone-3 (Oxybenzone), ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate (Octinoxate), 4-Methylbenzylidene camphor, and Butylparaben.

Brands such as Alba Botanica, Badger, Burt’s Bees, California Baby, and Keys Soaps carry sunscreens that don’t contain the ingredients above and can be found at many natural foods stores. But buyer beware: none of the suggested brands come in an SPF higher than 30, which for those with fair skin, can be an issue.

Coming soon: our own biodegradable sunscreen field test.

More on this topic:

Swimmers’ Sunscreen Killing Off Coral in National Geographic News