Using the Food Safety Bill to Ban BPA

I sent the following letter to my senators. If you believe in the importance of this issue, I urge you to do the same:


I am writing in support of the amendment proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein that would add a provision to ban bisphenol-A from food and beverage containers to the Food Safety Bill (HR.2749).

As the mother of a 5-month-old girl, I am very concerned about this issue. I have read studies that link this chemical with obesity, cancer, and reproductive problems. I want to do everything possible to provide healthy meals for my family, but find it very, very difficult to avoid this chemical. At the very least, containers should be clearly labeled if they have a bisphenol- A lining.

For example, my daughter was prescribed vitamins to supplement her diet. I want to follow the doctor’s recommendations, but cannot find the liquid vitamin in a container that is not a suspect plastic.

I am also concerned with reports that this bill will unfairly target local and artisanal food producers. I ask that a provision also be added that will protect small producers from undue burden while still tightly regulating the industrial food system and food imports.

Thank you very much for your time.

Great Explanation of Chemical Toxicity

I have referred before to the gap between current understanding of toxicity and the outdated methods used by government agencies such as the FDA to determine the safety of a chemical.

The segment 'Low Dose makes the Poison' featured on the September 4th episode of the NPR program 'Living on Earth' explains the difference in a way that is easy to understand.

Green Electricity Suppliers

One easy way to reduce your carbon footprint is to arrange for your electricity to be supplied by an alternate company that provides energy from renewable sources. The company that delivers your electricity and bills you is often not the same company that supplied the electricity. They purchase it from multiple sources. I have been paying for my electricity to come from Sterling Planet for over a year now. I found a great blog post on Planet Green that describes suppliers available in the New York City area. If you live elsewhere, you can contact the company that delivers your electricity (or maybe go to their website) to ask whether there are any alternate suppliers available. And, when you accidentally leave that light on, you don't have to feel as guilty.

Great Article on the History of Bisphenol-A

Check out this great article that explains the BPA 'controversy.'

Undermining in the State of Utah

In late December, the Bureau of Land Management auctioned off about 148,000 acres of land adjacent to national parks in Utah for oil and gas drilling, despite fierce opposition from environmental groups. This excellent article in ProPublica spells out the reasons why this is particularly destructive to the lands we have set aside for preservation and to the water supply for parts of the western United States and Mexico.

There are two related stories that lift my spirits a little bit, though.

The first story, published in the Salt Lake Tribune, tells how one individual was able to disrupt the sale in a heroic act of civil disobedience. Tim DeChristopher, a University of Utah student, registered for the auction, went into the room, and won bids on about 22,500 acres ($1.8 million) worth of land near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks. He also succeeded in driving up the prices for an unknown number of other parcels of land in the auction. The US Attorney's Office is still deciding how to handle the case, but if bidding is reopened on the disputed parcels, it would not occur until at least February, when the next administration is in office.

The second story, another ProPublica piece, reports that 58 members of Congress have sent a letter to Barack Obama's transition team asking them to reverse the leases and refund the money to the energy companies. Several environmental groups have also filed suit, and a ruling on that case is expected by February 19th.

The Bush Administration's 11th Hour Environmental Shenanigans

As someone who is concerned about the environment, it has been agonizing for me to live through the Bush presidency. Because the current administration (and most conservatives) believe that this country would be better with less regulation, the president has installed pro-industry, anti-regulation fanatics into government agencies so that they can dismantle generations of protections that have been put in place for things like consumers and the environment. Fortunately, the financial crisis has shown that de-regulation can have dangerous consequences. Unfortunately, people have been so concerned about the economy that they have not had time to consider the environment.

I believe that the best thing we can do for this country is to preserve its natural resources for future generations. People should have to pay a heavy cost for damage that they do to what should be all of ours to share and appreciate. Even if that makes it harder for people to make a buck.

I have high hopes that the Obama administration will do what it can to reverse the damage that has been done, but some regulations will be difficult to undo. Congress may have an easier time than the executive branch, due to the Congressional Review Act of 1996, as explained here. Although I was pleased to see a democrat win the election, my enthusiasm has been offset by my dismay at watching government agencies pushing through last minute anti-environmental policies. Since government regulations have a 60-day review period, the various agencies have been rushing to get them done by November 22nd, so that they go into effect just before the inauguration. Examples have abounded in the newspapers in the last few months.

There are many good webpages that spell out some of these new rules.

Propublica article
Propublica Complete List
The New York Times editorial/ overview on all of the regulations
The Washington Post article with list of specific examples
The Guardian
Associated Press story on changes to endangered species regulation
Washington Post on some permanent appointments of previously political appointees to government agencies
The Chicago Tribune on weakening of lead regulations
The Salt Lake Tribune on oil and gas drilling in or near national parks
The New York Times on irradiation of produce
The New York Times on easing of mountaintop removal mining restrictions


There is one regulatory action that is open for public comment until November 28th. The EPA has decided not to regulate perchlorate in drinking water after finding that there are no currently unsafe levels. This is based on their determination that a safe level is anything lower than 24.5 parts per billion (ppb). Some states, however, regulate perchlorate at as low as 1 ppb. This new standard will pre-empt any state regulations. Perchlorate gets into drinking water when rockets, flares, and fireworks are manufactured or exploded. It persists in the environment and eventually ends up in the water. Many scientists disagree about what a safe level is, whether it causes cancer, and what kinds of effects it has on the thyroid. Read this congressional report.Regulation could potentially be very costly for Department of Defense facilities, construction sites, and manufacturers, however the cost is necessary if it is damaging to our health. It seems that more study is needed before concluding that no regulation is necessary. This EPA site provides instructions for making a public comment.

One piece of good news is that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on November 20th that the US Government is required to do a more extensive environmental review before allowing oil drilling in the arctic. This effectively leaves this important issue for the next administration to re-think.

BPA in Canned Foods

To follow up on the previous post about BPA, I want to warn everyone about canned food. BPA is used to line aluminum cans, and seems to be the source of a major amount that we ingest. According to the Environmental Working Group, no matter what brand you use or where you buy your canned food, the cans are almost certainly lined with an epoxy resin that contains BPA. If they didn't use it, the cans might rust, or you might end up with metal residues in your food. But because of the high temperatures used in the canning process, your potential exposure to BPA from canned food is much higher than your potential exposure from plastic water bottles.

The Toronto Globe and Mail conducted a study in conjunction with a Canadian TV station, and reported the results in an article on Thursday, May 29, 2008.

They found the following results:
(BISPHENOL A CONCENTRATION, PARTS PER BILLION OF WATER)

Hunt's tomato sauce: 18.21
Allen's apple juice: 17.90
Heinz tomato juice: 14.11
Labatt beer: 9.27
Campbell's chicken noodle soup: 8.61
Molson beer: 8.19
Del Monte peas and carrots: 6.76
Green Giant cream style corn: 6.52
Chef Boyardee mini been ravioli: 6.17
Heinz zoodles: 4.65
Heinz baked beans: 2.88

An article in Chemical and Engineering News reports that the food packaging industry maintains that BPA has done much to improve the health and safety of consumers..."The primary function of the internal coating is to avoid food poisoning," adds John M. Rost, chairman of the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, an industry group that represents the metal food and beverage packaging industry. Without the coating, Escherichia coli and botulism poisoning would be rampant, he says.

The Environmental Working Group indicates that one manufacturer uses non-BPA lining on some of their food cans, however. Eden Organic Beans are packed in lead free tin covered steel cans coated with a baked on oleoresinous c-enamel lining that does not contain bisphenol A (BPA). (Oleoresin is a natural mixture of an oil and a resin extracted from various plants, such as pine or balsam fir). These cans cost 13.77 percent more than the industry standard cans that do contain BPA. This costs Eden $300,000 more a year. To our knowledge Eden is the only U.S. company that uses this custom made BPA-free can. Eden's tomato products are still packaged in cans with a BPA-based lining.

For everything else, the safest choice is to use fresh, instead of canned, fruits and vegetables, and to make your soups from scratch. It will taste better and contain more nutrients, too.


Further Reading:
Environmental Working Group: Bisphenol A: Toxic Plastics Chemical in Canned Food
How Cans Are Made (well-illustrated!)

Growing Evidence of Conflict of Interest in FDA's Ruling on BPA

The Future Earth reported on August 24th about the Food & Drug Administration's questionable evaluation of the chemical bisphenol A in a draft report released earlier that month.

This evaluation, that FDA-regulated products containing BPA currently on the market are safe and that exposure levels to BPA from food contact materials, including for infants and children, are below those that may cause health effects was obtained by examining only plastics industry-funded studies. How did they justify excluding the hundreds of other studies that found the opposite to be true? The FDA claims that only those studies using GLP, or Good Laboratory Practices, qualified. GLP were regulations set in place in 1978 when it became clear that some commercial testing laboratories were conducting sloppy research. Meanwhile, government- funded research agencies were not required to adopt GLP because they were already adhering to the much more stringent regulations required to get non-commercial funding.

Now the current FDA, which is staffed with industry cronies placed by the Bush Administration to carry out the neoconservative agenda of de-regulation, has chosen to use GLP to eliminate from consideration all studies not funded by the chemical industry- the very people who manufacture the chemicals the FDA is supposed to regulate. Read more. But, using suspicious criteria to determine which studies to use is just the tip of the iceberg.

The BPA draft is under review by a subcommittee, which will present their assessment to the FDA's science board on Oct. 31st. The Washington Post reported on October 13th that there may be a conflict of interest. Charles Gelman, a retired head of a medical device manufacturing company and outspoken BPA proponent, donated $5 million to the University of Michigan's Risk Science Center. The acting director of the center is Martin Philbert, who is also the head of the subcommittee.

And this week, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that FDA documents suggest that the August report was written in consultation with the plastics industry. The newspaper reviewed the body of evidence that the task force considered. It found memos with entire sections blacked out, reviews commissioned by the American Plastics Council, an arm of the American Chemistry Council [an industry group], and reviews completed by consulting firms with clients who have financial interests in the sale of bisphenol A.

By the end of this week, criticism of the FDA on this issue has intensified. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach has been called before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation to explain the agency's decision-making relating to bisphenol A. "Specifically, why industry-funded studies provide the basis of your regulatory decisions and why the totality of the science around the chemical continues to be ignored by your science-based agency," the committee letter said.

Meanwhile, Canada placed bisphenol A on its list of toxic chemicals on October 18th. The country also banned its use in baby bottles and dedicated $1.7 million to research into the chemical. Read more.

Are Neonicotinoid Pesticides Killing the Honeybees?

Photo credit: Michelle Barte Photography

On May 27th, 2007, I first wrote about the mysterious illness that has been killing off honeybees in hives across North America known as 'colony collapse disorder,' or CCD. One of the bizarre aspects of CCD is that the worker bees just disappear and leave behind the queen, the honey, and the brood (or non-adult bees). It is assumed that they are going off to collect honey and either dying before they return or becoming disoriented and are unable to locate the hive again. One-third of the produce that Americans consume is pollinated by honeybees (including tomatoes, peppers, apples, cucumbers, broccoli, onions, squash, carrots, avocados, berries, melons, and almonds), so this is a serious threat to our food supply.

From the Milford, MA Daily News, May 10, 2008: A national survey of bee health from the Apiary Inspectors of America showed 36.1 percent of beehives were lost since last year. That's up from the previous year's losses of 32 percent. Some commercial beekeepers had far greater than 36 percent losses. "For two years in a row, we've sustained a substantial loss," Dennis vanEngelsdorp, president of the group, told the Associated Press. "That's an astonishing number. Imagine if one out of every three cows, or one out of every three chickens, were dying? That would raise a lot of alarm."

Back in 2007, when I wrote the first article about bees, many people theorized that the possible culprit was a pesticide called imidacloprid, manufactured by Bayer, AG, a German company. It is part of a class of insecticides called neonicotinoids, which are derived from nicotine. Now, scientists are even more concerned about another pesticide from the neonicotinoid class called clothianidin (also a Bayer product). Clothianidin is used on corn and canola and sold under the brand name Poncho. Many beekeepers and scientists suspect that it, in combination with other pesticides they are exposed to, weakens the immune system of bees, making them more susceptible to viruses and parasites such as the varroa mite.

The Popular Science website explains further: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates agricultural pesticide use, but this regulation does not account for the interaction of these chemicals that inevitably takes place through the bees' pollination processes. Some of these combinations of pesticides have been found to have a synergistic effect hundreds of times more toxic than any of the pesticides individually, says James L. Frazier, professor of entomology at Penn State. Bees' exposure to these toxic chemical combinations both outside of, and within, the home -- er, hive -- may cause behavioral changes. These changes include immune system blocks and disorientation, which may help to explain the CCD crisis of late.

The EPA fact sheet, which is posted online even admits that clothianidin is dangerous to bees: Clothianidin has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other nontarget pollinators, through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen...
Clothianidin is highly toxic to honey bees on an acute contact basis (LD50 > 0.0439 μg/bee). It has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other nontarget pollinators, through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen. In honey bees, the effects of this toxic chronic exposure may include lethal and/or sub-lethal effects in the larvae and reproductive effects in the queen.

That sounds pretty alarming, but there may be even more alarming research that is being withheld. The Raleigh News & Observer reports that a German investigation began on August 13th into whether Bayer submitted flawed studies on their product in order to get approval for its use. And recently, the National Resources Defense Council filed suit against the EPA because they failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request for the results of studies on clothianidin. In 2003, it was granted conditional approval by the EPA provided that they perform the studies. The EPA has never indicated whether the studies were done, and if they were, what the results were.

As explained by the San Francisco Chronicle, On July 17, after getting no response from the EPA about securing the studies, the environmental group filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act, which requires the records within 20 business days absent unusual circumstances. When the federal agency missed the August deadline, the group filed the lawsuit, asking the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to force the EPA to turn over the records.

Scientists presenting at the American Chemical Society national meeting reported that dozens of pesticides had been found in samples of adult bees, broods, pollen and wax collected from honeybee colonies suspected to have died from symptoms of colony collapse disorder, including some neonicotinoids.

The Organic Consumers Association reports that in recent Congressional hearings, USDA was unable to account for the $20 million that Congress has allocated to the department for fighting CCD in the last two years. "This is a real mystery right now," said Dr. Gabriela Chavarria, director of NRDC's Science Center. "EPA needs to help shed some light so that researchers can get to work on this problem. This isn't just an issue for farmers -- this is an issue that concerns us all."


LINKS:
60 Minutes Segment on Colony Collapse Disorder
Video of bees that have adapted to have the ability to remove varroa mites from their bodies.
Video about applying even more pesticides to the bee hives to kill the mites.
Athens Herald, July 6th, 2008
San Francisco Chronicle, April 19th, 2008 (Quote: The hand of Congress works in equally mysterious ways: A new five-year farm bill under negotiation may spend a few million dollars saving bees, but definitely will spend billions on farm subsidy policies that contribute to their destruction.)
The Daily Green, August 1, 2008
The Guardian, September 29th, 2008
Vanishing Bees Movie

New Food Labeling Law Takes Effect

Stores are now required to tell you where your (unprocessed) food came from. Read the article in the San Jose Mercury News.

The EPA Decides There's Nothing Wrong with Rocket Fuel in Your Glass of Water

Image courtesy turbojoe at Flickr (Creative Commons)


Continuing its' run of impeccable judgements, the EPA has decided that perchlorate (rocket fuel) contaminated water isn't a problem (according to an Associated Press advance review of a report not yet made public by the EPA.) Slightly more accurately, the agency feels that there's no point in trying to clean up perchlorate contamination, because... well... take their word for it, there's just no point. It certainly has nothing to do with the Pentagon's efforts to discredit EPA efforts that could link their rocket tests with the contamination.

Ice cream: cup or cone?

Here's a simple thing you can do for the environment: next time you go to an ice cream shop, make sure to order your tasty treat in a cone. Even if you don't plan to eat the cone, you are still choosing a biodegradable container instead of the throw-away styrofoam or plastic alternative. And eating out of a cone is just more fun!

Image source: Turkey Hill Ice Cream Journal

The North Pole Can Now Be Circumnavigated

The photo above is from today's London Daily Mail, showing the opening of passages in the Arctic sea ice on either side of the north pole.

The accompanying story says: The pictures, produced by Nasa, mark the first time in at least 125,000 years that the two shortcuts linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans have been ice-free at the same time. In 2005, the North-East Passage around Russia opened, while the western one, across the top of Canada, remained closed, and last year the position was reversed.

But the satellite data shows that the North-West passage opened last weekend and the remaining tongue of ice blocking the North-Eastern one dissolved a few days later. Professor Serreze, of the U.S. government-funded National Sea and Ice Data Center [NSIDC], told a Sunday newspaper: 'The passages are open. It is an historic event. 'We are going to see this more and more as the years go by.'

The London Independent explains further: Some scientists predict that [the arctic sea ice] could vanish altogether in summer within five years...But it is the simultaneous opening – for the first time in at least 125,000 years – of the North-west passage around Canada and the North-east passage around Russia that promises to deliver much the greatest shock. Until recently both had been blocked by ice since the beginning of the last Ice Age...

The opening of the passages – eagerly awaited by shipping companies who hope to cut thousands of miles off their routes by sailing round the north of Canada and Russia – is only the greatest of a host of ominous signs this month of a gathering crisis in the Arctic. Early last week the NSIDC warned that, over the next few weeks, the total extent of sea ice in the Arctic may shrink to below the record low reached last year – itself a massive 200,000 square miles less than the previous worst year, 2005...

The Bremen-based Beluga Group says it will send the first ship through the North-east passage – cutting 4,000 nautical miles off the voyage from Germany to Japan – next year. And Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, last week announced that all foreign ships entering the North-west passage should report to his government – a move bound to be resisted by the US, which regards it as an international waterway.

But scientists say that such disputes will soon become irrelevant if the ice continues to melt at present rates, making it possible to sail right across the North Pole. They have long regarded the disappearance of the icecap as inevitable as global warming takes hold, though until recently it was not expected until around 2070.

Many scientists now predict that the Arctic ocean will be ice-free in summer by 2030 – and a landmark study this year by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, concluded that there will be no ice between mid-July and mid-September as early as 2013.

Earlier this month, as the sea ice was already starting to recede at unprecedented rates, the Guardian wrote This startling loss of Arctic sea ice has major meteorological, environmental and ecological implications. The region acts like a giant refrigerator that has a strong effect on the northern hemisphere's meteorology. Without its cooling influence, weather patterns will be badly disrupted, including storms set to sweep over Britain.

At the same time, creatures such as polar bears and seals - which use sea ice for hunting and resting - face major threats. Similarly, coastlines will no longer be insulated by ice from wave damage and will suffer erosion, as is already happening in Alaska.

Other environmental changes are likely to follow. Without sea ice to bolster them, land ice - including glaciers - could topple into the ocean and raise global sea levels, threatening many low-lying areas, including Bangladesh and scores of Pacific islands. In addition, the disappearance of reflective ice over the Arctic means that solar radiation would no longer be bounced back into space, thus heating the planet even further.

In my research, I discovered the answer to something that has been puzzling me throughout the last decade: why has the fall in the northeast US been so warm lately? I found my answer on this ABC Channel 7 Denver site. It's called 'Arctic amplification.' That's when the warming up north is increased in a feedback mechanism and the effects spill southward starting in autumn. Over the last few years, the bigger melt has meant more warm water that releases more heat into the air during fall cooling, making the atmosphere warmer than normal.

Sadly, in a related story, 9 stranded polar bears were seen off Alaska trying to swim 400 miles north to the retreating icecap edge after the ice float they were living on melted. The furthest a polar bear has ever been known to swim and survive is 100 miles. Read more here.

And what has been going on down in Antarctica? Well, their summer season ends in late February. This year at that time, a chunk of the Wilkins ice shelf the size of Manhattan collapsed. Full story here and here and video here.

Further reading and images:
New York Times graphic showing sea ice change from 2003-2007
February 20th, 1969, New York Times article on Arctic ice
The story of one walrus.

Sarah Palin's Environmental Record

Sarah Palin (Republican governor of Alaska) was recently chosen by John McCain to be his running mate. Although hailed by some as a bold choice, Palin's record on environmental issues is not encouraging to those hoping for "green leadership" in the coming years.

In an attempt to remove blocks to oil exploration in her state, she sued to have the polar bear removed from the Endangered Species list after it was added by the Bush Administration's Interior Secretary (as reported previously by The Future Earth.)  As would be expected of someone taking such action, Palin strongly supports opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

Palin has close ties to the oil industry. Her husband is an employee of oil giant BP, and she received campaign funding from oil contractors (as it turns out, the same contractors connected to the scandal surrounding Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens.)  In case Palin's ideas and motivations regarding fossil fuels weren't clear, she stated in an interview: "I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won't ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices." 

Despite claiming in the same interview that "Here in Alaska we love our clean air and our clean water and abundant wildlife", Palin worked desperately to block a major clean-water initiative in her home state (the initiative would have conflicted with expanding mining interests.)  Fortunately for Alaskans truly concerned with the health of their waterways, the initiative passed.

As for the greater issue of global warming, Palin has been quoted as saying, "I'm not one though who would attribute it [global warming] to being man-made."

In her term as governor, Sarah Palin has regarded environmental concerns merely as obstacles to oil-focused energy policies.  She has fought to preserve or expand Big Oil's interests while doing her best  to obstruct environmentally progressive action.  Her positions put her to the right of John McCain on some "green" issues, and even to the right of the Bush Administration regarding the protection of an endangered species.

With this record to consider, it is also worth remembering the time-worn saying: a Vice-President is "only a heartbeat away" from the Oval Office.

Sources for this post include articles appearing on The League of Conservation Voters, Green Daily, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, Newser.com, Red Green and Blue, and the Alaskan blog Beyond and Back.  

We Cannot Trust the FDA on BPA

As reported on August 3rd, a bill was passed that will ban 3 types of phthalates from children's toys. This is a huge environmental victory, but we are still unable to get an equally dangerous chemical, bisphenol A, or BPA, out of our food products. While a government organization in Canada called Environment Canada has declared BPA toxic, and announced its intention to ban the chemical (New York Times, April), the American Food & Drug Administration last week declared it to be safe for the rest of us in North America.

Bisphenol A, which is added to polycarbonate plastics, dental sealants, and metal can linings, has been found in the urine of 93% of the American people tested. We have been brought up to understand the traditional theory of toxicity: the dose makes the poison. And this is true for some kinds of toxic materials, such as organic solvents or heavy metals: as long as a certain exposure threshold is not crossed, the person is not poisoned.

For some synthetic chemicals, like BPA, it is not the amount, but the timing of the exposure that is important. As I explained in a Future Earth post from November 8th; because BPA is similar in shape, the human body can mistake it for estrogen. A small amount is enough to confuse the endocrine system. It is especially dangerous to developing fetuses and children. See the Environmental Working Group's website for a chart describing studies that have shown this.

Concern has been growing over the last decade about the folly of exposing ourselves to this chemical in some kind of vast, uncontrolled human experiment. While independent scientists are getting results that would suggest that this chemical is dangerous, industry scientists are creating confusion by casting doubts on their results. One way in which they are doing this is by denying this new understanding of toxicity.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel from August 15th; Hundreds of studies conducted by government and independent academic have shown that bisphenol A causes breast cancer, testicular cancer, diabetes and hyperactivity in laboratory animals...The chemical was developed in 1891 as a synthetic estrogen but came into widespread use in the 1950s when scientists realized it could be used to make polycarbonate plastic and some epoxy resins to line food and beverage cans.

More than 6 billion pounds of bisphenol A are produced annually in the United States for use in an array of products, including dental sealants, baby bottles and compact discs.

The Chicago Tribune reported the story on August 16th with the following quotes:

"It's ironic FDA would choose to ignore dozens of studies funded by the National Institutes of Health — this country's best scientists — and instead rely on flawed studies from industry," said Pete Myers, chief scientist for Environmental Health Sciences. Myers said the agency disregarded recent studies of bisphenol's effects included in the National Toxicology Program's April draft report...

Some environmental groups questioned the timing of the FDA's report, noting California lawmakers are expected to soon vote on removing bisphenol from children's products. If signed into law, it would be the first state ban of the chemical. "For this to come out on a Friday afternoon, just before California takes action, it definitely raises some eyebrows," said Renee Sharp, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group.

The bill in California did not pass, with many lawmakers reporting that the FDA statement did influence their decision. Read more in the San Jose Mercury News.

The Environmental Working Group has a page on their site with tips on avoiding BPA. We have to educate ourselves and do what we can to avoid exposure since the government agency charged with ensuring our safety cannot be trusted.

Joe Biden's Environmental Record

Barack Obama's just-announced running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, has a solid record of support for pro-environment issues (according to Grist; which also conducted this 2007 interview with him.)  Biden has sponsored major legislation to address climate change, pressed for raising fuel-economy standards, and has stated that his top priority is "energy security".  This track record has helped him earn an 83% lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters.  (Obama himself has an 87% lifetime score from the LCV.)

Also, as noted on DailyKos, Biden is probably the #1 supporter of Amtrak in Congress.  A daily rail commuter—from Washington D.C. to his home in Delaware!—Sen. Biden has a track record of speaking out for the beleaguered system. Hopefully, an administration with Biden in the #2 spot would bring a much-needed lift  in funding and recognition to Amtrak.

Environmental Kitty Litter Considerations

The Environmental Working Group has created a blog page that considers the environmental impact of different methods of cat-poop disposal. The 'comments' section is packed with great questions and thoughts, too. Although I you may not come away with an ideal solution after reading the site, you will have much to think about. And you will be pleased to see how many people really want to find answers. It is an illustration of how complex it can be to come up with solutions that lower our impact on the environment without eliminating any of the comforts of 21st century life that we have all gotten used to.

Reform Bill for Consumer Safety Products Commission Includes Phthalate Ban

The House and Senate voted to ban 3 types of pthalates from children's products as part of legislation to reform the Consumer Products Safety Commission. This synchronizes the aims of some earlier legislation that was introduced in the legislature, as described by the Future Earth on May 30th and June 26th. It passed the House 424-1, with the 'no' vote coming from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. It passed the Senate 89-3, with 'no' votes from Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Jon Kyl of Arizona.

The Washington Post reported on July 28th: White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that President Bush opposes the ban but that it is too early to say whether he will veto the measure...

The measure had wide support in the Senate, but it bogged down in the House, where the chemical industry waged a costly battle to defeat it. The campaign was led by Exxon Mobil, which manufacturers diisononyl phthalate, or DINP, the phthalate most frequently found in children's toys. The company spent a chunk of its $22 million lobbying budget in the past 18 months to try to prevent any ban...

Phthalates make plastics softer and more durable and also are added to perfumes, lotions, shampoos and other items. They are so ubiquitous that in one 1999 study, the Food and Drug Administration found traces in all of its 1,000 subjects.

The Los Angeles Times reported on July 31st: The administration has objected to parts of the bill, but White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Thursday that President Bush would sign it...

The legislation bolsters the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a 400-staffer agency that took the brunt of criticism last year over the massive recalls and the failure of the government to better test and monitor toy imports before they reach store shelves.

The bill would double the agency's budget, to $136 million by 2014, and give it new authority to oversee testing procedures and impose civil penalties on violators.

Another key provision requires pre-market testing by certified third-party laboratories of children's products for lead and for compliance with safety standards.

—Provides whistle-blower protections to employees who report consumer product hazards. The provision was championed by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

—Requires the CPSC to set up a user-friendly database where consumers, government agencies, child care providers or doctors could report incidents of injury, illness, death or risk related to products.

—Makes more products now covered by voluntary industry standards subject to mandatory standards. With that, more toy hazards, including goods containing small magnets that were included in products recalled last year, would be subject to third-party testing requirements.

—Bans three-wheel all-terrain vehicles and strengthens regulation of other ATVs.

The three phthalates to be banned (according to the Library of Congress site for the bill, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008) are di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP).

Biodegradable dishes from Verterra

TFE last visited the subject of "disposable" serving-ware with a story about bagasse trays (alternatives to dishes made of of pressed sugarcane.)  A similar product has recently debuted that also shows great promise.  These reusable, 100% compostable dishes by Verterra are made solely of leaves and water.

Verterra's site artfully describes the raw material as "fallen leaves" (ie dead leaves), which are then treated to a combination of steam, heat, and pressure to form elegant looking servingware.  No lacquers or chemicals are used; and the pieces are UV-sterilized three times before packaging.  They are also described as microwave, oven, and refrigerator friendly (according to Verterra's FAQ.)

Verterra claims the dishes can be reused, but ultimately should be returned to the earth via composting.  (It's also worth noting that Verterra describes it's South Asian workforce as "fairly compensated", working under "safe conditions", and with "access to healthcare"—phrases which are rarely mentioned by other American companies manufacturing in such areas, if they acknowledge doing so at all.)

TFE has yet to test Verterra dishes first-hand.  If you have any experience with them, please comment and let us know if they live up the hype— and if you found them practical to serve/eat food from.  The only drawback we saw (and it's a big one) is... the price. At around $1 apiece, it's hard to imagine these renewable-resource dishes will replace wasteful paper plates at the average American family's picnic (much less the Styrofoam favored by cafeterias and fast-food.)  We'd prefer to be optimistic however, and hope that they gain enough popularity to make prices competitive.

Kid-Safe Chemicals Act of 2008

On May 30th, The Future Earth wrote about this bill, currently in the House of Representatives, that would regulate chemicals in products specifically for children. Now, the Organic Consumers Association has made it very easy to send a note to your congressperson to let them know you support it.

As they explain, this bill:
* requires that industrial chemicals be safe for infants, kids and other vulnerable groups;
* requires that new chemicals be safety tested before they are sold;
* requires chemical manufacturers to test and prove that the 62,000 chemicals already on the market that have never been tested are safe in order for them to remain in commerce;
* requires EPA to review "priority" chemicals, those which are found in people, on an expedited schedule;
* requires regular biomonitoring to determine what chemicals are in people and in what amounts;
* requires regular updates of health and safety data and provides EPA with clear authority to request additional information and tests;
* provides incentives for manufacturers to further reduce health hazards;
* requires EPA to promote safer alternatives and alternatives to animal testing;
* protects state and local rights; and
* requires that this information be publicly available.

Please visit their website and express your support!