Tag Archive for 'Environmental Working Group'

Weekly Highlights (12/12/2011)

Published on December 12, 2011 in News. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Welcome to “Weekly Highlights”, our weekly post that recaps important child health and safety news, research, and recalls from the previous week and other great reads we’ve come across in our internet travels.

In the News:

FDA Agrees to Determine Safety of BPA - Well, sort of. In response to a lawsuit, they’ve agreed to decide by March 31, 2012 whether to ban BPA in food packaging. They may very well decide not to ban BPA, and nothing much will have changed.

NICVIEW Gives Parents a Virtual Window to Newborns in NICU - Webcams installed in NICUs allow family to keep watch. What a wonderful implementation of technology.

Some News Guests Paid to Promote Products on Air - The next time you see an “expert review” news segment touting the latest products in children’s safety, for example, keep in mind that you may just be watching a commercial in disguise. Despite being illegal, “Safety Mom” Alison Rhodes admits to being paid for her recommendations by the companies whose products she plugs.

New Research:

Scientific Panel Finds Few Clear Environmental Links to Breast Cancer
At the request of Susan G. Komen For the Cure, a panel of scientific experts reviewed research on environmental risks and possible links to breast cancer. Their report released this week, however, makes only a few firm recommendations, one of which includes minimizing radiation from medical tests during childhood. Two or three abdominal CT scans give as much radiation as atomic bomb survivors received. Yikes! The review was unable to draw conclusive links in other areas such as BPA, but the link above gives a good summary of the results of the study.

Children’s Cereal: More Sugar Than a Twinkie
The EWG has released a new report which analyzed the nutrition in 84 popular cereals and found that you might as well serve most of them for dessert. The worst offender, Kellogg’s Honey Smacks, packs more sugar than a Hostess Twinkie, coming in at 56% sugar by weight. The same serving of 44 other popular cereals, including Honey Nut Cheerios, has more sugar than three Chips Ahoy! Cookies. While sugar was the top problem, many also contain too much sodium or fat or not enough whole grain.

The Anatomy of a Temper Tantrum
Researchers at the University of Connecticut have deconstructed the toddler temper tantrum and determined that most tantrums follow a similar pattern and rhythm. Based on audio recordings of toddler tantrums, they found that sadness tends to occur throughout a tantrum with peaks of anger in the form of yelling and screaming. The researchers suggest that the trick to ending a tantrum is to get the child past the anger, where only sadness remains and children begin to look for comfort. The quickest way to do that, they say, is to do nothing. Easier said than done, of course.

Good Reads & Videos:

 

The Coat: A short animated video of one child who gives selflessly to another. A great illustration of charity for little ones.

Chemicals In Your Child’s Car Seat from The Car Seat Lady - An excellent read on the issues/limitations of HealthyStuff.org’s study on flame retardants and other chemicals in childrens’ car seats that was released earlier this summer.

Recalls, December 6 – December 12:

CPSC Child Product Recalls

Child Safety Seat Recalls

No child safety seat recall announcements this week.

USDA/FDA Recalls

If there’s anything you see and think we should feature, please send it our way to jasmine@purebebe.com. We hope your week is off to a great start!

XOXO,

Jasmine & Heather

10 Americans, 287 Chemicals

Published on August 17, 2011 in News. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

In 2004, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) tested the blood of 10 Americans for 413 different toxic chemical pollutants. The tests revealed 287 of these chemicals present, an average of 200 in each individual. These chemicals included 28 waste byproducts (i.e. PCBs), 47 consumer product ingredients (i.e. flame retardants), and 212 industrial chemicals and pesticides banned over 30 years ago.

Of the 287 chemicals identified, they have some alarming characteristics:

  • 134 of these chemicals have been shown to cause cancer in laboratory studies or people
  • 151 chemicals have been associated with birth defects
  • 154 chemicals have been associated with hormone disruption
  • 186 chemicals have been associated with infertility
  • 130 chemicals have been associated with immune system toxicity
  • 158 chemicals have been identified as neurotoxins (i.e. lead, mercury)

Did you know that the average women uses about 12 personal care products a day? And in doing so, we encounter more than 160 chemical ingredients. Not that all chemicals are bad, but when chemicals in the U.S. market are considered safe until proven guilty, how are we to know? Manufacturers are not required to disclose the results of any safety testing (nor are they actually required to complete safety testing), and the average chemical is approved by the EPA in 3 weeks time before going to market.

So the big question is how did the 10 Americans in EWG’s study come into contact with the 287 chemicals found in their blood? That’s the crazy part. Yes, 10 Americans sounds like a pretty small sample, but these 10 individuals are not just anyone. They’re newborns barely a moment old - the blood was taken from their umbilical cords. These newborns encountered these chemicals in the womb. Our children are exposed before they even enter this world.

And do you know what their chances of getting cancer in their lifetime are? 1 in 2 for males, and 1 in 3 for females. That is staggering. gut-wrenching. unacceptable. Our children deserve better. We can reduce these odds, but it’s going to require some serious change. We can make changes at home, but ultimately we need chemical reform.

These statistics are just some of the highlights from the video presentation below prepared by Ken Cook, president and co-founder of EWG. Ken has testified numerous times in front of Congress regarding chemical and other reform. His presentation is eye-opening, to say the least. It’s a little long at 20 minutes, but it is incredibly informative and an easy view.

I’d encourage you to watch at least the first 12 minutes. Then, if you haven’t already, contact your local senator and urge them to support the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. The bill will be up for a vote in the fall, and our politicians need to hear our voices. Share this video with friends, and get the word out. It is time for change.

If you want to know more about the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 and our currently ineffective chemical policy, read our earlier post about it here: Pediatricians Call for Change: Protect Children from Toxic Chemicals.

Other Resources:
Body Burden - The Pollution in Newborns

6 Dangerous Chemicals to Avoid in Skincare Products

Published on August 10, 2011 in Eco-Friendly, Health & Safety and Skincare. 5 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Recently a friend reached out to me after reading our 2011 Sunscreen Picks article. She wanted to know why we did not include a particular brand of sunscreen, which she had been using and had also begun to sell as an independent consultant.  I took a quick look at the company’s website, and was encouraged by the company’s choice of words.  ”Safe.  Pure.  Beneficial.” Next, I checked the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG’s) cosmetics database and was surprised to find that they didn’t list the company, let alone ratings, for their skincare products.

So I asked this friend to send me the list of ingredients for each of their sunscreens.  She sent me the long lists of ingredients for two of their sunscreens.  I took one look at the ingredients and knew, right away, that I would never use the products.  The first ingredient that caught my eye was Oxybenzone, which rates an 8 on the EWG’s list of ingredients (on a scale of 0-10, with 10 being the most dangerous ingredients/products).  As a general rule of thumb, I only use products with ingredients that register a ’0′ or ’1′ on the EWG’s scale.  Oxybenzone causes developmental and reproductive toxicity, as well as reproductive birth defects.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) lists the skin as the “most common path of toxic substance exposure.”  It is the body’s largest organ and has outstanding absorption abilities.  That’s why it’s important to know what’s in the products that you’re using on your children, and yourself, especially if you’re pregnant.  As is the case with my friend’s skincare products, skincare product companies will market themselves as “natural, pure, safe.” But many of these claims are false.  It’s up to all of us to do our research.

We have compiled a list of ingredients to avoid in your skincare products.  This list is not all-encompassing, but we feel that these are some of the most dangerous, and/or most common, offenders.

  • Dioxanes (1,3 or 1,4-Dioxane) – 1,4-dioxane is a known carcinogen that contaminates up to 46% of personal care products tested (OCA 2008, EWG 2008).  In addition, it can wreak havoc on our immune systems and is a known allergen.  According to the EWG’s cosmetics database, “The chemical is an unwanted byproduct of an ingredient processing method called ethoxylation used to reduce the risk of skin irritation for petroleum-based ingredients. Though 1,4-dioxane can easily be removed from products before they are sold, its widespread presence in products indicates that many manufacturers fail to take this simple step.”
  • Triclosan – is used as an antibacterial agent and preservative.  Studies have shown that triclosan disrupts the endocrine system.
  • Parabens – are widely used as a preservative in skincare products.  Parabens mimic estrogen and can act as potential hormone (endocrine) system disruptors.
  • Mineral Oil – is added for fragrance and/or to protect the skin. Mineral oil is a liquid mixture made from petroleum.  There is strong evidence that it is toxic to the immune and respiratory system, and may cause cancer, especially if added to products that are inhaled (more studies are needed).
  • Oxybenzone – is used as a sunscreen agent, and a UV light absorber. According to the EWG, “This chemical absorbs through the skin in significant amounts. It contaminates the bodies of 97% of Americans according to Centers for Disease Control research.”  Oxybenzone is a known endocrine disruptor, and can cause developmental and reproductive toxicity, and immunotoxicity.
  • Fragrance – The skincare industry uses the term “fragrance” to hide 3,163 chemicals (including phthalates, octoxynols and nonoxynols, which are some of the most dangerous).  Pthalates are known hormone disruptors linked to reproductive birth defects.  The term “Fragrance” is also used in the candle and cleaning product industries

What Can You Do to Protect Yourself, and Your Babies, From These Harmful Chemicals?

1) Read labels!

2) Avoid products with fragrance

3) Look up your products on the Environmental W0rking Group’s Cosmetic’s Database

Want to learn more?  Here’s a list of 10 additional common chemicals in skincare products to avoid.

-What ingredients do you avoid in skincare products?
-What skincare products do you use?

Getting Real: What’s Your Body Care “Number”?

Published on July 25, 2011 in Dental Hygiene, Health & Safety, Organic and Skincare. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

31.  That’s my “number.” And I’m sure I’m forgetting a few.

Now it’s your turn. Right now, jot down all of the products that either 1) touch your skin; or 2) you inhale (think air fresheners, hair spray, perfume, etc.); and 3) that you use every day, from the second you wake up, to the minute you lay down in your bed at night. Forget about food/consumables for now. Once you finish your list, count the products. Wa-La, you have your “number.”

My List* of Body and/or Skin-touching Products:

  1. Shampoo
  2. Conditioner
  3. Shaving cream
  4. Shower gel
  5. Bath soap (bar)
  6. Toothpaste
  7. Detangler spray
  8. Moroccan Oil (for finish)
  9. Hairspray
  10. Perfume
  11. Deodorant
  12. Facial lotion
  13. Foundation
  14. Blush 1
  15. Blush 2 (I use two blushes)
  16. Eye Shadow 1
  17. Eye Shadow 2
  18. Mascara
  19. Body lotion
  20. Hand soap (in my house)
  21. Hand soap (public restrooms)
  22. Facial soap (for removing makeup at the end of the day)
  23. Dish soap
  24. Dish detergent (cleans dishes and most leave a small amount of residue on your dishes)
  25. Antibacterials (for cleaning hands on the go)
  26. Baby wipes
  27. Diaper cream (once in a while)
  28. Sunscreen
  29. Clorox wipes (to clean the kitchen countertops)
  30. Windex (to clean glass top tables)
  31. Washing machine detergent (washes your clothes, which sit directly on top of your skin 24×7)

*List was from approximately 1 year ago, when I/we began the journey to examine the chemicals in our daily lives (my list has since changed significantly).  

If you use air fresheners (spray or plug-ins), please include them in your list, because you end up inhaling many of the chemicals.  Also, I did not include lipstick, lip gloss, chapstick, or mouth washes because I don’t use them regularly. But if you do use them, make sure to add them to your list.

With a 265% increase in the rate of U.S. ER hospitalizations related to food allergic reactions, and the rates of cancer, diabetes, autism, and other serious medical conditions rising in the past few years, I have been thinking a lot about minimizing my family’s daily exposure to harmful chemicals.

Many of the chemicals now added to everyday bath and body care, and home cleaning products didn’t exist (or weren’t used in the same company’s products) 15 years ago.

And, aren’t most cancers caused by environmental factors? Breast cancer, for one, can be attributed to hereditary factors in only 5-10% of breast cancer cases.

So that means that 90-95% of the time, breast cancer is caused by environmental factors.  Factors that we can all take efforts to limit our exposure to.

Knowing that I personally used at least 31 different products that touched my skin daily, I then began to look at labels, and ingredients, to determine whether I should be concerned about chemical exposure. And the results were a big slap in my face.  My facial lotion alone, that I had been using for the past 7+ years? Kiehl’s Ultra Facial Moisturizer SPF 15, registered a whopping “5″ on the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) cosmetics database.

As a point of comparison, I would never use anything rated above a “2″ (by the EWG) on my children. And even then I would have to be desperate.  In case you are wondering, as for my kids’ number?  They use 8 main products daily (most of which register a “0″ on the EWG’s cosmetic’s database):  1)  Shampoo/body wash combo; 2) Conditioner; 3) Toothpaste; 4) Handsoap;  5) Sunscreen;  6) Dish detergent (they eat from the dishes);  7) washing machine detergent (clothes they wear); 8 ) diaper wipes (my youngest).  We don’t use fabric softeners or any other additive in our laundry. And I don’t use any type of lotion on them. We haven’t had many issues with diaper rash, and when we have, we’ve used diaper cream sparingly, which is why it’s not included.

So why do we parents have different standards for ourselves when it comes to exposure to healthy/safe products (or, maybe it’s just me?)?

Among many other changes, which I’ll get into in other upcoming posts (as well as which chemicals to AVOID and why), we stopped using anti-bacterial hand-washing soaps, we use vinegar and water (instead of Clorox wipes) to clean just about everything, and we wash our hands more often when we’re outside the house instead of using anti-bacterial sprays.  I have eliminated many of the products that I used to use, and now even use organic deodorant (without anti-perspirant).

Over the next couple of weeks, we’ll go into more details about why knowing your “number” is important. In the meantime, “come clean” and tally up the total number of products you use, as well as your kids use, on a daily basis.

-What’s your “number”?  What’s your reaction?
-What’s your kids’ “number”?
-What are your thoughts? Are you not phased/surprised/shocked? Be honest!
-What changes (if any) to your or your child’s “number” will you be making?

PureBebe’s 2011 Sunscreen Picks

Published on July 6, 2011 in Health & Safety, Organic and Skincare. 4 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Alas, we have finally finished compiling our 2011 sunscreen recommendations. As you will notice, our list is a rather short one since we are only willing to recommend sunscreens that we have used or would use on our own children. Our recommendations are based on the following factors:

  1. The Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) ratings and ingredient information;
  2. Amazon ratings and reviews;
  3. Consumer Reports (July 2011) information (includes feedback on 2 of our sunscreen picks);
  4. Our own experience with the products and/or interaction with the Companies themselves;
  5. This might come as a shocker, but we also tend to lean towards sunscreens with organic ingredients.  ;)

With the exception of one sunscreen that contains both zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, we are only recommending sunscreens that use zinc oxide as the active ingredient, since zinc oxide is the only mineral that offers broad spectrum protection against UVA and UVB rays and because most of the research we read found that even coated titanium dioxide is inferior to uncoated zinc oxide. If this sounds like gibberish to you and you’d like to read more about the differences between the minerals zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, we laid out everything you need to know about sunscreen in our recent article titled “How Safe is Your Sunscreen? The ABC’s of Sunscreens…”

Unfortunately we were not able to research every highly-rated zinc oxide sunscreen. If you use one that you’re passionate about, please let us know. If we don’t go broke trying out all of these sunscreens, then we’ll happily try out any new sunscreen provided that it passes the initial PureBebe screening. :)

I would also like to note that in the past we have raved about California Baby products. We have not included them in our list below for three reasons. First, they use titanium dioxide as the active ingredient in their sunscreens, and as mentioned above, we are only recommending sunscreens with zinc oxide. Secondly, they did not respond to my email questions, and we have since learned that they have not responded to other bloggers’ inquiries as well. Thirdly, because they did not respond to my inquiry, I do not know whether their titanium dioxide is, in fact, safe (i.e. coated/uncoated and nano/non-nano). As a loyal buyer and an evangelist of their products for 3.5 years, I find their unresponsiveness completely unprofessional and unacceptable.

Without further ado, below are our top picks for 2011:

Loving Naturals Sunscreen, SPF 30+

Active Ingredient: Uncoated, non-nano zinc oxide (24.8%)

EWG Skin Deep Rating: 1

Amazon Rating: 3.5 stars, 299 customer reviews

Best Price We’ve Found: $9.99 for 2.7 oz, $17.00 for 5 oz on Amazon.com

Positives: Jasmine says “I love that this mineral-based sunscreen has such an easy-to-read ingredients list of natural and organic ingredients, all of which are described on the company’s website along with their purpose. It has a mild, nutty scent and a smooth, lotion-like consistency for a mineral-based sunscreen that makes it really easy to apply. And while it goes on white, it rubs in easily.”

Negatives: Jasmine says “Compared to some other mineral-based sunscreens I’ve used, this one requires reapplication more frequently. This sunscreen contains nut and seed oils, so do not use if your child has nut or seed allergies.”

 

Badger Baby Sunscreen SPF 30+

Active Ingredient: Uncoated, non-nano zinc oxide (18.75%). Note: earlier versions of this product contained nano zinc oxide, so make sure that you buy the bottle that says “non-nano” on the label.

EWG Skin Deep Rating: 1

Amazon Rating: 3.5 stars, 8 reviews

Best Price We’ve Found: $14.00 for 2.9 oz on Amazon.com

Positives: Heather says “This one is on my list of sunscreens to try. I recently bought the lavender-scented Badger sunscreen when I saw it available at my local supermarket (they don’t have the unscented version), only to read on the EWG’s website that lavender (as well as many scents added to lotions) is a known endocrine disruptor. Given the list of ingredients on the Baby sunscreen, and the countless people who have raved about this Badger sunscreen (friends as well as online reviews), I can’t wait to try this one on my kids. As a sidenote, I also love how open this company is about their products, the ingredients, and why they chose specific ingredients over others. Very, very refreshing!”

Consumer Report’s July 2011 edition rated Badger SPF 30 as #6 for all sunscreens in the SPF30 market.  

Negatives: Heather says, “Not all Badger products have the same safety ratings from the EWG. Their Anti-Bug Sunscreen is rated a 3 by the EWG, so make sure to check EWG’s site if you’d prefer to buy a different Badger product.”

Consumer Reports noted that Badger stains clothing, so be careful when applying.

 

Poofy Supernaturals Sunscreen SPF 30

Active Ingredient: Uncoated, non-nano zinc oxide (22.5%). A company representative said that their zinc oxide is 325 nm in size.

EWG Skin Deep Rating: 1

Amazon Rating: Not listed/Not rated

Best Price We’ve Found: $11.99 for 2.0 oz at Poofy Organics.com

Positives: Although we haven’t yet tried this one, the list of all-natural ingredients pleasantly surprised me: Organic Jojoba Oil, Organic Unrefined Shea Butter, Organic Beeswax, Organic Virgin Coconut Oil, Organic Camellia Oil, Organic Cocoa Butter, Zinc Oxide, Organic Rosemary Extract, Organic Eucalyptus Essential Oil, Natural Vitmain E.

Negatives: This sunscreen does have coconut oil, which some kids could be allergic to.

 

Soleo Organics All Natural Sunscreen SPF 30+

Active Ingredient: Zinc Oxide (22.3%)

EWG Skin Deep Rating: 1

Amazon Rating: 4 stars, 42 customer reviews

Best Price We’ve Found: $20.99 for 2.8 oz. on Amazon.com

Positives: This one is on our list to try. Many of the reviews mentioned that this one is really hard to find because it’s such a great product.

In Consumer Reports July 2011 edition, they rated Soleo as #5 for all SPF 30 sunscreens.

Negatives: It is a little pricey.

Also, Consumer Reports 7/2011 edition noted that Soleo fared better than Badger for protecting against UVB rays after use in the water, and that it did stain clothing, but less so than Badger.

 

Coola MineralBaby Moisturizer Suncare, Unscented, SPF 45

Active Ingredient: Titanium Dioxide (10%), Zinc Oxide (7%)

EWG Skin Deep Rating: 1

Amazon Rating: 4 stars, 2 customer reviews

Best Price We’ve Found: $34 for 3 oz. on Amazon.com

Positives: Jasmine says, “Another mineral-based sunscreen with a great list of natural and organic ingredients. It has no scent, and it provides excellent sun protection. My family and I wore it four days straight in the blazing sun of Orlando – we only applied once each morning and stayed burn-free.”

Negatives: Jasmine says, “Expensive! I only purchased this because it met the SPF requirements for FSA reimbursement, and I had dollars to burn. This sunscreen takes some muscle to get out of the tube. It is quite thick, and it goes on quite greasy as well which likely means excellent water resistance. It’d be a good sunscreen for beach and water activities. It’s incredibly difficult to wash off your hands after applying, and the same goes for your clothes so be careful.”

 

TruKid Sunny Days SPORT Water Resistant Sunscreen SPF 30+, Unscented

Active Ingredient: Non-nano zinc oxide (24.8%)

EWG Skin Deep Rating: 1

Amazon Rating: Not Rated

Best Price We’ve Found: $18.99 for a 3.5 oz tube on Amazon.com

Positives: Heather says “This sunscreen has a great list of natural ingredients.”

Negatives: Heather says “I have listed this sunscreen lotion last since the list of ingredients on their website does not match up with the EWG’s list of ingredients. I am assuming that the company’s website and ingredients are the most up-to-date. I have contacted the company to inquire about whether they are in fact using PHENOXYETHANOL in this sunscreen (as stated on the EWG’s site), which can cause organ system toxicity. I will update this post when I hear back from them. But for now, if you do not see PHENOXYETHANOL on the bottle’s list of ingredients, then they have changed the ingredients and are not longer using it. As we have mentioned before with other sunscreen makers, not all of TruKid’s sunscreens have safe ingredients. So if you are interested in buying a TruKid product other than the SPORT sunscreen, please check the EWG’s site for ingredients ratings.

Updated, 7/12/2011 (Email response from TruKid):

“None of our sunscreens use PHENOXYETHANOL. We reformulated this year and replaced it with polyminopropyl biguanide. We found this to be better, safer sunscreen for our products.  As we find better ingredient alternatives that are stable, we reformulate as soon as we are able. Our website should match EWG/our lables, if we have inadvertently not matched them it is generally an oversight that we will correct as we hear of it.” 

Also, they used to make a highly rated SPORTS stick that I was going to recommend. But, I couldn’t find it for sale on their website or Amazon. Frustrating!   They do make a non-SPORT stick that IS readily available on Amazon and their website, and it is rated a “2″ on the EWG website, probably because it contains ALUMINUM STEARATE (rated a ’4′ on the EWG’s list of ingredients).  According to the EWG’s list of ingredients for this product, ALUMINUM STEARATE can cause “Developmental/reproductive toxicity, Neurotoxicity, Multiple, additive exposure sources.” For this reason, we are only recommending their SPORT sunscreen lotion.”

Updated, 7/12/2011 (Email response from TruKid):

This product Sunny Days SPORT SPF35 does not have Aluminum Sterate in it  (non of our sticks have it) (we made a mistake when entering the ingredients and we immediately asked for help in revising from EWG and they have yet to fix it. (months ago) Again EWG is trying hard to create a site that is accurate and informative. Unfortunately their website tools are clunky and are unchangeable unless they change it for you. 

Thank you, TruKid, for getting back to us so promptly! :)

 

Loving Naturals Sunscreen Stick, SPF 30+

Active Ingredient: Non-nano zinc oxide (24.8%)

EWG Skin Deep Rating: 1

Amazon Rating: 4 stars, 14 customer reviews

Best Price We’ve Found: $9.99 for a .84 oz tube on Amazon.com, Lovingnaturals.com

Positives: Jasmine says “Just like the sunscreen lotion, I love the stick’s ingredients listed on the company’s website. This stick has a non-greasy formula that stays put. In fact, it’s one of the least greasy formulas that I’ve come across.”

Negatives: Jasmine says, “It doesn’t rub on as smoothly as I would like, sort of pasty, and it leaves a slight, white residue. The residue is to be expected, though, from a zinc oxide sunscreen, and it can be mostly rubbed in.

 

Loving Naturals has just released the Adorable Baby Sunscreen Stick that claims to go on clear with an improved consistency, using a clear uncoated non-nano zinc oxide. It has achieved the same Skin Deep Rating as its white counterpart, so you can bet we’ll be trying this one out in the near future.”

This research has taken us FOUR weeks to conduct, vet and formulate. We do this for free, in our “spare” (haha) time, while we both have other paying jobs and, of course our precious children to take care of.   Please visit our Facebook page (link in top right corner of this page) and “Like” us.   And please tell your friends about us!

What You Can do to Ensure Safe Drinking Water in Your Home

Published on April 13, 2011 in Educational and Health & Safety. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

While we here at purebebe believe that tap water is safer than bottled water, tap water is not perfect either. Since 2004, water quality testing by water utilities has found more than 300 pollutants/contaminants in the tap water Americans drink according to a review by the Environmental Working Group of state records. More than half of these are not regulated and can be legally allowed at any amount in our water. Of those that are regulated, many have been found at times at levels above the EPA’s guidelines.

And to top it off, the EPA has warned that a significant portion of our water infrastructure network is beginning to reach the end of its useful life. A 2002 analysis by the EPA concluded that systems would need to invest about $100 billion over the next 20-year period to ensure clean and safe drinking water. And given the economic constraints our country is currently facing, this will be no small task.

So what can you do to ensure you have clean and safe drinking water for you and your family? You can start by finding out what is in your water and invest in a good water filtration system for your home.

In order to choose the right water filter, you’ve got to understand where your water comes from and what is in it. To check your water quality, we suggest getting your hands on the most recent water quality report published by your water utility. By law, water systems must publish an annual water quality report often referred to as a Consumer Confidence or Right to Know Report.

These reports are required to be distributed by mail each year by July 1st and, for large water systems (those serving more than 100,000 people), they must be posted online. Check your water utility’s website or give them a call. You might also stop by the Environmental Working Group’s National Drinking Water Database, where they have compiled data they’ve collected from 2004 to 2009 on water quality testing around the nation. Enter your zip code and then select your water utility to see detected contaminants and violations history. Based on this data, EWG has rated 100 big city water utilities. How does your city stack up?

Once you have a copy of your water quality report, take a look at this brochure from The Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water has published. It is chock full of information to help you understand your quality report.

A couple of things you may find in your water quality report that might impact your decision to buy a water filter:

(1) Pay attention to where your water comes from. Surface water systems are directly exposed to the elements and will have more contaminants and require more treatment than a ground water system.

(2) How your water is treated. Most water utilities add disinfectants to your water to kill bacteria and microorganisms. Of those that disinfect, approximately 98% use chlorine or chloramine (a combination of chlorine and ammonia) because not only are they very effective at killing bacteria at the treatment plant, but they are able to remain in the water distribution system to prevent regrowth.

Some things you should know about disinfectants:

  • Disinfectants produce byproducts (trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids) which are potentially carcinogenic with long term exposure at high levels. These byproducts can be ingested through tap water as well as inhaled and absorbed through your skin when bathing or showering.
  • These byproducts are regulated, but the amounts in drinking water can vary day to day, depending on the season, water temperature, amount of chlorine added, the amount of plant material in the water, and other factors. Test results are also based on averages of quarterly samples and averages of locations, so some homes may have higher levels than others, possibly even at amounts exceeding the health standards. Levels rise as for homes further from the plant as the byproducts build up as water travels through the pipes.
  • Surface water sources are likely to have higher levels of byproducts than ground water sources; private well systems are not likely to have any.
  • Chlorine and chloramine byproducts are toxic to fish and other aquatic life in aquariums.

(3) Is your water fluoridated? Fluoride is often added to community water systems as a public health measure to reduce tooth decay; however, the health benefits of fluoridated water are debatable. Some studies have shown no difference in tooth decay between communities with and without fluoridated water. Children who receive too much fluoride can suffer from dental fluorosis – a condition which causes streaking, cracking, or pitting of teeth. According to a 2004 survey by the CDC, 41% of our children have dental fluorosis and that number was on the rise. Consequently, the government has this year recommended a reduction in the level of fluoride in drinking water.

(4) Is there lead in your water system? In some areas of the country, older water systems may still have lead pipes either in the distribution system and the same may be true for older buildings and homes.

Choosing a water filtration system

Now that you know a little about your water,  you’ll need to start by determining what is most important to you as well as what your budget and space constraints may be. Water filters typically fall into two categories: point-of-use or point-of-entry.

Point-of-use filters include pitchers, integrated-refrigerator filters, faucet-mounted or faucet-integrated, counter top, under-sink, and bath/shower filters. Point-of-entry is a whole house filter that will connect to your main water lines. Point-of-use filters are generally less expensive and require less space than a whole house filter, but you will probably find that you will require more than one filter to meet your household needs.

A whole house filter is generally effective at removing chlorine, rust, sediment, and other minerals; however, they won’t be effective at removing other contaminants – at least not without trade offs in water pressure and maintenance. If you’re truly concerned about trace levels of contaminants in your drinking water, a whole house water filter is not going to be your only solution. You’re probably going to find yourself interested in a whole house filter combined with a point-of-entry filter, such as a reverse osmosis filter.

Before you go any further, there are a few concepts that you need to understand:

  • Microns – Water filters are given a micron rating (size) which indicates the pore size, or level of particle that it filters. Research the contaminants of concern to you to determine what micron size is needed. The lower the micron level, the more contaminants caught and filtered.
  • Carbon filtration - Many filters use some form of active carbon filtration method, in block or granular form. You can read more about carbon filtration here. Essentially, carbon block will filter more contaminants because it has a smaller particle size and more uniform pore structure. Granular carbon filters are generally referred to as “taste and odor” filters because they are much less effective at removing trace contaminants. Carbon filtration is often used in conjunction with other technologies such as reverse osmosis.
  • Certifications – When shopping for filters, make sure it has been independently certified to remove the contaminants it claims. Look for certification by third-party organizations like the National Sanitation Foundation International (NSF), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), or a government agency. Some states have water filter certification programs that require filter systems to be certified by a state regulatory body in order to be sold in that state. These states include California, Wisconsin, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Iowa. Be sure that a product actually certified with the agency it claims and is not just certified or tested “in accordance with the standards” of the agency. You may see filters touting the Water Quality Association’s Gold Seal certification – just be aware that this is a trade organization and the seal is based on industry standards.

So how do you choose among the thousands of filters on the market? There is an excellent table over at cyber-nook.com to help you identify the best type of filter to address contaminants of concern. For instance, if you are concerned about removing chlorine from water throughout your house, the table indicates that the best filter option is a whole house filter with a granulated active carbon filter. By the way, there’s a lot of other very helpful information on this site. It’s one of the few independent (i.e. not sponsored) websites out there providing drinking water quality information. NSF International also has a consumer resources area on its website that has some helpful information as well.

Once you decide on the type of filter for you, a great place to start is with NSF International. The website provides a database of NSF certified drinking water treatment units. You can search by manufacturer, product type, or product standard as well as specific product claims by contaminant. NSF has 6 product standards that apply to water filter methods. For example, those certified under NSF 42 are certified for aesthetic effects (i.e. taste, odor, chlorine) and those certified under NSF 53 are certified for health effects (i.e. contaminant removal). The Environmental Working Group also provides an excellent guide for choosing the right water filtration system for you. Those listed in EWG’s database have been certified by the California Department of Public Health.

My personal research seems to indicate that the ideal combination of filters to meet my needs – pure drinking water, and chlorine removal for bath and shower – is a whole house filter with granular activated carbon filtration and a reverse osmosis filter with carbon filtration as well. A reverse osmosis with carbon filtration system is said to create some of the most pure water.

Most reverse osmosis filters have a micron rating of .0001 making it very effective at removing protozoa, bacteria, viruses, and most chemical contaminants, and even most radioactive particles (most are greater than .0002) – consult the filter’s data sheet to confirm the contaminants it is rated to remove and its micron rating. One claim against reverse osmosis filters suggests that they also strip natural minerals such as salt, calcium, magnesium and create a more acidic water which is potentially unhealthy; however, claims on the other side indicate that you find and absorb these minerals more readily in foods and that the slightly more acidic water has no health effect. I don’t have the answers on this yet, but it’s something I intend to research further. There are osmosis filters that do offer options to re-add minerals to your water – not sure if this is pure marketing hype or a necessity, but I’ll let you know what I find.

In the meantime, if you have any questions, please leave them in the comments section! I’ve done far more research than could be included in a single post, so I may just have the answers and/or resources to help.

-Jasmine

Additional Resources:
Cyber-nook.com
Environmental Working Group, Health/Toxics: Our Water
Consumer Reports Water Filter Guide
Water Filter Comparisons.com
CDC Resource on Drinking Water
CDC Guide to Household Water Treatment Technologies

Related Articles:
Bottled Water vs. Tap Water: Making a Healthy, Informed Choice
Erin Brockovich Moment: Is Your Water Safe?

Is Your Sunscreen ‘Safe’? Vitamin A Added to Sunscreens May Do More Harm Than Good

Published on August 17, 2010 in Skincare. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

Courtesy of Boudewijn Berends, Flickr

Have you ever bought or used a vitamin A retinoid night cream that comes with a warning label like “Consumers should avoid exposure to sunlight or artificial ultraviolet sources after applying this product”? Well, I have. And what I’ve learned is that surprisingly, vitamin A, also known as retinyl palmitate (or “retinoids”) is added to 41% of all sunscreens today. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), this includes some of my favorite brands of sunscreen – Aveeno and Neutrogena products!

Why is that important, you ask?

Earlier this Summer, the EWG published an analysis of new data that indicates that vitamin A, when applied to skin exposed to sunlight, “may speed the development of skin tumors and lesions.” And, the “EWG considered this evidence troubling because the sunscreen industry adds vitamin A to 41% of all sunscreens.”

Even more troubling is the fact that skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States, accounting for nearly half of all cancers. According to the National Cancer Institute more than 1 million people in the United States will be diagnosed in 2010 with skin cancer; and 1,000 people will die of skin cancer this year.

And as far as our babies are concerned, did you know that just a few serious sunburns at a young age can increase your child’s risk of skin cancer later in life?

Well, if night creams warn users to avoid sunlight while using their products laden with vitamin A, why are they added to products that are supposed to protect us and our babies from the sun’s rays?

So what can you do, you ask?

The EWG recommends that you “select from among the nearly 60 percent of sunscreens that are free of the compound until more conclusive information is available.” For a list of the EWG’s Best Beach and Sport Sunscreens, click here.

-Heather

Additional References:
EWG Stands By Its Vitamin A Sunscreen Warning
Skin Cancer Facts

Are You What You Eat?

Published on June 2, 2010 in Food, Health & Safety and Organic. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

If the saying “You are what you eat” is true, then I’m toxic. At least, that’s what the Environmental Working Group would deduce from the long list of produce that my family consumes on a daily basis that they dubb “The Dirty Dozen.”

And I’m a big fan of the Environmental Working Group (EWG). I’ve written about the EWG in a prior posting, “Don’t Get Burned by Unsafe Sunscreens.”

The EWG is an impartial non-profit organization unaffiliated with any consumer products company (composed of a team of scientists, engineers, policy experts, lawyers and computer programmers) and conducts research on products to expose threats to consumers and the environment.

Who would have known you could be ingesting 13 pesticides when you consume a stalk of non-organic celery? Or that if you eat five fruits and vegetables a day from the EWG’s Dirty Dozen list below that you consume an average of 10 pesticides per day?

From 2000-2008, the EWG reviewed over 96,000 produce pesticide reports from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine which fruits and vegetables contain the most and least amount of pesticides and found the following (for the full list click here):

“The Dirty Dozen” (High in Pesticides)
Contains 2-13 pesticides per serving!
1. Celery
2. Peaches
3. Strawberries
4. Apples
5. Blueberries
6. Nectarines
7. Bell Peppers
8. Spinach
9. Kale
10. Cherries
11. Potatoes
12. Grapes (Imported)

“The Clean 15” (Low in Pesticides)
1. Onions
2. Avocado
3. Sweet Corn
4. Pineapple
5. Mango
6. Sweet Peas
7. Asparagus
8. Kiwi
9. Cabbage
10. Eggplant
11. Cantaloupe
12. Watermelon
13. Grapefruit
14. Sweet Potato
15. Honeydew Melon

So what’s the big deal with pesticides anyways?

Most doctors and researchers will tell you that even small doses of pesticides can cause long-term damage to humans, especially during pregnancy and early childhood. Studies have found an association between pesticides and cancer, attention-deficit disorder (ADD), nervous system disorders and hormone system effects. The EWG warns “Pesticides are designed to kill living organisms. Because they are toxic by design, many pesticides pose health dangers to people, risks that have been established by independent research scientists and physicians across the world.”

And if you’re thinking that you can simply wash the pesticides away from the skin of the fruit, you’re wrong.

The pesticides get into the water that the fruits ingest, which becomes part of the flesh of the fruit. Also, most of the fruits and vegetables listed in the “Dirty Dozen” have soft skins, and pesticides get absorbed into the flesh of the fruit.

Therefore, to the extent that you can splurge on organic versions of the Dirty Dozen, splurge away. The good news is that several studies have shown that eating an organic diet for two weeks reduces the presence of pesticides in people’s bodies by 90%.

Now if only money grew on trees alongside organic fruit trees, we’d all be set!

Don’t Get Burned by Unsafe Sunscreens

Published on April 23, 2010 in Skincare. 3 Comments Tags: , , , .

As the days get longer and the weather gets warmer, many moms out there are concerned about keeping their babies protected from the harmful rays.   And if you’re anything like me, by the time your child actually makes it to the pool the only square inch of skin left exposed to the sun is her cankle (aka chubby ankles).  In fact, the first time I took my 2 year old to the beach, my husband thought I was playing a practical joke.  After slathering a ton of organic sunscreen on her, I dressed her in her swimsuit, SPF50 swimshirt, swimtrunks, swim shoes and a large brim hat.   Then I placed her in a flotation device with a canopy (images of Ralphie’s bundled brother Randy floundering in the snow from “A Christmas Story” came to mind). 

Although we had a good laugh, what was very real was my concern for protecting her delicate skin from the sun’s harmful rays.    I researched skin care products before my daughter was born and was shocked to learn that baby care products – shampoos, lotions, sunscreens, etc. - are not regulated by the Federal government.  In fact, the more I researched, the more concerned I became about the types of products I could expose my baby to.  Some of the bigger named baby product companies were some of the worst offenders! 

While researching baby products I stumbled upon the ”Skin Deep” website, at http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/.  The site is run by the Environmental Working Group, an impartial charitable organization unaffiliated with any consumer products company (composed of a team of scientists, engineers, policy experts, lawyers and computer programmers) and provides ratings for skin care products.  All you have to do is input the name of your favorite skin care product and the website spits out a result for the product on a green/yellow/red light system.  Green products pose ‘none to low hazard’, yellow ‘moderate hazard’ and red products are deemed ‘hazardous’ to your child’s health.  For instance, I did a quick search for Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Lotion, Cooling Cucumber Melon, and the result was red! 

When shopping for safe skin care products for baby, make sure that the product labels are composed of the following:

1) Short list of ingredients that you can easily pronounce

2) Easily identifiable ingredients

In a nutshell, you should be able to know exactly what the ingredients are, where they came from (i.e. man-made versus a natural ingredient such as aloe), and you should be able to easily pronounce them.

The EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Safer Sunscreens recommend the following “BEST EASY-TO-FIND SUNSCREENS”:

The EWG also says to “AVOID” the following when shopping for a sunscreen:

  • Oxybenzone or benzophenone-3:  skin absorption, allergies, hormone problems
  • Spray and powder sunscreens:  inhaling sunscreens can pose extra risks
  • Fragrance:  allergies, reproductive problems
  • Sunscreen with added bug repellent:  you can get too much of the pesticide in your body

Personally, I have used California Baby (SPF 30+ Sunscreen, no fragrance) on both of my children since they were six months old.  I have tried several other brands, but always come back to California Baby.  It’s the only product that does not induce tears when it gets in their eyes and is very mild on their skin (other brands have caused my two year old to break out with bumps on her skin).  It’s a tough pill to swallow when it comes to price (I recently spent $17.99 on 2.9 oz) but for the same cost as a few cups of coffee, I think it’s worth every penny.

Sharing Buttons by Linksku