Pottery Barn Kafka Media Lift--another update

I received an e-mail this morning from Pottery Barn regarding the Rhys Media Lift. I was very happy to receive it, as it indicated the message I received from "James" was a mistake. My response follows...

Dear Ms. Shelby,



I apologize for the delay in finding out the information regarding the Rhys Media Lift but Ms. Tenen still hasn't heard back from the vendors at this time regarding the glue.

I do apologize for the previous email.

Ms. Tenen assured me that once she receives the information she will either call you or email you with the information.

Regards,


Regina Nunn

Pottery Barn

Customer Service

--- Original Message ---
From: Ashley Shelby
Received: 10/30/07 9:09:34 PM PDT
To: Pottery Barn
Subject: Re: Feedback: Our Products

Hi James,
This is disappointing. I was told by another customer
service agent that my query regarding what kind of
adhesive resin is used in the Rhys Media Lift would be
forwarded to your manufacturing department. I am not
wondering about any "percentage" as you mentioned in
your e-mail; I am wondering about whether or not the
Rhys Media Lift contains formaldehyde adhesive.
Unfortunately, without this information, I can't
purchase the lift. It is surprising to me that Pottery
Barn doesn't know what goes into its products. There
are many people who live with multiple chemical
sensitivities and allergies who need to know if
something as noxious and, unfortunately, as common as
formaldehyde is in the product.

I will be writing a letter to the Pottery Barn/
Williams-Sonoma Executive Offices about this matter.
Thank you.
Ashley

Pottery Barn Update: Back to Square One

I hadn't heard back from Pottery Barn regarding my query as to whether its Rhys Media Lift contains formaldehyde adhesive, so I decided to nudge them. A nice woman had promised to forward my e-mail to the manufacturing department. That was several weeks ago. I wrote again and got this faintly ridiculous reply from "James":

Hi Ashley,
Thank you for contacting Pottery Barn. This is the only response I could find concerning the content of any chemicals in our products. We do not have any more specific information as to what the percentage of a chemical used is.

"Thank you for your recent inquiry. You should know that Pottery Barn requires all of its vendors to comply with all Federal, State and applicable industry standards for product safety, including product materials and finishes.

Specific product information, including the names of our vendors, is proprietary and therefore cannot be released. However, we can assure you that our products have been tested and will perform up to your expectations.

In addition to providing product warnings where appropriate, we specifically identify allergens known to effect a measurable part of the population with a specific condition, such as allergies to natural rubber latex. For example, floor rugs containing natural rubber latex identify its presence on the label to allow our customers to make an informed purchasing decision.

We appreciate your interest in our products and hope that this clarifies your concerns."
If we may be of any further assistance, please contact us via email. Alternately, you may contact our Customer Service Department directly at 1-800-922-9934 from 4:00 am to 9:00 pm (PST), seven days a week.


Kind regards,
James Robinson
Pottery Barn
Customer Service

So Pottery Barn refuses to disclose the chemicals used in its products because it considers its vendor list "proprietory". And I think formaldehyde falls into the category of "allergen" if it falls into the category of "human carcinogen". I have no other alternative left but to write to Williams-Sonoma, or write a piece for publication called "Kafka Has Nothing on Pottery Barn: Trying to Buy a Rhys Media Lift". I just might.

Hennepin County Library

Sorry to get a bit off topic here, but I recently wrote an editorial about the Hennepin County Library's "PenPals" reading series here in the Twin Cities. That editorial ran in last week's Star Tribune. It can be read by clicking on the title of this post. Today the library responded in a letter to the editor, suggesting I "visit the library" and "visit the website." I had to laugh. Not only am I card-carrying member of the Hennepin County Library system under my married name and a frequent visitor (in fact I have a book on reserve waiting to be picked up as we speak) but I excerpted quotes from the library's website in my op/ed. The quotes appearing in that op/ed were taken directly from the Hennepin County Library's website.

I think the HCPL is perhaps the best library system I've ever visited, even including the New York Public Library system. I just think the folks over there went wrong with the PenPals reading series. I understand they have typical expenses, like airfare and lodging for their readers; but perhaps the $25,000 honoraria they offer their readers is making it impossible for them to make this an affordable reading series for the public. Citing all the other things the library does for the public as justification for one event that is too expensive for the average citizen to attend just sounds like an attempt to pacify the poorer people of the community: See, we have stuff that you can attend--just not this one.

Rocket Fuel and Other Goodies: What's in the Water?

We recently had installed in our home a Culligan Drinking Water System. Choosing what we thought was the lesser of two evils, we had been downing bottle after petroleum-based bottle of filtered drinking water, but guilt soon overwhelmed us. After researching the various drinking water systems in our area, and their prices, we settled on Culligan's system. It contains rerverse osmosis filtering, as well as two carbon filters and a fine particle filter. It removes upwards of 90% of the following contaminants:

Arsenic V
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium IV
Copper
Cysts, such as Cryptosporidium, Giardia Lamblia, and Entamoeba Histolytica
Fluoride
Lead
Nitrate
Radium
Selenium
Nitrite

The removal percentages vary for each contaminant, but it is at a level I'm fairly comfortable with. For the first 24 hours, we had to run the faucet for a few seconds to rid the water of the "new filter" taste. But since then, the water has been clear, tasteless, and odor-free. It's also given me some peace of mind. When I mentioned to the pediatrician the other day that our drinking water had had the fluoride filtered out, she suggested fluoride supplements. I believed that my son would get the fluoride he needed from the Earth's Best baby food he eats, which is often packed with water.

However, today the Environmental Working Group released a report on levels of perchlorate (also known as a kind of rocket fuel) in the tap water of 28 states. The EPA had recently bowed to pressure from the defense industry as well as the Bush Administration to slow the development of drinking water standards for this chemical, even though it alters human thyroid hormone levels. The Centers for Disease Control found serious and significant effects in the human body at perchlorate levels five times lower than the current "safe dose" deemed by the EPA. (Links to citations at the end of the post). Perchlorate is naturally-occuring in trace amounts, but the exposure found in the West is due to serious pollution of the Colorado River system by a defense contractor outside Las Vegas. And perchlorate isn't just showing up in tap water; it's in food, too. The EPA itself says "wastes from the manufacture and improper disposal of perchlorate-containing chemicals are increasingly being discovered in soil and water." I give them credit for this. It's no wonder the government has been dragging its feet on this issue; the entity responsible for the contamination of drinking water with this noxious toxin is the government itself. From EWG:

Sworn depositions and other courtroom documents show that the giant aerospace and defense contractor Lockheed Martin­ a major user of perchlorate­ knew as early as 1997 that vegetables stored high concentrations of the chemical, but said nothing to the EPA or state health officials. Since most perchlorate-related work by defense contractors is done for the U.S. military, the Department of Defense may also have known, but said nothing to warn other agencies, consumers­or farmers whose crops, through no fault of their own, may be tainted by contaminated irrigation water.

A Wall Street Journal article on this issue back in 2003 reported that the Bush Administration issued a gag order keeping the EPA from publicly discussing percholorate. In the meantime, the Administration proposed a bill in Congress, using military needs as an excuse, that would not require the defense industry from perchlorate contamination clean-up.

What I worry about on a pragmatic level, and what is most alarming to me, is that the toxin affects toddlers and infants the most.

In food alone, one of every sixteen one-year-olds are exposed to perchlorate at levels exceeding the EPA safe dose. The danger is in the disruption of thyroid function, which is vitally important to brain and organ development. Neurological deficits can occur even from short-term thyroid hormone deficiencies, the EWG report said.

According to the FDA, which is also studying this, perchlorate was found in only two bottled waters it tested, both of which were spring water. It was found in high levels in milk and produce. The latter included most notably: lettuce, tomatoes, carrots, spinach, and cantaloupe. The FDA found the toxin in oatmeal and whole wheat flour. From the FDA's website:

Among the 27 foods and beverages, milk contributed the highest perchlorate exposure at 0.025 µg/kg bw/day or 47 percent of the estimated total exposure (0.053 µg/kg bw/day). Tomatoes contributed the next highest perchlorate exposure at 0.005 µg/kg bw/day or 9 percent of the estimated total exposure. Fruit juices and spinach each contributed 0.004 µg/kg bw/day, or 8 percent of the estimated total perchlorate exposure, while the rest of the foods contributed progressively less to the total mean exposure.

Worse, in my opinion, is the research that has shown perchlorate in breast milk, at higher levels than found in dairy milk. See this report: Perchlorate in Breastmilk

So what do we do? I've been extremely frustrated by the lack of pragmatic advice. The FDA, of course, advises not to alter your diet, or your child's, because they haven't quite figured out what kind of adverse effects the chemical will have at the levels it is found in tap water and food products. Those who abide by the Precautionary Principle, however, or those who might simply want to avoid the chemical, may not feel comfortable taking that advice. But don't just tell me something is dangerous and then walk out of the room. Let's talk about some practical steps.

1.) Purchase produce from perc-free regions. For Minnesotans, that means Minnesota and Wisconsin. The Kickapoo River in Wisconsin is free from this contaminant, and thus so is the produce farmed and harvested in the area. California, right now, is not the best place to buy produce, even though the state itself has rigorous toxin laws. It just has the misfortune of having had defense contractors dump their noxious shit on their land.
2.) Consider making your own baby food, using filtered water and "safe" produce. My first inclination, at this point, is to do what I intended to do from the start, which is make my own baby food. I had lapsed once I found Earth's Best organic baby food. It was so easy. But I might have to delve into those cookbooks I wrangled from my friend at Penguin and get cooking. (However, I am in contact with Oregon Tilth, which certifies Earth's Best Organic baby food and Gerber's organic line, and will see if they are testing for perc.)

I hope to have more information for you soon.

Links:
FDA on Perchlorate
Environmental Working Group's Report on Perchlorate and Toddlers
Zoeller on Thyroid Hormone and Brain Development
Blount and CDC on Perchlorate

Oh, and this one is good for a laugh. For an example of bought science, check out Dennis Avery's take on this issue. Avery is an opponent of organic farming and food, disputes global warming, and is a member of the industry-funded American Council on Science and Health, the same organization that recently pooh-poohed the presence of PBDE in infants. He is also the guy who famously proclaimed that organic produce was more dangerous than produce sprayed with pesticides: Dennis Avery on the "Scaremongering" of Perchlorate

Exxon/Alaskan Fishermen Case to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today finally agreed to decide whether ExxonMobil should pay punitive damages for the 1989 Prince William Oil Spill in which the Exxon Valdez, captained by a drunk Joseph Hazelwood, crashed on Bligh Reef and spilled eleven million gallons of North Slope crude.

This has been a nearly twenty year odyssey. For the backstory to this legal battle, check out my 2004 article in The Nation, Whatever It Takes

You Go Your Way, I'll Go Mine...

I had a conversation with my father this morning about the efficacy of fear vs. the efficacy of economic incentive/economic possiblity in regards to issues like global warming (his issue of choice) or eliminating industrical chemicals and toxins from everyday consumer goods (my issue of choice.) As a prominent local journalist, he receives incredible numbers of e-mails and phone calls regarding his editorials and his reporting on global warming. Not a small number of those e-mails and phone calls are negative, angry, dismissive, and disdainful. Often, he told me, folks will write and contradict the science he's reported in his pieces on global warming, using words like "hysteria", "scam", "junk science", and "campaign of fear." (keywords, incidentally, of those who attacked Rachel Carson and who try to silence scientists working in other realms--see my earlier posts on attacks on independent scientists by corporations and industry groups.)

"At the beginning of my career," he told me, "I always responded respectfully. 'I understand your point, sir, and I thank you for taking the time to contact me. Here is how I see it all laying out...' Now, this late in my career, I can be more straightforward. 'Bullshit.'" He laughed. "What I say now, is that I hope--I fervently hope--you're right, that global warming is a myth. If it turns out to be so, then I can only say that I based my reporting on the science available at the time. But if it turns out that global warming is a real thing, then your children and my children will be dealing with its devastating effects for their entire lives, and countless lives will be lost. So you go your way and I'll go mine, and we'll meet up when its over and see who was right."

But it's important to frame these issues in a way that won't force people into a corner. Overloading them with doomsday scenarios, scolding, offering no hope--that won't change anything. Appealing to an individual's sense of fear will not effect change. What really works, my father said, is pointing to an alternative path that not only provides healthier alternatives, but which offers economic possibility. Take crib mattresses, for example. More and more we are learning that the chemicals used to make them, including PBDEs (fire retardants) are toxic to the infants who spend a great deal of their young lives on them. But what are we to do? What are our alternatives? And what companies have sprung up to fill that niche? In this case, there are a couple companies that offer nontoxic crib mattresses--No Compromise comes to mind immediately. However, because the niche is so small, the mattresses are extremely expensive (roughly $230 a pop). But--to make the obvious point--the more people who buy them, the lower the price point will be. Key, though, is creating economic niches for people to fill, niches that will yield money. The hybrid car industry is an obvious example. The burgeoning wind energy industry is another. Companies that makes "green" building supplies. Earth's Best sells organic baby food--and now Gerber does, too. It works. And it's market-friendly.

I'm always made a little sad when I get e-mails from people who read my blog that are, like the e-mails my father often receives from viewers, disdainful. How did humans ever survive? It's a miracle I made it to 35! My response, of course, is a familiar one: for the time that our species has been on this earth, our close contact with manmade industrial chemicals has been brief. Phthalates, formaldehyde, PBDE, PVCs, and organics like lead and arsenic, which have been conscripted into use in items as varied as paint and ceramics to toys and lipstick, have not been part of our daily lives except for the last fifty to 100 years. And in those last fifty to 100 years, the rates of cancers, autism, respiratory disorders, like asthma, infertility, and other diseases and disorders has skyrocketed. As of right now, science has not been able to definitively link the rise of industrial chemical use to these diseases, except in a few cases. As a result, many people choose to abide by the Precautionary Principle, a much-assailed theory that choosing to avoid products that pose a risk but do not definitively, as of yet, cause illness, makes one safer in the long-run. I am always at a loss when individual citizens attack fellow citizens who make this choice. It's easy to see why corporations and industry don't like the principle--they lose business. But we, as individuals, are free to use whatever products we want, and those who choose to filter their water, buy organic baby food, eliminate as many phthalates in their home as possible, etc., should be able to do that without being labeled "hysterical" or accused of creating a scare. But sometimes this is the only tool available to someone who doesn't want to believe that our government agencies and leaders would allow products like this on the market (my mom was one of these people.)

That said, I intend to focus as much as possible on alternative product choices available to consumers. I will rely on the science behind these products and their industrial counterparts. But I will also relay my personal experiences as a consumer and a mom with these products. Because the truth is, not all nontoxic products do the job. Most problematic for practical purposes are: deoderants, disposable diapers, and cleaning supplies.

Watch this space. In the meantime, check out this op/ed from the San Francisco Chronicle by Dr. Shanna Swan, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and formerly the Chief of Reproductive Epidemiology Section of the California Department of Health Services:Parents Needn't Wait for Legislation to Shield Kids from Toxins in Products

Industrial Chemicals and Lazy Reporting

CNN's most-viewed story on its website today is a long overdue report on industrial chemicals present in the human body. I was thrilled to see mainstream treatment of this issue, and even more excited that they quoted an expert as suggesting that the rising rates of asthma, cancers, and other diseases have no genomic cause and that we need to turn our collective attention to the massive use of chemicals in our society. The story turns on a little boy whose parents agreed to partake in a study that measured the amounts of industrial chemicals in the bloodstream of children, called Body Burden testing. The boy was eighteen months old. He had seven times the amount of industrial chemicals in his body than a typical adult. One of the most pervasive has proven to be fire retardant, or PBDE, which can be found in huge numbers of children's clothes, crib mattresses, crib sheets, etc. Phthalates were another chemical found in large quantities in the typical American's body.

However, CNN, in order to provide "balance", quotes Elizabeth Whelan, head of the American Council on Science and Health, as suggesting that "trace" amounts of the chemicals found in children and adults don't pose a health risk. Her organization is described by the CNN reporter as a "public interest group". That's patently false. Not only is Whelan herself an avowed and open conservative, she accepts funding from industry groups, who have a distinct interest in keeping many of their dangerous products on the market. In what sounds very much like the complaint and logic of a pouting child, she said that everyone thought she was in bed with industry anyway, so why not take their money? (source: Sourcewatch--link below)

CNN did a disservice to its readers who might take Whelan's words to heart, believing she's really running a public interest group, like USPIRG.

I will write more on this later. I'm so happy that the mainstream media has taken hold of this story. I hope it stays in the news. We are just beginning to understand the implications of using and being surrounded by the chemicals that have become a part of daily life. In the meantime, check out the CNN story and Sourcewatch's report on the American Council on Science and Health:

CNN: Tests Reveal High Chemical Levels in Kids' Bodies
Sourcewatch: American Council on Science and Health

Quick note on Johnson and Johnson's Soothing Naturals baby lotion

After placing an order with BabyCenter, I received my package along with some free samples. One sample was a little bottle of Johnson and Johnson's Soothing Naturals baby lotions. It deems itself "natural" for reasons that are unclear to me, knowing that the product contains three separate parabens: Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, and Methylparaben. It might be a good idea to think twice about applying this product, or any other Johnson's baby lotion, to your baby's skin (or yours, for that matter.) Babies don't need moisturizing lotion, and these products are most often used to give baby that admittedly awesome "baby smell." If you want to use one, I highly recommend Burt's Bee's Apricot Baby Oil. Paraben-free and very effective! Burt's Bees products are carried by numerous retailers, including Target. I also use the Burt's Bee's baby wash and shampoo, which contains 99% nontoxic ingredients.

There's really no excuse these days for companies to be using parabens in health and beauty products, most especially baby products. Consumers can rid the retail world of these products by spending money on alternative products that don't use toxins in their products and which are just as effective, if not more so.

Check out DermStore's paraben-free section: this is the most extensive list of paraben-free skin and bodycare products I've seen. And they offer free shipping!
DermStore's Paraben-Free Product List

http://www.dermstore.com/list_Paraben+Free_500216.htm

Lipstick 'N Lead

Women's beauty products are among the worst offenders when it comes to toxic ingredients. Body lotion and face lotion are packed with phthalates, and lipsticks are composed with formaldehyde in many instances--and lead.

The increased scrutiny of various everyday products since lead has been found in numerous children's products has revealed the toxin in surprising--to those not engaged in manufacturing--places. The most recent product under the microscope is L'oreal's lipsticks. Independent labs tested 33 lipstick samples. A whopping 61% contained detectable levels of lead (20 lipsticks). 6 of the 11 lipsticks with the highest lead detected were L'Oreal brands.

The FDA doesn't regulate lead in lipsticks, unfortunately, so L'Oreal has made no move to reformulate its lipstick, something environmental groups have been asking it to do. In fact, the company responded by saying that it remains proud of its products and will take no steps to remove lead from the lipsticks. What's more, they used that all-purpose excuse that is fooling fewer and fewer consumers these days: that their products are in "full compliance with FDA regulations." For anyone in the know, this means absolutely nothing in regards to lead content.

The FDA limits lead in candy, of course, because children consume it. The levels in the L'Oreal lipsticks were six times higher than the allowable limit of lead in candy. What's concerning is that the consumers who use lipstick are so wide-ranging. I am particularly concerned about pregnant women. God knows I used lipstick when I was pregnant. And anyone who has ever used lipstick knows it flakes off in your mouth, that you lick your lips unconsciously, that that lipstick gets into your system in various ways.

I'm not sure why lead is seen as a necessary ingredient in L'Oreal's lipstick, though I'll be working hard to find out. In the meantime, read the full report, unfortunately titled "The Poison Kiss", on this issue at the Safe Cosmetic's website.
The Poison Kiss: The Problem of Lead in Lipstick

For now, steer clear of L'Oreal's eponymous line of lipsticks, as well as Maybelline's line.

What's that Iphone Whispering in Your Ear?

Taking a brief break from the Pottery Barn odyssey, I thought I would mention some developments regarding another popular household name brand: Apple. My husband recently bought the iPhone. It is, perhaps, one of the coolest pieces of technology I have ever laid eyes on. After glancing back at my basic Nokia phone, I promptly became feverishly jealous.

What I didn't know is that Apple's iPhone contains dangerously high levels of phthalates, chemicals used to soften plastic and used most notoriously in PVCs but present in unbelievable quantities of everyday products (including body lotions, lipsticks, nail polish, sex toys, etc.) It is considered an endocrine-disrupter and possible culprit in genital birth defects. Several variants of the chemical have been banned in the EU. California just days ago completely banned phthalates in baby toys. (I've written about phthalates previously--click the phthalate tag below.) Apple is currently in violation of California's Prop 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.

On October 15th, the Center for Environmental Health began legal proceedings against Apple in order to get them to rid the iPhone of phthalates. One of the major elements of the suit has to do with an element of the act that deems it illegal to expose consumers to toxins without first warning them about the presence of the toxin and the exposure level.

Apple has 60 days to address this. The Center for Environmental Health wants a recall on phones already on the market and then clear and easy to read warnings for future iPhones.

It's my wet dream to get a Prop 65-like law on the books here in Minnesota. Because California already took the reigns, many companies have complied because they want to sell their products in California!

Pottery Barn and Formaldehyde...Continued

I received a response from Dr. Brent Takemoto today to my query regarding California's laws regarding engineered wood (medium density fiberboard, plywood, particleboard, etc). I had asked Pottery Barn customer service if the company's Rhys Media Lift, which contains MDF, was manufactured using formaldehyde, typically a major ingredient in MDF. They had been unable to provide me anything but a comment about adhering to California state law. Below is the response I received from Dr. Takemoto of the State of California's Air Resources Board:

Ashley: Presently in California, there are no state regulations governing allowable formaldehyde emissions from MDF. For the most part, domestic manufacturers have voluntarily chosen to produce MDF that complies with the federal standard for particleboard used in manufactured homes, which is 0.3 ppm using the U.S. chamber test (ASTM E 1333-96). Based on our survey of MDF manufactured in 2002, the average emission level of domestic MDF is 0.25 ppm as measured by the U.S. chamber test, where emissions ranged from near-zero for MDF made with a methylene diisocyanate resin to levels greater than 0.3 ppm for products made with urea-formaldehyde resins. Strictly speaking, as there are no state or federal standards governing formaldehyde emissions from MDF, the product is currently legal for sale in terms of formaldehyde emissions.

In April of this year, our Board adopted new regulations which would require MDF to meet emission standards lower than the voluntary levels that most domestic manufacturers presently meet. In January 2009, the new Phase 1 formaldehyde emission limit for MDF will be 0.21 ppm, and in January 2011, the Phase 2 limit will be 0.11 ppm. For MDF that is 8 mm thick or less, the Phase 2 limit of 0.13 ppm takes effect in January 2012. While these standards will likely be the most stringent in the country in the 2009-2012 time frame, the law does require that manufacturers cease using formaldehyde in their products.

The ARB and State of California are both doing exceptionally important work that should be taken up by every other state in this country. Market forces will respond to things like this. Companies will not voluntarily switch to another, less toxic product just for fun--because it's very expensive. I was deeply intrigued by Dr. Takemoto's mention of MDF made of methylene disphenyl isocyanate, which had, he said, an emission (or off-gassing) level of basically zero. California has deemed formaldehyde a known carcinogen with no acceptable level of exposure, so it seems that companies that want to do business in California in the future will have to address this formaldehyde emission issue. If you're interested in knowing more about why formaldehyde is bad for you, click on the formaldehyde tag below and it should bring you to my earlier posts about the toxin.

In regards to my dilemma, despite the helpful information Dr. Takemoto provided me, I am still in the dark regarding Pottery Barn's Rhys Media Lift. I will continue to pursue this.

In the meantime, GreenSeal has identified two particleboard and MDF manufacturers that produce formaldehyde-free products that are also made from renewable resources:

Homasote Fiberboard: made from 100% post-consumer recycled newsprint and formaldehyde-free.

Sierra Pine: also made from renewable resources and also formaldehyde free

MDF, Pottery Barn, and Formaldehyde--A Holmesian Case

We are looking for a plasma lift console for our living room but would like to purchase something made without formaldehyde. A daunting task, indeed. However, after thumbing through Pottery Barn's latest catalog, I saw a sturdy-looking console that boasted of a "kiln-dried hardwood frame" made of mahogany. I looked the piece up on the Pottery Barn website to get product details, and found that a large chunk of the console is made from MDF, or medium-density fiberboard. MDF is typically made with formaldehyde, but at times it can be made of other resins. I e-mailed the company to ask if the piece contained formaldehyde. This is the response I received:

Hi, Ashley

Thank you for contacting Pottery Barn. We are in compliance with the rules and regulations for the State of California as they have the most stringent requirements. We cannot, however, rule out the possibility of a trace of formaldehyde in the MDF. If we may be of any further assistance, please contact us via email. Alternately, you may contact our Customer Service Department directly at 1-800-922-9934 from 4:00 am to 9:00 pm (PST), seven days a week.


Kind regards,

Lynda Joel

Pottery Barn

Customer Service

This answer did not, of course, provide any clear answers to whether or not the MDF in the Rhys Media Lift Console contained formaldehyde. There exists a MDF that does not contain the toxin, but the rep didn't specify. I doubt a follow-up will provide more information on this, but I plan on asking anyway. Additionally, what does the word "trace" mean in her answer? Either the MDF is made with formaldehyde or it isn't--and if it is, it is a majority ingredient. So I looked up information on the State of California's regulations on formaldehyde and found some interesting information.

First, the State of California has classified formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen. This takes things a step further than other classifications by other state governments and our federal government, which classifies it as a "possible" human carcinogen. Secondly, California's Air Resources Board is currently trying to rid the state of formaldehyde in the shape of particleboard, MDF, and other widely-used engineered-wood products. From its website:

On April 26, 2007, the Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with composite wood products. The Air Resources Board approved staff's recommended regulation with modifications. The originally proposed regulation text is located to the right at the link , "Composite Wood Product ATCM Notice & ISOR." The version of the ATCM adopted by the Board is listed as Staff's Suggested ATCM Modifications at right. Staff will work with the regulated community before a 15-day public comment period on proposed modifications.

The ARB staff has been working with the composite wood products manufacturers, related other industry stakeholders, government agencies, and researchers for the past several years conducting a number of meetings and discussions.

Formaldehyde is produced on a large scale worldwide. One major use includes the production of wood binding adhesives and resins. The ARB evaluated formaldehyde exposure in California and found that one of the major sources of exposure is from inhalation of formaldehyde emitted from composite wood products containing formaldehyde resins. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassified formaldehyde from "probably carcinogenic to humans" to "carcinogenic to humans" in 2004, based on the increased risk of nasopharyngeal cancer. Formaldehyde was also designated as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) in California in 1992 with no safe level of exposure. State law requires ARB to take action to reduce human exposure to all TACs.

I sent an e-mail to a man named Brent Takemoto, Ph.D., an air pollution research specialist for the State of California, copying the Pottery Barn e-mail to him and asking what these so-called "stringent rules" regarding manufacturing were. I'll post his response when it arrives. In the meantime, here is a link to the California ARB's site on composite wood products:

California Air Resource Board "Composite Wood Products" page

Pregnant women should eat more fish? Message brought to you by $74,000 worth of seafood industry money

I knew it smelled fishy--no pun intended. Last week, a nonprofit group widely described in the media as a collection of pediatricians, charitable organizations focused on preventing birth defects, and other angelic groups of concerned medical practitioners and philanthropists, announced that pregnant women and nursing moms were not eating enough fish and urged them to eat more. Their unborn babies and nursing babies, they implied, were at risk of not developing well if they were deprived of DHA and Omega-3 fatty acids. It struck me as a very odd turn of events indeed because this advice flew in the face of the conservative EPA and FDA, which both have had in place a longstanding recommendation against eating too much seafood during these vulnerable times in a woman's life. That's because the levels of mercury in fish and other seafood nowadays is unacceptably high and the risk to an unborn fetus or a growing, breastfed baby is not worth the potential benefits of DHA (which can be integrated into the diet via a variety of other sources: see my last post and the subsequent comments.)

Well, Bloomberg News is now reporting that that "nonprofit group"--Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition--was backed by the seafood industry and that the report itself was funded by $74,000 from a front group called the National Fisheries Institute. One of our wiliest front groups, the Center for Consumer Freedom (authors of fishscam.com) then scolded the EPA, FDA and other concerned organizations that have called for reduced consumption of fish due to mercury concerns for creating a "panic." The front group actually demanded that environmental groups "apologize" for creating this so-called panic.

Following the release of the report, the U.S. Department of Health and the American Academy of Pediatrics reiterated its advice to reduce fish consumption during pregnancy and times of nursing.

Check out this great article from The Huffington Post that summarizes the snow job front groups pulled on the media regarding this story: Bamboozled by Fish

As promised: name of fish-oil free prenatal vitamin with DHA

I rummaged through my medicine cabinet and found the prenatal vitamin I mentioned in my last post. It's prescription-only Citracal Prenatal with DHA. It's actually two pills: the prenatal vitamin and then an oil-filled capsule that contains the DHA. It is derived from plant sources rather than fish. I had Blue Cross Blue Shield at the time I was taking this prenatal and it was not covered. It cost me abot $50 a pop but there were 60 pills in each pack.

"Fish Scam"

The levels of mercury in commerically-harvested fish are, as most people know by now, alarmingly high. My husband, once a die-hard sushi fan, has sadly resigned himself to the fact that his raw tuna days are over. Today's report from a coalition encompassing March of Dimes, the CDC, American Pediatric Assocation, etc that pregnant women are actually not eating enough fish (thanks to EPA and FDA warnings in 2001 and 2004 urging these women not to eat more than 12 ounces of fish a week due to the high mercury levels in fish) spurred me to revisit the issue. It's interesting to note that this advisory is in direct contradiction to the notoriously conservative FDA and EPA's stance on pregnant women and fish consumption. The thinking is that the benefits of Omega-3 fatty acids outweigh any potential risk the mercury in these fish pose to the fetus. When I was pregnant, I was prescribed a prenatal vitamin that contained a non-fish Omega-3 supplement. Unfortunately, I only took a few because they made me ill; and my insurance wouldn't cover it, so it was quite expensive. But there certainly are alternatives out there. When I get home, I will find the vitamin, which I still have, and post its name here for anyone who is interested in asking her doctor about it.

In my travels I came across a rather amusing website called "Fish Scam"--www.fishscam.com, which lambasts research by scientists into this mercury problem. The website is maintained by a very objective sounding organization called the Center for Consumer Freedom. Smelled like a front group to me. And it is, of course. From the Center for Media and Democracy's Source Watch:

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network") is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture -- the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.' "

Over 40 of the group's 2005 expenditure was paid to Rick Berman's PR company, Berman & Co. for "management services. [1] As part of its operations CCF runs a series of attack websites, including "consumerfreedom.com, activistcash.com, cspiscam.com, animal-scam.com, fishscam.com, obesitymyths.com, physiciansscam.com [and] petalkillsanimals.com".[2]

If you're interested in how corporations and industry try to assail objective research and scientists, visit FishScam.com
If you're interested in knowing what fish are (relatively) safe to consume, what fish you should consume only in moderation, which fish to avoid while pregnant, and which fish to avoid totally, a good site to visit is Environmental Working Group's Safe Fish List