Suki vs. Environmental Working Group

My friend Beth tipped me off to this interesting story of a battle royale between two entities that should be working together. Environmental Working Group and Suki Cosmetics are at odds regarding EWG's safe cosmetics database, Skin Deep. Suki Kramer started her own skin care and personal care product line after becoming frustrated by the voluminous amounts of chemicals found in typical personal care products, even those marketed as "natural" or for "sensitive skin". In her work, according to her and to articles written about her, she has been vigilant in the composition of her products to make sure all ingredients are nontoxic and save. That means no parabens, no phthalates, etc. So when EWG began its Skin Deep database, she sent her products in for evaluation. She was shocked when she discovered her products had garnered an "8" rating from EWG (on a scale from 1-10, 1 being least toxic, 10 being most toxic.) Not only had Suki made it her life's work to produce toxin-free skin care products, based on her own experience with her sensitive skin and her inability to find a product that didn't irritate it, she also has worked with EWG in the past.

She is clearly upset about this turn of events. On her website, she's posted an emotional open letter to her customers, excerpted in part below:

when the new [EWG]database designed to "inform" consumers about toxic ingredients in personal care hit the web, of course i was excited. i even worked with this group when it started - attending conference calls and meetings. little did i know that soon my own company would be unfairly and unjustly slandered and suffer in the hands of yet another horrendously slanted system that gives consumers only a tiny, limited, inaccurate part of the toxic picture...

when you open the page for suki for instance, the first thing you will read about us is "uses ingredients that cause cancer"...we have incredibly high standards for excellence in formulating, sourcing, packaging (we never use plastic or try to make plastics sound environmentally safe when actually none of them are)and we have always done these things and more simply because we believe in what we do.

the EWG / skindeep's rating system does not differentiate between a botanical extract that is clean (meaning does not contain parabens, propylene glycol, or is extracted with the highly toxic hexane or any other means-in fact people doing the rating didn't even know when i spoke with them that ingredients can be hidden in extracts), or between regular lecithin and the lecithin we use (non-gmo, organic, food grade). there is no way to enter such a differentiation when you as a manufacturer go to enter your ingredients in the database. they do not make a distinction between organics, naturals in many cases, and/or regular, synthetic ingredients, not to mention cosmetic-grade and food-grade, nor do they care whether you use an ingredient at 100%, at 1%, or at .01% within your formulas. you get the same rating no matter how much of an ingredient you use. they do not make a distinction in the formulas submitted between micronized and non-micronized ingredients...

i, and many others even some more mainstream manufacturers, have tried repeatedly to get the EWG to respond and update the rating system so it is truly informative and helpful instead of punishing those of us who are constantly trying to do the right thing but they only respond with story after story. at first they did not respond to us at all. then they told us that they were short staffed. then they told us that they would try to fix it. then they said only after being pressed by reporters a whole new story, that if we could prove our ingredients were free from contamination (whatever that means??) they would take it under consideration and that we had been advised of this already on many occassions. it's oddly familiar and perhaps it is because the EWG has made themselves the "go-to" source for information and they do not want to lose funding? perhaps they simply do not want to admit that their system is faulty. but it makes sense to me to simply admit, "hey, it's a highly complicated job, an overwhelmingly complicated task to do this and we didn't know what we were getting into. we are working on it and it's not there yet-we're not the trusted source we will be yet." instead of grasping at research sources like the one i found recently on their site for lecithin as a respiratory toxin: they sited as their proof a german study that focused on cigarette smoking and arteriosclerosis! this was their proof that lecithin in cosmetic products caused respiratory issues? shame on them. perhaps this system is helpful in showing people the ingredients in some of the harshest products, but not when i see the harsher products getting lower ratings then products i would put on my newborn neice without hesitation. if you aren't going to truly teach the whole story about toxic ingredients or rate products based on all the parameters,you are doing nothing but continuing to confuse consumers which really upsets me the most. and, certainly it upsets me that all my hard work and the hard work of my staff is in jeopardy at the hands of a misinformed staff at EWG.

Suki Kramer goes on to say she is retaining legal counsel on this matter. Kramer is obviously upset and hurt by EWG's rating of her products, and this is understandable. I find EWG's database to be mostly helpful, but I agree that its system is imperfect. I abhor the term "scaremongering", but there are some elements of the EWG system that could be fairly labeled that way, I'm afraid. What's useful about the site is its identification of products that contain known toxins (that industry and government won't take off the shelves) such as the two big "P"'s: parabens and phthalates. But some of the other so-called toxins, which are listed as "probable" or "possible" links to cancer, cannot be indicted quite yet, and becoming overly fearful of them doesn't make sense even for those who follow the precautionary principle. What ends up happening is that companies like Suki get caught in the cross-hairs. I can't pretend to be a toxicologist or scientist, so I can't look at Suki's products and disagree with EWG's findings. But neither can EWG explain its methodology for deeming certain ingredients "toxins" or causes of cancer.

Pottery Barn: The Answer and the Resolution

I received an answer to my burning question, initially asked in October 2007: does the Rhys Media Lift contain formaldehyde in any concentration. Today, a very helpful woman in corporate customer service researched this question and got back to me with a detailed response that answered all my questions.From her e-mail:

All current WSI products using MDF materials comply to all state and federal government guidelines pertaining to formaldehyde emissions. It does contain formaldehyde, but within legal requirements.

Although I am disappointed that the Rhys contains any formaldehyde, I am thrilled to have an answer. And the professionalism and speed with which she answered my query made me happy. I remain deeply disappointed by the lack of information and, ultimately, response from Pottery Barn's customer service. And I'm still put out that I had to take the time to write a letter to Williams-Sonoma's corporate board before I could get an answer. But I am happy with Williams-Sonoma Corporate's response. Although I won't buy any furniture made with MDF, I will continue to patronize their stores because I finally got an answer. It's too bad Pottery Barn's lower-level customer service does not have access to this information.

To translate her response to any who are interested in the Rhys, the MDF piece in the Rhys Media Lift--and in any PB product containing any MDF/particleboard--does contain formaldehyde, but in amounts at or below the levels set up federal and state governments. For those who are particularly sensitive to formaldehyde, the Rhys might not be for you. However, you may consider using SafeSeal on the particleboard backing to seal in the VOCs. You may also consider letting the piece air out in a garage.

Pottery Barn Update: A response

Today I received a phone call from a very nice woman in corporate customer service at Williams-Sonoma. She had received the letter I'd sent and promised to look into the matter at once. She anticipates getting an answer back in short order. I sent my letter a week ago. I think this is a great turnaround time and am impressed with the speedy and polite response.

The way a company responds to consumer concerns means so much. I received numerous comments and e-mails from readers of this blog who are very interested to see how Pottery Barn/Williams-Sonoma responds to my letter. Some of them are die-hard PB fans; others are people who are considering buying a piece of PB furniture, even the Rhys, as I am. But some are holding off on their purchases until they see how my situation is resolved. The issue is, of course, formaldehyde resin in wood products. But if I find out that the Rhys contains the resin, I won't stop shopping at Pottery Barn; I'll just choose a different piece of furniture. It was the obfuscation that was so upsetting. And, ultimately, if I hadn't received a response, I wouldn't have continued shopping there. It is deeply satisfying to get a response. Score one for Williams-Sonoma.

Goodbye to All That: Tuna Sushi Full of Mercury

For the past year or so, my husband and I have cut back on our seafood consumption drastically. We did this with hanging head, dragging our feet. It wasn't as much of a sacrifice for me, however, as it was for my husband, who spent much of his bachelor days in New York eating as much sushi as he could get his hands on. But as reports trickled in about the elevated levels of mercury in tuna, I stopped eating sushi. He soon followed, but with heavy heart. Of course, over the years, the seafood industry has done everything in its power to refute these studies, quiet as they were, even, last year, creating an unconscionable hoax in which it made it seem as if reputable organizations were warning pregnant women that they weren't eating enough fish. (The FDA has had a relatively long-standing advisory for pregnant women, breastfeeding moms, and children against the consumption of tuna and other seafood likely to have elevated mercury levels in its flesh.) The FDA disavowed the hoax study, which was later revealed to be the work of the seafood industry.

That all being said, the New York Times has finally "broken" the news that no New Yorkers wanted to hear, and which, even to me, was rather shocking: sushi tuna is loaded with mercury at such high levels, in several instances,that the FDA could yank it. Sadly, although the FDA recommends that pregnant women, et.al, not eat canned tuna, there has never been an advisory against fresh tuna. But, in fact, the Times reporters found that the fresh tuna they tested had levels much higher than that of canned tuna. The reason for this is because more expensive fresh tuna comes from larger fish, which eat lots of little fish--and the mercury builds up.

Most problematic--or, perhaps, a better word is dangerous--is bluefin tuna. It is next to impossible to tell just from the filet whether a tuna cut is bluefin or yellowfin. But environmental groups are now warning consumers to stay away from bluefin completely.

The Times report is titled High Mercury Levels Are Found in Tuna Sushi. There are accompanying articles as well, which outline the health concerns associated with mercury consumption. The mercury is from industrial pollution and is, unfortunately, pervasive. I have long been an advocate for wild salmon over farmed salmon--for a multitude of reasons. But when it comes to other kinds of fish, farmed is often better. A very safe fish is farmed catfish, which is absolutely delicious. Tilapia is another relatively safe fish to eat, though rather bland. The best, however, is wild Alaskan salmon. My favorite is Copper River salmon. I suggest Copper River Seafood, a cannery I visited during my trip to Cordova, Alaska when reporting on the Exxon litigation up there. The cannery is right on Prince William Sound and you can be sure the fish is fresh, delicious, and harvested sustainably. Because they ship their fish fresh and only harvest during fishery seasons, their salmon, halibut, herring, etc., will only be available during their respective seasons.

gDiapers--flushable, truly biodegradable

I just ordered a "starter kit" of gDiapers, a new diaper hybrid made up of a cotton, washable outer diaper and a plastic-free, chlorine-free flushable insert that looks a lot like a thick maxi pad. The insert is biodegradable--gDiapers has a video in its site showing a chlorine-free disposable, a regular disposable, and one of its flushable inserts biodegrading over the course of a year. Within a few weeks, the insert has broken down almost completely; a year later, the diapers are still fully-intact. Then we are told that disposables--of which we put 20 billion into landfills each year in America alone--take 500 years to biodegrade. The gDiaper flushable inserts are also compost-friendly, so theoretically I can compost them with my food scraps in the garden. I'll give that a try in the springtime. Meantime, the way you proceed with the gDiaper is that after your baby soils the diaper, you empty it out in the toilet, if it's solid waste, then drop the insert into the toliet bowl, break it up with their swisher stick, then flush the whole deal. The insert breaks up like toilet paper.

There are lots of videos on the site for how-to questions, and you'll need them, as getting started looks a little complicated. However, I firmly believe in the concept of "inconvenienced"--we have to be a little inconvenienced, at least at first, to help reverse the damage we've already done to this planet.

I use disposable diapers for my son's diapering needs. Cloth diapers just was not an option for me. However, this hybrid product seems interesting and I think it's worth a try-out. I'll document that try-out here. For anyone who's interested in checking the site out before then, click on
gDiapers

Science for Sale: the BPA Papers

Getting back to my bread and butter for a moment: science for sale. Although journalism today has reached an admittedly sorry state, there are still outlets that fund investigative units that do good work. Take the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's extensive investigative inquiry into the mass of studies on BPA, the endocrine-disruptor found in most baby bottles, the lining of canned goods, plastic water bottles, and more. The Journal Sentinel's investigative team found a lot of science for sale.

The federal government has been among the most vocal BPA supporters, proclaiming the chemical safe and danger-free. The vast majority of Americans, my mother included, feel confident in the federal government's oversight agencies when it comes to dangerous products, the lead toy fiasco notwithstanding. But for anyone who has done a little digging on his or her own, federal confidence in a product is far from reassuring. I won't go through the litany of harmful products that have subsequently been yanked from shelves or, worse, are still on the shelves because of understaffed federal agencies. Or--and this is what comes into play here--bought science.

The Journal Sentinel found that the government's assurances that BPA is safe for humans were based on outdated and incomplete information. Further--and this should come as no surprise because it happens with most plastics and chemical industry studies--the science backing this claim up was mostly paid for by the chemical industry itself. You know, like our friends at the American Chemistry Council? When you delve into disinterested science--academically and government-funded research that is not underwritten by industry--you find that 80% of the studies found BPA to be harmful in lab animals. Frighteningly, the Journal Sentinel reports that a government advisory panel issued a report late last year that downplayed the dangers of BPA. In fact, in evaluating the dangers of BPA, the panel rejected outright all studies that showed harmful effects at low levels of BPA. "There's a lot of bad science out there," the chairman said. (Translation: "junk science", a favored term used by folks with ties to industry.)

But there is good news: the National Toxicology Panel flagged this report for review, and the scrutiny is likely to be intense. The federal government is soliciting public comment on this matter until January 25th. I will find out how consumers can comment and post that here as soon as possible.

Toy Report

Later in the day I will be putting together a toy report of the nontoxic toys Santa brought my son for Christmas. Most are wonderful. Some are problematic. I want to highlight one well-intentioned toy that is in the problematic camp. Uncle Goose's Mother Goose Wooden Blocks. Totally nontoxic, no stain, beautifully made--but apt to splinter off. My son is nine months old, and the blocks are labeled for children one year and older, so part of this problem is that my son is a few months too young for this toy. But he is already walking and enjoys piling things up, so I bought these for him anyway. Needless to say, once they started splintering after he chewed on them, I had to toss them. So be sure that if you have these blocks for a child under two, take them away and save them for later fun. Otherwise, get rid of them because splinters are no fun to swallow.

Plan Toys' Frog toy--a quick warning

I bought a vast quantity of Plan Toys over Christmas, since they are nontoxic, mostly wooden toys that are adorable and lots of fun. I am happy with just about all of them, including the crocodile, the little round drum, and some other items. However, the frog tambourine pictured here fell apart after falling to the ground and the metal tambs, which are actually quite sharp, tumbled out as well.

Just something to keep an eye on if you own this toy.

There's a market share speaking...

Just wanted to share this article in Newsweek, titled Baby Bottles Blues". It reports on the explosion of demand for BPA-free baby bottles and the growth of those companies who make these items, and BPA-free sippy cups. It's very inspiring for those of us who believe that by acting collectively as a "market", concerned consumers can force companies to begin developing and selling responsible and safe products, because most of them will not do it on their own.

One comment from a retailer I found quite annoying, though, was from Target. Newsweek reports that Target is finally beginning to sell alternatives to the polycarbonate bottles that are, right now, the only baby bottles on its shelves in most stores. They will begin rolling out Evenflo glass bottles and BPA-free bottles by Medela (I've seen Medela in Minnesota Target stores for some time).

"We're trying to stay ahead of the needs of our customers," says Target spokesperson Susan Giesen, who adds that she has not yet seen a major shift away from polycarbonate products.

This comment really illustrates how out of touch most big retailers are when it comes to the concerns of its consumers--particularly parents. Not only is Target not "ahead of the needs of our consumers", it is way behind. And that there is no shift as of yet from polycarbonate products in Target stores might be due to the fact that there are no alternatives to polycarbonate products in Target stores right now; they don't roll out the glass bottles until next month. Finally, it's a mistake, in my opinion, for Target to choose glass bottles as its BPA-free alternatives. Glass bottles are unwieldy, apt to break and, as one of the moms quoted in the Newsweek article, too heavy for most infants to hold by themselves. Why not stock BornFree? Green to Grow?

Last Pottery Barn post: the letter

I've finally written the letter to Williams-Sonoma's corporate bigwigs. On the outside chance that I receive a response, I will certainly post about it. My ideal outcome would be confirmation that the Rhys Media Lift does not contain a formaldehyde-based resin. Then I could buy it and my living room/TV situation would be resolved quite nicely.

January 5, 2008
Mr. W. Howard Lester, CEO
Williams-Sonoma, Inc.
3250 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94109

Dear Mr. Lester,
I am one of the millions of people who leaf through Pottery Barn catalogs and daydream. I mention this fact first because I want it to be clear that I was an enthusiastic customer of Pottery Barn’s until recently. I am also a consumer who is deeply concerned about the use of toxic materials in building products and furniture, and for this reason, I contacted Pottery Barn in September regarding the Rhys Media Lift Console to ask if the console’s particleboard backing contained formaldehyde in its resin. The overwhelming majority of particleboard or medium-density fiberboard does contain formaldehyde-based resins, but there is an alternative, methylene diisocynate resin, that does not off-gas. I thought perhaps Pottery Barn might utilize this resin. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and will be outlawed for use in fiberboard by the State of California in a few years, according to my correspondence with Brent Takemoto, Ph.D., of California’s Air Resources Board.

The initial response I received from Pottery Barn regarding my question was that the company adhered to California state law on the matter. I was not told whether or not the piece contained formaldehyde. When I followed up and asked for an answer to this question, I received another response saying that a “Ms. Tenen” would check with your vendors and respond. I never heard back. When I contacted customer service again, I was told the following: “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.” This is unacceptable. Consumers have a right to know if a toxin, catergorized by the state of California—whose laws Pottery Barn says it follows—as a known carcinogen, is in the products they buy. Several follow-up e-mails went unanswered.

I am a journalist by trade and I maintain a blog about toxins in everyday products (www.scienceforsale.blogspot.com). Although this was a coincidence (my husband and I were very much hoping to buy the Rhys Media Lift), I have posted about my experience with Pottery Barn customer service and the lack of an answer to this rather straightforward question. It has been frustrating to see that employees in Williams-Sonoma’s corporate offices have been reading my blog extensively but have not bothered to give me a response. The lack of a straightforward response is not only frustrating, but it is hypocritical. In Pottery Barn Kid’s holiday catalog, your company devotes a good bit of space to your commitment to eco-friendly business practices and human-friendly products.

Pottery Barn will lose customers if it cannot or will not provide accurate information to its consumers about the components of its products. Transparency along the supply and manufacturing line is becoming more and more important to consumers, especially since the recent explosion of problems with products made in China. If Pottery Barn doesn’t adapt, I believe customers will stop shopping there altogether. Consumers are becoming savvier, and they do extensive web research before purchasing large ticket items, such as the Rhys Media Lift. I mention this because a large percentage of the readers of my blog come to my site after Googling “Pottery Barn”, “Rhys Media Lift”, and other similar combinations. So far, they have read posts detailing the evasiveness of Pottery Barn’s customer service regarding the presence of formaldehyde in its Rhys Media Lift. It would be wonderful if they could read a post that details a positive response from Williams-Sonoma regarding this matter. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,


Ashley Shelby

Cc: Laura J. Alber, President
David M. Demattei, Group President
Sharon L. McCollam, Executive Vice President, Chief Operation and Chief Financial Officer

Coyuchi Organic Cotton Crib Pad

I decided on a Davinci hardwood crib from Dax Stores, and as I was checking out, I noticed the Coyuchi organic all-cotton crib pad, reasonably priced at, uh, $69.00. I was in one of those what-the-hell moods, so I added it to my cart and bought it. Still waiting on the crib, but the crib pad arrived today. Although my son doesn't sleep in his crib as much as we'd like (he still sleeps mostly with his mom and dad), he will, if we are successful, in the very near future. And it was starting to make less and less sense to have him sleeping on an expensive No-Compromise crib mattress, devoid of all toxins, only to cover it in a poly crib pad. It's difficult to find non-poly crib pads; and when you do, they are exorbitant. I go into these financial decisions thinking that these items will serve several infants--our next one, when he or she comes along, and my sisters' babies, when they come along.

Coyuchi Organics has been around for a long time and are probably the preeminent organic linen retailer right now. The crib pad is 100% cotton and made in India. We'll have to wait and see how it works until we get it on the mattress itself.

No-phthalate crib rail for aggressive teethers--and more comedy from the American Chemistry Council

Just a quick post today. We hired a childproofer to go through our old house and identify hazards. What this really entailed was a sales presentation of a bunch of child safety items. But I didn't mind; I expected as much.

Anyway, the childproofer had told me about a crib rail cover for our crib, as my son had chewed up the rails of his crib. She didn't know its contents so I told her only to bring it to the installation if it was truly nontoxic. Today she brought it by and it is, as far as I can tell, truly nontoxic. It looks like a piece of jelly, and it is adhered directly to the rail. Most importantly, it is free of phthalates, an endocrine-disruptor. It can be found at KidSafe's website. Oh, and for a laugh, check out another front group website, Phthalate.org. It bears all the tell-tale signs of a front-group posing as an objective public interest organization, including liberal use of the word "scare". Here you will find all sorts of information about how much phthalates improve our lives, making it possible for us to use cosmetics, wear raincoats, etc. And, of course, it pans all the science published linking phthalates to reproductive disorders and other unfortunate problems. Actually, the part that made me laugh outloud was this press release I somehow missed from my favorite front group, the American Chemistry Council (representing the plastics industry) after the governor of California (Arnie) signed into law bans on certain phthalates in baby toys. The last sentence really tickled my funny bone:

2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000

American Chemistry Council Expresses "Deep Regret" over signing of California Toy-ban Bill
October 16, 2007

American Chemistry Council President and CEO Jack Gerard expressed deep regret that California Governor Schwarzenegger chose to sign a bill banning certain phthalates from some toys and childcare articles, but expressed the hope that the act would not imperil the state's future plans for addressing chemical health and safety issues in a rational and science-based way.

Totally Nontoxic or Sorta Nontoxic: Crib time

My son's crib has given up the ghost. His parents, in a misguided attempt to move him from his warm little sleeping spot between them, tried to move his Cynthia Stages crib into their bedroom. One little "snap", and the crib was instantly rendered useless. There is no such thing as "glue it back on" when it comes to baby cribs. So we are in the market again.

And again I find myself lusting after Pacific Rim's solid maple cribs because they are the only ones out there that are completely nontoxic. Made from Western Maple--sustainably harvested--these cribs are mortise and tenon-jointed. They are also finished with hand-rubbed tung oil and beeswax. This stands in sharp contrast to most other baby cribs, which contain MDF (particularly the piece on which the mattress rests) and likely formaldehyde-based glues.

But yet again, I am stymied by the price. At $673.00, I just can't afford this gem of a crib, even though it is a convertible crib (for another $115 you can get the conversion kit). In addition, the delivery time on these puppies averages 4-6 weeks, since they are generally made to order. If I were pregnant with some months yet to go, this wouldn't pose a problem (if the price didn't already); but I'm in desperate need of a crib, as the one currently disassembled on the porch isn't doing much for us. I did e-mail Dax customer service just to find out what the turnaround time was anyway.

An alternative is an old-fashioned Jenny Lind crib sold by Dax. Dax Stores sell a number of "non-toxic" cribs, including the vaunted Pacific Rim. However, they are nontoxic in that they are solid wood and are made using certified nontoxic paints and finishes. No word on whether formaldehyde glue is used. I am not as concerned this time around since I not only have a lot of SafeSeal left, but the MDF from Hudson's first crib has already been sealed and I can use it in the Lind crib. The Lind is made from sustainably harvested hardwood. It is also made in China. So in some ways it feels like a crap shoot.

It looks like it'll be the Dax Stores' Lind for us.