Last Chance for Cordova

I left a small piece of my soul in Cordova, Alaska in 2004. I was there to write about the toll the decade-plus long litigation with Exxon over punitive damages had taken on the fishermen and cannery workers there. Cordova was once a thriving town on the shores of Prince William Sound, a community of high-liners, of happy people who lived and worked in a sustainable manner and who were also able to bring home a good living. When the Exxon Valdez spilled in 1989 and dropped eleven million gallons of oil into the Sound, Cordova was not directly affected. Not at first. Those high-liners contracted for Exxon to clean up the slick and to wash off otters and seabirds. There was money to be made there as well.

Fate is poetic, though, and it can be cruel. Cordova has not had a herring fishing season since 1993. The herring are deformed. Their spines are in knots. Some are born with two heads. This, Exxon claims, has nothing to do with the oil spill. It's a random virus that has decimated the herring population for the last fifteen years. Needless to say, this has had a devastating effect on the local workers. But it's not just the herring. Other fisheries have been affected. As a result, former high-liners have spent the last nineteen years watching their nest eggs dwindle to nothing, their fishing licenses (once extremely valuable assets that could be sold upon retirement, as they were not something given out to everyone--some went for as much as 300K) are nearly worthless. Kids who might have gone into their parents' line of work have left town. Folks have nothing to retire on. The rate of depression has increased dramatically. Suicides are not uncommon. In fact, the mayor of Cordova killed himself in the nineties, citing Exxon in his suicide note.

The only beacon of hope has been this pending litigation with Exxon. The punitive damage award, as it stands now, represents less than three weeks profit for Exxon. The oil company has been fighting the award since the day it was awarded. It has successfully been able to get the award reduced from $5 billion to half that. It sounds like a lot. But when you have to split that money amongst more than 30,000 fishers and canners, then spread that out over nineteen years of lost wages, it ends up being very little indeed. Especially for a company like Exxon.

(I don't typically cite my own research, but if you're at all interested in the Exxon Valdez litigation and the city of Cordova, I wrote an article for The Nation in 2004 about it called Whatevever it Takes.)

The reason I'm thinking about this now is that the Supreme Court has been hearing arguments in this case this week. This is Cordova's last chance. With the Court stacked the way it is, I've no great hope for an outcome that I believe would be fair to the men and women of the Sound. We're past that already, actually, since the chances of the Court increasing the award is nil. Exxon has bought science to try to convince its critics that the Sound is healthy and thriving and that the deposits of crude oil found on the Sound's beaches are from a 1964 earthquake (David Page is one such scientist who was on Exxon's payroll). I've written about this extensively in earlier entries about Exxon and federal chemist Jeff Short (search for Exxon or Jeff Short on this blog).

The people of Cordova just want to be "made whole", as they told me when I was there. I don't know if that will ever happen, even if they get the award. But I'll be praying for them until June, when the Supreme Court will likely hand down its decision.

Soapchix

Ashley and Tiffany over at Serendipity Soap Company run a wonderful blog about issues of toxins and irritants in cosmetic and personal care products. They have a gift for distilling complex information into very readable posts and providing extremely pragmatic advice. Two especially helpful posts have to do with the contents of children's bath products.
What's In Your Kid's Bubble Bath and What's the difference between phthalates and parabens.

The ladies over at Serendipity also make divine soaps free of harmful ingredients. I just received my first shipment today and they smell incredible. I've linked to their online store under my links.h

The Vanicream Cure

Very unfortunately, I have to update this post. I learned on August 14th, 2008 that my beloved Vanicream, the paraben-, phthalate-, and formaldehyde-free lotion of choice has been linked in a single study to increased tumors to mice previously exposed to UV Rays. This doesn't necessarily mean that Vanicream is dangerous; as always, more research needs to be done. The research was released August 14th in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. However, until more research is done, I am still using Vanicream because it seems to me that compared to the negative effects of paraben and phthalate-laden products (chemicals whose negative health effects are voluminously documented in the research), this single study on an otherwise safe, formaldehyde-free, paraben and phthalate-free product is scary but flimsy. I will provide you with more information so you can make your own choices. Do remember that a single study does not a conclusion make. From Bloomberg's coverage of this story:

In the study, hairless mice were exposed to ultraviolet light twice a week for 20 weeks, which increased their rate of developing tumors. They were then rubbed with skin creams once a day, five days a week, for 17 weeks. In some cases, moisturized mice had twice as many tumors.

News coverage about it can be found below:

CBS News on Investigative Dermatology report
Bloomberg News on the report

I leave my original post intact below.

One of the most challenging aspects of the whole phthalate and paraben issue is finding products that are both phthalate and paraben free. Then there is a whole other can of worms called formaldehyde. Many personal products contain formaldehyde and formaldehyde donors, which act as preservatives. The list of adverse reactions to formaldehyde has been well-documented. And yet you won't see this ingredient listed as formaldehyde on an ingredient label.

I bring this up because my son developed a rather severe case of what was diagnosed as eczema on his trunk and shoulders. Nothing we did seemed to help. We wondered about our washing machine and our detergents, even though I only use Seventh Generation, purportedly free of any harmful ingredients. We even switched from Burt's Bees baby wash to California Baby's everything-free baby wash. No luck. After taking him to the doctor and being prescribed a light steroid oil and large quantities of Vanicream, his eczema cleared up in a few days. I give the credit to Vanicream. Vanicream is a paraben, phthalate, fragrance and formaldehyde-free lotion. In my opinion, it's a miracle products. And no, I have no connection whatsoever to Vanicream. I remember having seen a jar of Vanicream in my mother's dressing area a few years ago, pumping out a little in my hand, and thinking: this smells like nothing. I was still using lotion for perfume purposes then, loving the light scent of rose or magnolia on my skin. Now, of course, I only use unscented body lotion, but I remember thinking at the time: "What is the point of a lotion that doesn't smell good?"

The point is that it is safe and extremely effective. My son's skin drank the lotion up. So many products, even those labeled "natural" or--and this amazes me--"fragrance-free", contain fragrance-maskers. The ingredients that go into a lotion don't often smell too good, and so fragrance is used to get rid of that smell. And often in order to get a product to smell fragrance-free, you actually have to use...a fragrance.

"Fragrance", when listed on an ingredient list, can contain any of 4000 ingredients. Almost all of them are synthetic, and can cause skin reactions and even dizziness and headaches. Personally, I think the majority of the population can handle "fragrance", if they want to, but there is a sizable population of extremely sensitive adults and children who suffer greatly the effects of fragrance, formaldehyde in personal products, parabens, and phthlates. The term most often used to describe what these folks suffer from is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

Which brings me back to Vanicream--finally. The company that manufactures Vanicream (Pharmaceutical Specialities, Inc.) maintains a website that outlines its product line but also goes through a list of common irritants found in the vast majority of personal care products. This list shouldn't scare anyone--the only ones to worry about, in my opinion, in terms of systemic and cumulative effects are parabens--but it could provide a starting point for anyone suffering from skin irritation, rashes, eczema, and the like. Print out the list the site provides and compare the list to the ingredient list of your favorite products. You might find an answer there.

And finally, a side note on parabens: A fascinating 2005 article in Chemical and Engineering News talks about the use of parabens as preservatives in cosmetic products and how companies that manufacture these products, and the chemical companies that provide the esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid (a.k.a. parabens) to them are now under pressure to find alternatives. The article insinuates that this isn't because parabens are harmful, but instead because the public perceives that they are harmful. Like all science trying to determine causal links between substances and diseases, this one will be up for debate for a long time. But two major studies started the ball rolling on the paraben issue, at least. The first, and most famous, appeared in a 2004 edition of the Journal of Toxicology, revealing that parabens had been found in breast cancer tumors. Since parabens mimic estrogen, the research suggested a connection between the parabens and breast cancer. Another study, this one in Japan, suggested that parabens in lotion accelerated skin aging.

In any case, what the article illuminated was the power of the consumer to force change, even if the science is still being debated. That the industry's death-grip on parabens is loosening little by little is a major victory, and whether or not it's chalked up to "public perception" or serious science matters little to me. What matters is that things are changing.

The Old Reliables: "Junk Science" and "Fear-Mongering"

I rarely comment about the comments left on my blog postings, but I received one today that spoke to something I've been thinking about for a while. Someone took the time to post a comment on one of my postings about phthalates to tell me I'm a "fearmongerer." It made me laugh a little, if only because such a term is usually applied to people who have something to gain from getting folks riled up about something. Typically, such people profit from the irrational fear they have succcessfully stirred up. The term is also used by people who just don't want the facts to add up to truth. And I understand that. Sometimes the facts paint a pretty scary picture. Writing someone off as a fear-mongerer somehow makes the danger less present. But what I find fascinating--exhilirating, really--is the way our markets respond to issues like phthalates and other toxins in our personal products. Niche markets suddenly become viable and even cease being niche markets and move into the mainstream. Suddenly what was so scary isn't anymore, because alternatives become available. And, after more time, the larger corporations change their practices according to the consumer's demands. It really is a remarkable process.

But there are many people who stand to lose a lot by this process, at least at first. Large corporations, for example, must, by law, do what is best for their shareholders. And what is best for their shareholders is, 9 times out of 10, continuing business as usual, if it has been profitable. A drop in profit of even a penny, because they've decided to ditch parabens for grapefruit extract, for example, is not only undesirable, it's technically illegal. Only when the company starts losing money as a result of not changing can such a change really be made. That's where the consumer comes in.

Anyway, in the history of consumer advocacy and disinterested science, the term "fearmongering" has been thrown around liberally. It's a cousin to the term "junk science", a term used by the tobacco companies, for example, to dispute the veracity of links between tobacco use and cancer. It is meant to be dismissive and yet it is utterly meaningless. Two of my favorite authors from my days editing at Penguin, John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, have written that the term junk science is simply used to try to demolish scientific findings that stand in the way of short-term corporate gain. Fear-mongering plays the same role in discussions about science. The global warming debate featured such terms, until it all turned out to be true, and those who used such terms quietly went away.

I can only repeat what I wrote in a post some months back, titled You Go Your Way, and I'll Go Mine. I have nothing to gain with what I research and write here. I am a journalist and a mom--the latter an infinitely more important job to me. I care deeply about this issue but I am not on the payroll of any company, corporation, nonprofit, or advocacy group. I'm not even a member of any advocacy group, save the Union of Concerned Scientists, which hardly qualifies as such. I'm not out to convert anybody. I provide information--information on topics that I find interesting and which, clearly, other people do too. I do my research, and I do it extensively. As a journalist, I examine all sides of the issues. And I get scared sometimes, too. But the cure for fear is information, followed up by action. As my father, an investigative journalist, has told those who criticize his reporting on global warming using the same words: You go your way, and I'll go mine--and in the end we will find out if the accumulation of endocrine-disruptors in our bodies does us any damage. If it doesn't, there is cause to celebrate, nothing to mourn, except the fact that some of us chose not to use products that contain endocrine-disruptors. If it does turn out to be harmful, then I protected myself and my family. The latter is my right, and the right of every consumer in the world. We have the right to make choices as consumers. And I don't think I'll ever be sure why this is so threatening to people who have nothing to gain or lose by my choice.

So instead of responding to a comment "You're a fear-mongerer" with "And you're a fool" (my first response), I respond now only with a resigned sigh. Frankly, I'm bored by the term. I--and countless others, have heard it all before.

Union of Concerned Scientists

Just a quick post today. I want to draw your attention to the work of an excellent nonprofit, the Union of Concerned Scientists. The UCS is a nonprofit made up of scientists and citizens which was founded to separate politics from science, to keep science free of corporate and governmental interference. The organization strives to support practical policy that uses pure science as its foundation, not special interests, governmental agencies, politicians, corporations, etc.

And for those who, for good reason, scrutinize the charities to which they give, CharityNavigator gave UCS a rating of 4 for the way it handles its donations. That should inspire confidence!

Science for Sale: BPA Debates

The BPA Debates continue in Congress. For some interesting reading, check out the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's website devoted to the investigation. There you'll find, among other fascinating documents, a letter the panel investigating BPA sent to the Weinberg Group (discussed in an earlier post) regarding its manipulation of science in order to snow consumers when it came to the dangers of BPA.

House Committee on Energy and Commerce BPA Investigation

Green to Grow Bottles: A Follow-Up

After posting about my experience with Green to Grow bottles, a BPA-free, phthalate-free bottle, I received an e-mail from the folks at Green to Grow, offering to let me try out some different nipples to see if my son liked them better. My son has been breastfed since birth but I often expressed milk for bottles for those times when I had to be away from the house for a couple hours. We'd started on Medela, moved on to Soothies, then found BPA-free Born Free bottles. Born Free stuck; my son loves them. However, when I learned about Green to Grow's BPA-free bottles, I was eager to give them a shot as well. I received a box for Christmas and promptly gave them a try. My son, by this time nine months old, didn't do too well them; the flow rate was too quick and voluminous for him (Born Free's bottles have a unique venting system that regulates milk flow) and he wasn't used to the nipple. No matter how many times I offered it to him, he either spit out the nipple, played with it, or choked on the milk or juice and let it dribble down the front of his shirt.

It is tough if not impossible to switch a baby from one bottle to another this late in the game, and I believe this is the reason my son didn't want to switch (though other comparison tests done have suggested that breastfed babies who also take their milk in a bottle might do better with the BornFree nipple because of its shape.)

Green to Grow sent me various nipples, including a new anti-colic nipple, and even though my son still didn't take to them, I was and remain impressed with the company's dedication to getting things right and to doing things right. Not just in terms of the design of its products but in terms of the way it does business. It's crucial that companies like Green to Grow get our business, because producing nontoxic bottles is an expensive undertaking. It will become less and less expensive the more we buy--and soon, they will be priced competitively with the cheaper bottles that are made with not-so-friendly materials. The Soft Landing is now selling the Green to Grow starter kit (see link under Links) and the company's website also sells this kit (see link under Links). It's rare that a company takes notice of its consumers, beyond its focus groups and its marketing campaigns. But in parenting, word-of-mouth is more effective than the slickest, most pervasive campaign Madison Avenue could offer up. Green to Grow is a smart company; it has respect for the individual consumer, and the power she wields when it comes to word-of-mouth. It is this respect that will make Green to Grow a successful company.

"Shaping the Debate": Science for Sale

This week, Congress took up the task of investigating science for sale. What spurred this long-delayed investigation was promises made by a "science consulting firm" called The Weinberg Group to help its clients "clear regulatory hurdles and defend products in the court and media." This firm represented makers of BPA, among other none-too-friendly chemicals. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has asked Weinberg Group for its records and notes on its work on BPA.

The details of this is enough to make anyone's skin crawl. For example (from Center for Media and Democracy):

In 2006, Paul D. Thacker reported on a Weinberg Group memo in which the firm told the chemical company DuPont that it could help "shape the debate" about the safety of its products. "We will harness ... the scientific and intellectual capital of our company with one goal in mind -- creating the outcome our client desires," added the memo.

The plastics industry--along with numerous other personal product industries--are in danger of losing money. Lots of it. The reason I think they'll start to lose money is because they have not kept up with the growing savvy of the consumer. Today's consumer is less and less willing to take a company's word for it. Today's consumer now searches online for information regarding a product; he or she seeks out the experiences of other consumers. "Shaping the debate" is no longer a viable strategy for these companies, because they will never succeed to shaping the debate in the so-called blogosphere, where most people are without corporate agenda. And it's an offensive strategy, because it uses as its foundation that old corporate belief in the stupidity of the consumer, and her willingness to put even her own health at risk to get a good deal. It's not like that anymore. At least not for a large number of us. But the perception persists. That's why we must consume intelligently.

Incidentally, my father, an investigative journalist, has hounded me about my use of the word "chemicals". One of his pet peeves--and mine too--is the use of the word chemicals to indicate something toxic. I've tried to be very careful to use the modifier "toxic" before the word chemical if the chemical in question is harmful. But it's very important to understand that not all chemicals are harmful. Hell, water can be considered a chemical. Breast milk can be considered a chemical. Anything made of matter is a chemical.

Back to DuPont. DuPont makes a huge number of products. Including, to my dismay, Corian, the countertop used in kitchens and bathrooms. My husband likes the look of Corian for our bathroom. I like the look of it, but I hate DuPont and refuse to give the company any of my money. Poor hubby.

gDiapers: the results

I recently ordered a "Starter Kit" from gDiapers, a company that has come up with a biodegradable diaper that is a hybrid between cotton diapers and disposables. It is made up of three elements: a cloth outer diaper, a snap-in liner, and an absorbant pad, much like a very large maxi-pad. The pad can be broken up in a toilet and flushed, thrown out with the garbage (where it will biodegrade in 30 days) or composted! Any way you do it, though, the waste should be dumped into the toilet. This is true, actually, of all disposable diapers, as human waste shouldn't be going into our dumps. Now, if you ask me whether I dump my son's diaper waste into the toilet each time I change his diaper, the honest answer will be no. With a squirming ten month old on the changing table, eager as all get out to find his way off that table, preferably headfirst, that poopy diaper, 7 times out of 10, gets wrapped up and dropped in the trashcan. Bad Mama.

So this is why I decided to try out gDiapers. It seemed the perfect hybrid for me. And I expected inconvenience, at least at first. But here's why the gDiapers aren't for me.

1.) the absorbant pad doesn't absorb very well (actually a good sign--it doesn't contain the harsh chemicals used by disposables to absorb five or six pees without breaking down). My son could only pee once before the pad actually became so wet that it got the plastic liner wet, and in a few cases, the cotton diaper cover. I had to wash the cover and hand wash the liner. In fact, you'll probably have to hand wash the liner each time your child has a poo.

2.) because of the wetness factor, my son developed a very minor rash in his nether regions. He has never had a rash in his nether regions in the ten months he's been in this world.

3.) Because I only had two cotton diaper covers, and because my son soiled both of them, I had to go back to disposables while I waited to do laundry. I would probably have to own at least 10-15 of these diaper covers in order to have an uninterrupted supply, and they're not cheap.

4.) When pressing the pad into the diaper liner, the edges often stick out unless you are really diligent about tucking them all under. These edges irritated my son's skin.

All this being said, and aside from these concerns, I really liked the gDiaper experience. I think the diapers are adorable and fit well; I love the idea of composting (it's bitter winter here in Minnesota, so I'm not composting right now); and I love how I felt so utterly guilt-free when using these diapers. I am proud of this company for coming up with a great concept like this, and I think over time it will perfect its design. Gdiapers are a little expensive for my budget at this time, but if they are in your budget, I recommend that you give them a try. The more people who use them, the more affordable they will become.

Toothbrushes, Baby Spoons, and Sippy Cups--Oh My!

Taking advantage of a quiet night of editing, I promptly began procrastinating and making some long-delayed purchases. My son has eight teeth and I've been very inconsistent about brushing those pearly whites (and he's been very happy to oblige me my inconsistency since he hates having his teeth brushed). I had thrown out our old toothbrush some time ago anyway because it was made with a material I suspected to have been made with phthalates. Today I found a phthalate-free, PVC-free baby toothbrush made from 100% silicone. It is called My First Toothbrush/Angel Brush. To my chagrin, but more so to my delight, nearly all the online vendors carrying this little toothbrush are in backorders for it. I am delighted by this news because it means parents have taken action after this week's publicity surrounding the Pediatrics study on phthalates.

Which reminds me, if you'll forgive me a very short digression: yesterday I stopped by Target to pick up some baby food, and out of curiosity, a "what if" kind of whim, I headed to the baby bath gear aisle. On the two measly shelves my local Target devotes to California Baby and Burt's Bees baby products, it looked as if a mob had just rolled through. Not a single item remained in stock; the plastic price tag holder was askew. The rest of the aisle, filled mostly with Johnson & Johnson baby washes, lotions, and other baby products, was untouched. All the golden bottles of baby shampoo remained in perfect, military-like lines. I could not stop smiling all day.

Also on my online shopping list was new feeding spoons and a good stainless steel sippy cup. Sassy's toddler feeding spoons are PVC, phthalate-free, according to the company itself. I ordered Safe Sippy by Bastix. All of these items can be found at Lullaby Lane, but I ordered from this company just because they were the only one that had the toothbrush in stock. They are backordered on the sippy cup. If you have the time to spare--I didn't, at least where the toothbrush is concerned--buy your phthalate-free items from a company that stocks only non-toxic, safe products for baby. The Soft Landing is one such company. They are extremely conscientious about the products they sell (as a result, they don't have a huge inventory or a massive selection).

Unilever offers some refreshing transparency

I'm sometimes accused of being "anti-corporate" because I research consumer products and point out the use of harmful chemicals in those products we ingest or put onto our skin. I'm also accused of being anti-business because I demand more transparency from the companies that supply us with these products. This always makes me laugh. Like the term "junk science", this accusation is meant to divert attention away from the real issue: the use of harmful, and usually needless, chemicals in consumer products.

I bring this up because today I found an example of some rare corporate transparency. Unilever is a huge, multi-national corporation of Dutch-Anglo provenance. It owns brands from Dove to Wisk to Pepticon (which I didn't even know was still around!). On its FAQ page, Unilever goes through a large number of frequently-used chemicals and compounds used in the vast majority of personal care products, including its own. While the research it cites showing parabens and phthalates are safe is questionable and extremely nonspecific, Unilever is not only open about which chemicals and ingredients it uses (including parabens and phthalates), it also mentions the research on these ingredients that points to a link between parabens and cancer, or phthalates and endocrine-disruption, and so on. While, as one can only expect, Unilever tries to downplay these studies, the corporation doesn't dismiss them entirely, and states that it is in the process of eliminating phthalates from its products. Interestingly, it even refers to many of its ingredients as "hazardous."

This is a refreshing and exceptionally rare example of an attempt at corporate transparency. While, again, we are not told which of Unilever's products contain the chemicals in question, at least we know that the company uses them and that there is disagreement in the scientific community regarding its toxicity. There is no weblink to a front group posing as an independent panel of scientists. Johnson & Johnson, and other American corporations could take a page from Unilever's book in this instance. Scroll down the pages to find the discussion on phthalates and parabens.

Unilever's FAQ on its use of "hazardous chemicals" in personal products

Johnson & Johnson's responds, unconvincingly

I saw today that Johnson & Johnson's responded to the recent news about use of phthalates in common personal products, including baby products. Naturally, I was interested, particularly because the writer (J&J's director of communications) sought to correct assertions made in the "blogosphere." I'll link to the open letter at the end of the post.

The first thing we learn is that Johnson & Johnson's uses only one phthalate in certain of its products (they don't tell us which ones). They then say that no reproductive toxicity is found to be linked to this phthalate, despite the research released earlier this week. As proof, they offer us research from a group described by J&J as "an independent, nonprofit panel of scientists and physicians who assess the safety of personal care product ingredients in the U.S.". This group is called CIP, or the Cosmetics Ingredient Review. This is hardly an independent panel. CIR was founded and is funded by the cosmetics, toiletries, and fragrance industries. When any research body is funded by the companies making the products which they study, there can be absolutely no assertion of independence. This is a given. And it's basic. It's unfortunate that Johnson & Johnson cites the research of this so-called independent panel to try to convince its customers that the products containing phthalates are completely safe.

Next, Johnson & Johnson cites the front group of the household and personal care products industry, Personal Care Products Council, as having concerns about the design of the journal Pediatrics study. With names that obscure the true interests behind these front groups, consumers may be led to believe that these are independent bodies that are seeking to correct an erroneous story. Nothing could be further from the truth. My husband asked me tonight why companies like Johnson & Johnson spend so much money on funding front groups and trying to protect its image when news about phthalates comes out when they could direct that money into research and development of safer ingredients, especially for its baby products. It's a good question. Like I said earlier, companies need to have incentive to change, and that incentive comes only in the form of consumer behavior. Boycotts, sales slowdowns, and the like are the only things that shake companies out of their torpor.

With all this as background, take a look at the open letter to J&J consumers on its blog. Continue searching out phthalate-free products, and possibly in time, this chemical, which is needlessly added to products when alternatives are available, will disappear. Johnson & Johnson blog on phthalates-UPDATED LINK, SORRY.

A few more places to find phthalates

There has been a surge in interest in the use of phthalates in common consumer products thanks to a widely-publicized study regarding the dangers of phthalates in infant care products. But they are everywhere. For example:

*anything containing soft PVC or vinyl contains PVC: this includes numerous baby toys and other children's products. Look for toys that say they are free of PVC and/or phthalates. There are a few out there that make this claim, but sometimes they are hard to find (an example: one of Parents' bath toy sets--the one with the porcupine clutching a ball, a dog on a raft, a purple pig, etc.)
*the smell we love that comes from a new car--that is the smell of phthalates. There is also a recognizable smell that comes from new vinyl products (shower curtain liners, baby teethers, backpacks, etc), and that is also the telltale odor of phthalates at work.
*If you are pregnant, avoid the use of perfumes and nail polish, and other cosmetics (check out the Safe Cosmetic's Skin Deep database under links) as these items contain phthalates.

One very specific note that I feel compelled to add is that Huggies "Natural Care" diaper wipes contain several parabens. This kind of thing infuriates me, of course, because by labeling their products as "natural", they lead the consumer to believe the products are free from harmful ingredients. This simply isn't the case, so I am specifically singling out Huggies Natural Care Diapers Wipes as a paraben-containing baby product. Something I discovered only after buying a package in a pinch when I couldn't get to the co-op to get my Seventh Generation wipes.

Moving on...One very helpful site is the Children's Health Environmental Coalition's "HealthE House". This site is a great resource for science-based information about phthalates. Another excellent site, which includes a product list, is Health Care Without Harm's PVC/DEHP site.

And finally, Health Care Without Harm provides a list of lab-tested personal products that contain phthalates. There is some definite overlap with The Green Guide's list I posted yesterday, but it might be worth printing out and comparing to what you have in your medicine cabinet.

Don't be fearful. There is an easy solution to this. Simply eliminate the products you have that you know for sure contain phthalates, and research alternatives. The Health care Without Harm list provides some alternatives, as does the Skin Deep data base. Also, a web search for phthalate-free baby products or phthalate-free personal products will yield some results. One warning: when you google "phthalate", a sponsored ad will likely pop up for www.phthalates.org. If you were to click on this link you'd read all about the wonders of phthalates, about the hysterical "junk science" being circulated about the dangers of these chemicals. Don't buy it. It is sponsored and put together by front groups and public relations firms that have an entrenched interest in keeping these chemicals on the market.

Some phthalate-free products and a list of personal care products containing them

The Green Guide, for which I have written, compiled a very short list of personal care products containing phthalates and those free of phthalates. Some highlights:
*Degree Original Solid Anti-Perspirant & Deodorant contains phthalates; Dove Powder Anti-Perspirant Deodorant does not (this leaves the question of other toxins found in anti-perspirants alone)
*Nivea cream and Jergen's original formulation contains phthalates; Burt's Bees Milk and Honey lotion does not.

As you peruse this list, please be aware that phthalates and parabens are separate entities, and that this list does not isolate those products containing parabens. Products listed as phthalate-free are not necessarily paraben-free. At this point in time, most companies who do not use phthalates and parabens crow about it on their labels, so look for that. For example, Johnson & Johnson's Baby Softwash contains them:

JOHNSON'S BABY SOFTWASH INGREDIENTS:
Aqua, glycerin, PEG-80 sorbitan laurate, sodium laureth sulfate, cocamidopropyl betaine, PEG-150 distearate, glycol distearate, polyquaternium-7, acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer, PEG-14 M, tetrasodium EDTA, sodium lauroamphoacetate, parrafinum liquidum, methylparaben,
butylparaben, propylparaben, phenoxyethanol, polypropylene terephthalate, sodium hydroxide, parfum

New Phthalate Report: Baby Wash, Lotion, etc.

The journal Pediatrics has released a report today confirming the harmful effects of phthalates on humans, particularly babies and pregnant women. The mainstream media is starting to pick up this story, which is great. But the way it has been covered thus far has been confusing. No products are mentioned. Little constructive advice is offered, besides washing your baby with water only during his first three months, leading people to believe that baby wash is one of the offenders (which it is--but which ones? And which ones are safe?)

Long story short, phthalates are chemicals used in a variety of consumer products that help those products maintain elasticity. They are toxic, and have been linked in numerous studies to reproductive problems. Phthalates are endocrine-disruptors; that is, they mimic estrogen.

Now, what products contain phthalates? Unlike parabens, phthalates are not listed in clear language on ingredient labels. There has been much concern about Johnson & Johnson's baby products. While J&J's baby products contain other noxious ingredients, like the ubiquitous "fragrance" and parabens, according to a 2006 shareholder resolution that had been withdrawn because the company had agreed to meet with shareholders, a specific phthalate has been eliminated from its products (or those products are no longer being sold--it's hard to tell from the text.) I can't confirm that Johnson & Johnson's Head to Toe Baby Wash doesn't contain phthalates (I will continue to look for independent confirmation on that), so I would exercise caution. UPDATE: Johnson & Johnson announced on its company blog that it utilizes one phtalate in its products, though it doesn' specify which products. Its Soothing Naturals products does contain three different kinds of parabens, so I urge you to either not buy this product or to throw out what you have.

I will also post a list of phthalate-free baby products as soon as possible. For now, check out DermStore's paraben-free offerings in the Links section. We do know that products like California Baby's lines of baby products are free of phthalates AND parabens. Below, please find the text of the 2007 shareholder proposal for Johnson & Johnson. For parabens, look in the ingredients listing for words like methylparaben, butylparaben, etc. Any word with "paraben" in it is the name of a paraben. You'll find it's even in places you wouldn't expect. My beloved Cetaphil, recommended to me by countless dermatologists as the gentlest out there, contains parabens.

And one more note: until there is consumer outcry--in the form of letters, stock sell-offs, shareholder resolutions, boycotts, and the like, companies that use phthalates will have no incentive to stop using these noxious but convenient chemicals. Beware of front groups (such as the one behind www.phthalates.com) that downplay the risk of this chemical. Today's study is only the latest in a long list of research studies that have come to the same conclusions. Bad press puts companies on the defense; consumer action makes them listen. Please consider writing a letter, an e-mail, making a phone call, or even organizing a boycott if you don't get any response from companies whose baby products contain phthalates and parabens. There is a good chance you'll get a response back that patronizes you, assuring you that parabens and phthalates are "safe" and "regulated by the FDA" (cold comfort--see my posts regards the FDA). If that happens, it's time to escalate. But the easiest way to solve this problem for you personally, right now, is to stop using products that contain parabens and phthalates (the former is easy to determine; the latter not so easy) and buy alternatives, which are usually more expensive but worth it, like California Baby and most of Burt's Bees baby products.

One thing for expectant mothers: hospitals tend to use J&J products. I'm not sure the mechanism, but the company has successfully gotten many, many hospitals to use its baby products. My own son received his first bath in the hospital with J&J's Head to Toe Baby Wash (I now shudder to think that his brand new baby skin, his brand new baby body was bathed in a wash containing so many harsh ingredients.) If you can manage to think ahead, put no-paraben, no-phthalate baby products in your overnight bag and insist to the nurses that they use those products once your baby is born. One such product is California Baby's bath products; another is Aubrey Organics.
From the text of the Shareholder Resolution proposed by a variety of shareholders, including As You Sow:

Whereas:

• In February 2003, European Union Directive 2003/15/EC (amending Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC) banned the sale in Europe of cosmetics or personal care products that contain any ingredients on a list of chemicals known or suspected of causing cancer, genetic mutation, or birth defects.

• Johnson & Johnson eliminated the use of Dibutyl Phthalate (DBP) in all of its cosmetics around the world. DBP is a reproductive toxin and one of the chemicals banned by Directive 2003/15/EC.
Johnson & Johnson should have one global product safety standard. Having multiple standards may damage its reputation and expose the company to liability.

• Global formulation to EU standards would elevate the safety standards of Johnson & Johnson’s products. The US Food and Drug Administration does not require cosmetics manufacturers to test their products for safety. They can use any raw ingredient without approval except for color additives and certain prohibited ingredients.

• Concern about safe cosmetics is growing among consumers and J&J’s competitors. Over two hundred cosmetics companies have informed the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of health, consumer, and advocacy groups, that they will inventory their products for ingredients that are suspected carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxins, as well as for chemicals that affect the endocrine system, accumulate in the body or persist in the environment. These companies will proactively seek safe alternatives for these chemicals, and publicly report on their progress.

• The reformulation process necessary to comply with Directive 2003/15/EC offers companies an opportunity to begin exploring safer alternatives to all chemicals of concern. J&J should take this important first step toward product safety by reformulating its products worldwide to EU standards.

Resolved: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors prepare a report on the status of J&J’s use of chemicals banned by EU Directive 2003/15/EC in the company’s products sold to non-EU markets, the feasibility of implementing a global reformulation plan, and the costs and timeframe for global reformulation. The report, prepared at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, should be made available to shareholders by November 1, 2006.

Supporting Statement:
Best known for its baby products Johnson & Johnson has built a reputation of leader in corporate social responsibility. This resolution seeks to protect J&J’s good name by resolving any doubts that Johnson & Johnson applies a higher safety standard for its European consumers than for others. Directive 2003/15/EC identifies the mutagens, reproductive toxins and carcinogens, currently posing the greatest risks to public health and particularly to babies and fetuses. Without a global reformulation policy, J&J risks losing non-European customers who are concerned about cosmetic safety. Directive 2003/15/EC offers J&J the opportunity to respond to growing concerns that chemicals of concern to infants’ and children’s health should be eliminated from cosmetics.