Greenwashing plus: dioxane in lots of "green stuff", including a personal favorite

It's one thing to find out that Clorox bleach is bad for you. You might not like what the product does to you and the environment, but okay, you just won't buy it. You have the information. You made an informed decision. Done.

It's quite another to consciously seek out products that claim to do no harm to the environment and to the body, and then to find out that these claims are not true. It's the kind of thing that evokes a slow, simmering rage. It's typically called "greenwashing", but the news out of the L.A. Times falls into a category that feels to me to be greenwashing plus.

Consumer advocacy organization Organic Consumers Association tested a wide range of "green" or "natural" home and personal products found in nearly half of these items detectable levels of 1,4 dioxane. What is 1,4 dioxane, you ask? Oh, just a petrochemical byproduct that is considered a probable human carcinogen--by the EPA. When I see the world "natural" on a product's label, I am always skeptical. The term natural is unregulated and it really doesn't mean much of anything. Lead is natural. So is cadmium. The term green is more problematic. It, too, does not have a universal standard, but there are a few companies that have proven themselves to be truly green (and USDA organic, to boot). One that I am going to single out is Seventh Generation. I use these products, including their laundry detergent and dish soap. However, Organic Consumers Association found detectable levels of 1,4 dioxane in their dish soap.

This is infuriating to me. The company rebuts that they have tried to remove dioxane from their products but found that they had to replace it with something abrasive to the skin. (I'm not sure I understand the logic of this: if dioxane is a byproduct of petroleum, which Seventh Generation claims not to use, how can you simply "replace" it with another ingredient? This may simply be vague reporting from the L.A. Times or the Seventh Generation people are trying to talk consumers into circles.)

Other products that tested positive for dioxane include Kiss My Face, Nature's Gate, 2 Alba products, and 1 Jason product, among others. I am working on obtaining a list with the rest of the products. But some shorthand for determining whether your shampoo or other personal product contains dioxane (most non-green shampoos do contain this as a matter of course) is to look for the terms polyethylene glycol or compounds with the syllables PEG, short for polyethylene glycol, -eth or -oxynol.

See L.A. Times story on 1, 4 dioxane in personal products.

Mobilize against BPA

The article below is from Healthy Child, Healthy World, and I received it today from The Soft Landing blog feed. I thought it worth reprinting here in the hopes that the more we mobilize against the chemical BPA, the better chance we have of getting government to regulate it and, ideally, eliminate it completely. There are a lot of very, very powerful industry interests who have a lot to lose if this product is regulated or taken off the market, even in limited instances like baby bottles and drinking vessels. Legislators on Capitol Hill are besieged by lobbyists. But believe it or not, letters from constituents do make a big difference. The rule of thumb is that for every letter a senator or representative receives on an issue, their staff believes close to 10,000 people feel the same way. That's probably a stretch, but let them believe it! Anyway, with yet another study showing that even at low levels of exposure BPA is harmful to human health, it's time to roll. Please write a letter or e-mail to your local representative or senator. And don't stop there. Write to your local representatives who represent your interests in your local government. States can regulate these things themselves if the federal government won't take action. California is a veteran at this kind of thing.

This is not about being a "hippie mom", a granola-crunching, tree-hugging, Stevie Nicks wannabe mama (which is how BPA interests would paint you should you dare care about this issue and speak up about it.) This is not about politics, not about left or right, red or blue, conservative or liberal. It's basic. It's about science, and it's about protecting our children and ourselves. Let's do this.

Polycarbonate: The Plastic that Keeps on Giving…BPA
Janelle Sorensen
Healthy Child Healthy World
Thursday, March 13, 2008


Last year major recreational retailers pulled polycarbonate water bottles off the shelves over concern that BPA could leach into the drinking water. Later in the year, the Environmental Working Group examined baby formula from cans and found that the epoxy lining was leaching BPA into the formula. The latest news is that polycarbonate baby bottles leach BPA into warm milk and formula.

Last year major recreational retailers pulled polycarbonate water bottles off the shelves over concern that BPA could leach into the drinking water. Later in the year, the Environmental Working Group examined baby formula from cans and found that the epoxy lining was leaching BPA into the formula. The latest news is that polycarbonate baby bottles leach BPA into warm milk and formula.

While manufacturers argue that the exposures are too small to have any health impacts (their same old song and dance), studies are piling up linking BPA to breast cancer, testicular cancer, diabetes, hyperactivity, obesity, low sperm counts, miscarriage and a host of other reproductive failures in laboratory animals. It is also linked with immune system alterations, early puberty, developmental problems, insulin resistance, increased risk of type II diabetes, and hypertension. ,

It’s a shameful laundry list dirtied even further by a recent study showing that infants face the largest risk because their bodies do not yet produce the enzyme necessary to clear BPA from their system. “We can't say there are conclusive data in humans," says Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri, who headed the study. "But given the fact that we're seeing irreparable damage in animals, for heaven's sake, let's get this out of products our babies are coming in contact with." http://www.newsweek.com/id/105588

Enough is enough. It’s incorrigible that a chemical with such negative health implications is being used in products manufactured specifically for the population they could harm most, babies. Especially when they are absolutely unnecessary to human life. Safer bottles are available. Safer toys are available. Safer sippy cups are available. Safer dental sealants are available. Safer water bottles are available. Safer baby spoons are available. Safer formula cans are available.

We don’t need it. We don’t want it. And while we wait for industry and government to understand that, we don’t have to buy it.

BPA rules to remember:
• Steer clear of plastics with the number 7 in the chasing arrows recycling symbol. If it’s not labeled, call the manufacturer.
• If you use formula, opt for powdered.

Particleboard and the Companies That Love It

I am preparing my letter to Dura Supreme, the cabinetmaking factory that made our 42-inch bathroom cabinets, which are sitting on our front porch in boxes. The company bills itself as a green company because it does something with sustainable wood. I don't even know, to be honest with you, because it's all so fuzzy. My contractor, who is very well-meaning but not very well-versed in green production, took the company's "green" reputation to mean that it used all non-toxic materials. It's a rookie mistake, but it was my fault for not checking up on him. The cabinet is made mostly of particleboard. It's pretty lame. Anyway, they refuse to take it back and they refuse to reassemble it using formaldehyde-free plywood or particleboard. So I'm out $1100 and have to use a pedestal sink until I can come up with enough money to pay a cabinetmaker to make the cabinets. I think it's absolutely outrageous that Dura Supreme uses urea-formaldehyde particleboard--not even as a minor component of its cabinets, but as a major component--and has the nerve to bill itself as a green company. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but the ill health-effects of formadehyde in building products is so well-documented that even the EPA doesn't try to fight it. In fact, it has a whole section on its website devoted to it, listing the health problems it causes and where it can be found: notably, in particleboard.

I will post the letter as soon as I've polished my "angry first draft".

Support Senator Feinstein in her Phthalate Bill

I am not a California resident, but I wrote an e-mail to Senator Dianne Feinstein thanking her for pursuing the anti-phthalate bill she wrote. She has faced, I'm certain, untold amounts of pressure from industry lobbyists regarding this bill. There is a huge interest among the large toy and personal products manufacturers to keep phthalates a legal ingredients in their products. But the EU doesn't allow phthalates in children's toys, and NOW just reported that China actually has two manufacturing lines: one for phthalate-laden toys bound for the U.S. and one for phthalate-free toys, all bound for the E.U.

Consider dropping Senator Feinstein a supportive e-mail to let her know just how many concerned consumers are awaiting similar protections that moms and dads in Europe get from their governments when it comes to phthalate content in toys and other products. You can e-mail the Senator here. Then, since you're already in the mood, consider e-mailing your own local Senator about this issue. Now that these folks have e-mail options, it's much easier to drop them a line. And they do read their e-mails. I've received several personal responses from my local representatives over the last few months.

A List of Lead-Free Lipsticks (lipstick--that forgotten indulgence)

In my bachelorette days, and even my new bride days, I was a committed lipstick-wearer. In fact, I've worn lipstick since I was thirteen years old--a strange combination with the basketball I used to carry around school. Nothing like a tomboy wearing dark mauve lipstick to confuse the boys. Anyway, since having a baby, lipstick has become a luxury, something I get on my lips only occasionally (about as often as shampoo finds its way onto my hair these days). When it does, I'm usually wearing an Aveda lip stain or something similar. When I mentioned this to Beth, she asked, increduously, "Does it have lead!?" To my shame, I didn't know the answer. I hadn't had time to figure out the answer. Bad mama.

So, in service to all those harried moms, businesswomen, or combination of both, I hereby provide a crib sheet to those lipsticks on the market with the least amount of lead in them. The list is courtesy of The Daily Green and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (linked to the left).

13 lipsticks reported by Campaign for Safe Cosemetics to have negligible (less than 0.02 parts per million) amounts of lead.

Brand - Product Name/Shade - Parent Company

Avon - Ultra Color Rich Cherry Jubilee - Avon

Body Shop - Lip Colour Garnet - L'Oreal

Body Shop - Lip Colour Garnet - L'Oreal

Clinique - Long Last Lipstick Merlot - Estee Lauder

Dior - Replenishing Lipcolor Red Premiere - LVMH

Estee Lauder - Maraschino - Estee Lauder

MAC - Matte Lipstick Viva Glam 1 - Estee Lauder

Revlon - Superlustrous Love That Red - Revlon

Revlon - Superlustrous Bed of Roses - Revlon

Revlon - Colorstay Lipcolor Red Velvet - Revlon

Tarte - Inside Out Vitamin Lipstick - Tarte

Wet N Wild - Mega Colors Cherry Blossom - Markwins

Wet N Wild - Mega Colors Cherry Blossom - Markwins

Guerilla Tactics

Today I was at Target and browsing the baby goods aisle, to see how Johnson & Johnson's is doing compared to Burt's Bees and California Baby. The J&J products are all on fire sale; the Burt's Bees and California Baby products had almost run out again. Then I saw this strange product called "Gentle Naturals". It had various products in its line, including an eczema cream. Disney characters decorated the front. Gentle Naturals. Has to be "safe", right? I flipped it over and saw two different kinds of parabens listed under the ingredients. It infuriated me. So I took a small piece of paper out of my purse, wrote: "This product contains parabens", and slipped it on the shelf containing the product, in plain view.

I got such a kick out of it, even though I'm sure Target staff whisked it off the shelf soon after I put it up, because of the possiblity that some mom saw my note. I thought: what if we started a guerilla campaign of note-leaving on products that bill themselves as "gentle", "natural", "sensitive skin", etc.? Consider doing this when you're in Target, etc., and stocking up on your baby supplies. If enough people do it, retailers might get the message. In the meantime, I plan on writing a letter to Disney to bitch at them for sponsoring Gentle Naturals.

What's in a Name?

I've written before about the ingenious use of names by industry groups. I've been thinking a lot about these organizations lately after reading about The Heartland Institute's recent conference on climate change. The Heartland Group is a front group funded by ExxonMobil. [UPDATE AND CORRECTION: The term "front group" in this instance is incorrect. One might call it a "think tank". It is also not completely funded by ExxonMobil. See the comments section to see feedback from a Heartland Institute lobbyist and information about the funding sources and board of directors for the Institute.] The conference was populated, as can well be imagined, by "skeptics" of global warming. I put the word skeptics in quotation marks because I believe the term, at least in this context, nonsensical and nonspecific. It's one thing to be skeptical of the means of global warming, but to be skeptical of the phenomenon itself--that smells of front group logic to me. Anyway, I was amused by the name the front group uses, The Heartland Institute, a kind of warm and fuzzy, wholesome name that conjures up cornfields and potlucks, farmhouses and school plays.

Sussing out the real interests behind front groups is a burden that has been placed on consumers because transparency is not legislated or required of these groups. What's worse is that the media often swallows the "research" of these front groups wholesale to use up newscast time. Having worked as a journalist myself, I can tell you that press releases flood the newsroom each day, each one designed to look like a real news item and designed to catch the eye of a harried and desperate assignment editor. To him or her, it's a story idea, not something to be skeptical of. As a result, you get those conflicting stories about whether wine is good for you or not, chocolate as the cancer cure-all, phthalates and parabens as having no negative effect on children, etc. What reporters don't do, or, they would argue, don't have time to do, is figure out what organization is behind the research. A group calling itself the American Chemistry Council sounds legitimate, doesn't it? What about the National Fisheries Institute? Sounds like serious researchers.

In truth, there is really no excuse not to do a little background checking. It's actually exceptionally easy. The Center for Media and Democracy maintains a database, which I've mentioned before, that collects information about front groups. If the name of an organization sounds a little front-groupish, it probably is, and a quick search of the database will confirm or not confirm this status. The site is called SourceWatch.

The best advice I can give the intelligent consumer is be skeptical of research until you can determine its true source. Be aware that sometimes even the research coming out of universities and hospitals can be tainted by industry money. Before taking anything to the bank, take the time to do a little research. It's often not as difficult as one might think to follow the money trail.

Serendipity Soap Co.

A few weeks ago I placed my first order for handmade soaps from Serendipity Soap Co., a little business run by two moms. These handmade soaps are phthalate and paraben-free, and are about as basic as you can get. Made with a variety of essential oils (lavender and lemon, bergamot lime, honeysuckle, violet, etc.), the soaps are made the old-fashioned way. After giving the soaps a try (I bought two soaps for my husband and me and one for my son), I am head over heels in love. Not only do these soaps smell divine, they leave my skin clean and soft. My son, who recently suffered a bout of severe eczema, has had no reaction to his soap at all (his doctor had told me not to use any soap on his skin as a precaution, but I wanted to see how he'd tolerate the Serendipity soaps). The baby soaps are a great alternative to baby washes.

Commercially made soaps are typically loaded with needless preservatives and the ubiquitous "fragrance". Take a look at a Zest bar or an Irish Spring. From the Serendipity website:

What do you put in your soap?

Because our soap is handcrafted, we can devote our attention to creating a simply heavenly bar of luscious soap. To do this, we use a blend of Coconut Oil, Palm Oil, Olive Oil, Essential Oils (for scent), natural micas and herbs (for color), water, and Lye (to start the reaction between the oils and water). By the end of the process all the Lye has been 'saponified' out of the soap, leaving only the nourishing oils and amazing fragrance. In contrast, here is a list of ingredients that a commercially made bar of soap contains:

What You Won't See In Our Soap!

Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate - a detergent to make a dense lather * Stearic Acid - fatty acid made from tallow (animal fat). * Sodium Isethionate - synthetic detergent *Sodium Stearate - thickner or emulsifier * Cocamidopropyl Betaine - promotes lather * Sodium Chloride - table salt, preservative * Tetrasodium EDTA - chemical preservative * Trisodium Etridronate - chemical preservative * BHT - (butylhydroxytoluene) Synthetic antioxidant to keep oils in formula from going rancid

In any case, the "Soapchix" at Serendipity have a wide variety of wonderful soaps for sale, and I highly recommend them. I have no ties to this company whatsoever, just happened upon them when one of the soapchix posted on my blog. What's even cooler is that on their own blog, they have a step-by-step guide for people who want to make their own soaps! Can you imagine a Proctor & Gamble or Unilever sharing their own trade secrets with the population at large?