Bill Banning Phthalates Passes in Congress

Lawmakers in Washington have agreed to a ban on phthalates in children's products. The ban will take effect in six months, an astonishingly quick turnaround for a ban on something as ubiquitous as phthalates. The move seems to have been instigated by concerned parents writing their congresspeople and research that, time and time again, shows harmful effects from even low levels of phthalates in toys (think rubber ducks, plastic toys, etc.) Phthalates have been found in numerous research studies to cause reproductive problems in boys, in particular, hormone disruption and, distressingly, these problems in babies whose mothers breastfeed and who had been exposed to phthalates (isn't that a huge percentage of us moms?)

This is a huge step forward. But the chemical industry, and others who will have to spend money to rid their products of this family of chemicals, has sunk to a new low in trying to spin this story. I have spend the last three years of my life studying the way companies, corporations, and entire industries try to spin science, the way they demonize the scientist if they find the science and research inconvenient, the way they purchase their own science and call it disinterested. Let's just put it this way: I thought I'd seen the worst of the worst. I haven't.

ExxonMobil had the audacity to say that if phthalates are banned from children's products, manufacturers will be "forced" to use chemicals that are more harmful. I have never heard a more specious, shameless, and utterly immoral industry response to pending legislation or scientific research in my life. I find it profoundly ironic: the American Chemistry Council, the front group charged with keeping phthalates in play, has long excoriated scientists and researchers who have found harmful effects from phthalates as "scaremongers." And yet this response that, oh, if you take phthalates away from us, we'll be forced to use something much worse! [cue foreboding organ music] is all of the things the ACC charges its opponents with resorting to: it's irresponsible, it is completely disingenous, it is meant to trigger fear-based reactions to their benefit, and it's completely untrue.

What I take comfort in, though, is that this level of desperation on the part of the chemical industry (or at least that segment of it that manufactures and profits from phthalates) suggests a dying gasp. Subtlety has been thrown out the window. Tactics of war are now in use. And this suggests to me that the phthalate industry is doing everything it can against a very real threat to its bottom line.

No one should take these industry threats--because that's what they are, threats--to heart. It's the height of idiocy to suggest that a substance banned for its toxic properties will be replaced by a more toxic product. It won't happen. And the EU has already banned six phthalates--American companies that use phthalates in their products here have already had to reformulate their products for the European market. As Mark Shapiro showed in his book, there are often two different versions of products--the European version, which is free of phthalates, and the American version, which is chock full of them. These companies know how to make safe products. They just don't want to, because it'll cost them money at the outset to make the switch.

The only danger to this legislation is George Bush. He opposes it, for reasons that have not been made clear, to me, anyway. I will keep you up to date on this. In the meantime, here is the Washington Post article on the ban.

I'm in love with Maine (and Washington and California, and maybe Massachusetts)

Just a quick post before bed tonight. Today the New York Times is reporting that the Maine state legislature is passing legislation that will seriously restrict the sale of products containing mercury, arsenic, phthalates, PBDEs, and so on. This move comes after the Majority Leader had herself tested and found she was chock full of mercury, arsenic, etc. I'm very sorry for her, though I suspect many of us carry similar body burdens. However, I am so glad it happened to someone who is in a position to do something about it. Check out the New York Times article, linked below, which outlines this legislation, as well as similar legislation in Washington and California. Because the federal government will not or cannot keep us informed nor protect us from potentially harmful ingredients, we need to appeal to our state legislators to pass legislation that will do so. Please consider writing to your local representatives about phthalates in particular. Minnesota passed a bill here, similar to California's, but John McCain's future vice-presidential running mate and our governor, Tim Pawlenty, chose to veto it. Why? The same old argument made by corporations who make toxic products for decades and decades: the science isn't there. It's a patently false claim, but one that is convenient. Anyway, I digress.

This is good news!
Maine Wages Fight Against Toxic Chemicals

Obfuscation, Double-Speak, and Other "Green" Strategies

The term "green" should be removed from the dialogue about nontoxic personal products. There is no standard for usuage of the word, as there is for "organic." Another term that I think should be regulated is the word "natural." Nothing annoys me more than companies slapping the word "natural" on products that contain dangerous or questionable ingredients. Regular readers know I have singled out "Gentle Naturals" baby products because they are chock full of nasty ingredients like parabens (its Baby Eczema cream contains three) and stearyl alcohol. While I am a firm proponent of legislation limiting or eliminating parabens from personal care products, especially children's personal products, I am not someone who wants to overregulate the industry. However, it is close to unconscionable to label your product "Gentle Naturals," hoping to fool well-intentioned parents into purchasing your product because they think it a better alternative to other products on the shelf the contain the same ingredients.

This brings me to Proctor & Gamble. Fast Company recently wrote an article about the company's attempts to cash in on consumer interest in nontoxic products, and decided to repackage and redesign its Tide laundry detergent and other P&G products. While its efforts are geared toward lowering greenhouse gases (its Tide Coldwater laundry detergent allows consumers to wash clothes effective in cold water), it has not reformulated or even addressed the problematic chemistry of its products. It utilizes phthlates, 1, 4 dioxane, and other carcinogens. (Herbal Essences shampoo and Olay Complete Body Wash are offenders of note). The P&G official featured in the Fast Company story brushes aside the reporter's question about the chemistry of these products saying "I know for a fact that everything in our products is safe." He must know something the EU and EPA don't, both of which have called dioxane 1, 4 as a carcinogen, and which the EU has banned outright.

However, legislation and state requirements has forced P&G and other companies to reformulate certain products.

Regulators haven't always agreed. When the European Union classified dibutyl phthalate (DBP) as a reproductive toxicant in 2004 and banned it from use in cosmetics and personal-care products, P&G and many other companies were forced to reformulate products, predominantly nail polish. Similarly, P&G is working on suitable substitutes for phosphates in its Cascade dishwashing products after states including Virginia and Maryland passed bans on using the chemicals because of the damage they wreak when released into rivers and streams. P&G maintains that its use of DBP and phosphates wasn't harmful.

Because Proctor & Gamble is making this push toward touting its supposed "green" bona fides, and because the packaging and labeling will be and is already intentional obscuring (with words like "natural"), the conscientious consumer will be forced to scrutinize labels to get the real story. This is maddening to me, personally, because we don't have time for this game. We don't have time to make our way through the thicket of obfuscations and double-speak. And yet we are forced to do this because, as of yet, we have no national standard governing the use of the term "green."

Dura Supreme Update

As we prepare for the plumber to come by tomorrow to install our dinky airplane-lavoratory sink, I thought I'd post an update to my Dura Supreme saga (which you can find by searching for the tag "Dura Supreme"). I wrote the CEO in April. I have yet to receive a response of any kind, except for a Dura Supreme employee anonymously posting on this site to say he "understood" I had received a full refund. Obviously, I had not. Hence the airplane sink. Because Dura Supreme has our $1200, we are in no position to buy a nontoxic cabinet. It feels like robbery.

Even though there is no "update" on this, I have received so many e-mails from people who have happened upon this blog while searching for "Dura Supreme" that I felt moved to let everyone know that my situation not only has not been resolved; it has not even been addressed by that company, who certainly keeps tab on my blog. Such a non-response is a red flag to potential buyers. As consumers, we are not as perturbed or offended by honest mistakes and miscommunication as we are by indifference, arrogrance, and chicanary.

(Note: on another topic, please check out my update on my teething gel/paraben posting)

The Paraben Chronicles: Teething Gels (file under "Seriously??")

My son is almost fifteen months old, and when it comes to pain, he is heroic. He already has a mouth full of six teeth, and he is currently getting six teeth simultaneously (including two premolars). He's been in a lot of teething pain lately, and last night the pain reached its apex. I was dispatched to the nearest Walgreens to pick up the long-avoided teething gel. As I perused the shelves, I again noticed the "Gentle Naturals" baby products with the Disney characters adorning the bottles of the paraben-laden lotions. But what was more alarming to me was the ingredients of the teething gels. All but one of them contained parabens. I ultimately chose Baby Orajel nightime solution (incidentally, we didn't end up using it after all) because it was the only one I found that was sans parabens, but which contained at least one dye. (Note: Please see my addendum regarding this product at the end of this post)

Once I got over my shock at the presence of parabens in teething gel, I was again infuriated "Gentle Naturals"-style at the teething gel that crowed about "No Dyes!" but which contained parabens. It was a brand called Little Remedies Little Teethers. It boasts on its box of having no saccharine, no sugar, no alcohol, and no dyes. Such claims suggest the product stands out from its competitors because it pays attention to such things, and eliminates them from its products. Turn in over and read the ingredients: you will find parabens.

The reason this kind of thing angers me is because, like Gentle Naturals, the name and the claims suggest that the product is safer for your child than competitors. This is totally false. There is no difference between Gentle Naturals and your average Johnson & Johnson's baby wash. Zero. But going by the product's name, one would think the product was both gentle and natural. Nothing could be further from the truth. The same is true with this teething gel that includes parabens in its ingredients but gives parents the impression that the lack of dye and alcohol makes it stand above its competitors.

But here is the kicker, and I will include the product's entire description. Hyland's Teething Gel is a homeopathic preparation. And yet it is loaded with not one but two kinds of parabens. Below is the description of the product:

Hyland's Teething Gel

The first and only all-natural teething gel on the market, this homeopathic formula contains no benzocaine. No sugar. No artificial flavoring. No dyes or coloring agents. Just 100% natural, effective treatment - the only product like it on the market.



Indications for Use: A homeopathic combination for the temporary relief of symptoms of simple restlessness and wakeful irritability due to cutting teeth.

Formula:

Calcarea Phosphorica 12X HPUS - supports dentition
Chamomilla 6X HPUS - for irritability
Coffea Cruda 6X HPUS - for wakefulness and diuresis
Belladonna 6X HPUS (0.0000003% Alkaloids) - for redness and inflammation
In a natural gel base of Deionized Water, Vegetable Glycerine, Hydroxyethyl Cellulose, Methyl Paraben and Propyl Paraben.

Available in 1/3 ounce tubes.

Can a gel base be "natural" when it contains Methylparabens and Propylparabens?

Baby Orajel doesn't contain parabens but has demonstrated, at least anecdotally, some very serious side effects (see below). Try to relieve baby's pain with cold washclothes and a big dose of distraction, which is what ultimately worked for us last night, allowing us to avoid using the gel.

ADDENDUM: I received the following e-mail from my friend/mom-to-be Beth today.

Hey Ash!

I subscribe to a local NJ forum for mothers. On it, there was this
woman's horrible experience with Baby Orajel. Since you wrote about
it on your blog, thought I'd share it with you.

Here's a link to the site (though you may need an account to see it,
so I've re-printed the e-mail below):

http://northjersey.citymommy.com/?q=node/25957


I usually don't share this kind of stuff, but I received this from a
pretty trustworthy friend. I did my own online research and found
there is probably some validity to this story. I still need to discuss
with my pediatrician, but have tossed any Baby Orajel numbing gel we
have at home. I think we only used it once, but never again with
future kids.
---------------------------------------------------------

Dear all,

I hope everyone is enjoying their summer. Some of you already know, but
we wanted to make everyone aware of a terrifying experience that we had
over the weekend. Thank g-d, everything's ok now but we thought friends
and family would want to be aware and would want to advise others with
babies…

Zane's been teething pretty badly for the past few days, and we decided to
give him Baby Orajel on Sunday afternoon. We've given it to him a few
times previously, when his first two teeth cut through, and never had a
problem. Scott and I were both sitting with Zane on the floor in his
room when I rubbed a dosage on his upper gum. Seconds after I gave it to
him, he made a face as if he were crying but no noise came
out. I picked Zane up and he immediately went limp in my arms and
his face turned blueish. He was not panicking or gasping for air - he
was lifeless. Ultimately, Zane "came to" and began
to cry hysterically. Thank g-d!!!!!!!!

We spent the evening at the hospital, where Zane underwent numerous tests,
all of which came back normal. We also spoke with Zane's pediatrician,
who stated that she advises against the use of this product because its
purpose is to numb and if it gets into an infant's throat, it may stop them
from breathing. Obviously, we wanted to learn more about this product and
why this happened so we conducted some internet research.
Interestingly, we came across some postings of parents with similar
experiences. Further, one website listed a side effect as, "difficulty
breathing and grey/blueish face." Also, when we called Zane's daycare to
let them know what happened, the owner said that she's heard of this
happening before. It's surprising then that no such warning is on the
bottle and that more people do not discuss the negative and possible deadly
implications of the use of this product.

We don't want to imagine what could've happened if we had given this to him
at night, in his crib, as we (and many others) have done in the past, and
then walked away (although, of course we monitor him throughout the night).

To reiterate, the reason we share the above with you is to strongly advise
you to throw away any Baby Orajel products you have at home and please
advise your friends and family of the same. Trust us, it's not worth the
possible side effects.