Transparency Makes the Difference

I've been lax on posting recently because I've been quite under the weather. Still am, but have to, like all parents, continue doing the parenting thing no matter how sick I am. One thing we are in the process of doing is transitioning my 22-month-old into a "big boy bed." As with our crib purchase, we enter the minefield of particleboard, formaldehyde, and other annoyingly omnipresent components in furniture. What makes these kinds of purchasing decisions much more difficult is that companies are rarely clear or up-front about what kind of materials are used in their products. (Take my Pottery Barn fiasco as an example).

I wanted to briefly spotlight one company whose transparency makes my job much easier. Ikea certainly stocks plenty of furniture items constructed with particleboard--hey, that's how it keeps its prices so low. But it also sells a lot of sustainable wood-only products. And determining one from the other is extremely simple: each Ikea furniture product contains its entire component material list on its tag or on the website. So, for example, we are looking at Ikea's selection of children's beds. Some of them include particleboard or fiberboard; some of them don't. I don't have to guess. And although the selection of non-particleboard furniture is not huge, it exists, which is more than a lot of large retailers can claim. I love that many of their products are completely particleboard free.

This rings true not just for children's beds, but also for TV consoles and other living room furniture. Once we've made a choice on the big boy bed, I'll post about it, but if you are in the same boat as me, consider shopping at Ikea and reading the tags.

States and Cities on BPA: We'll just ban it ourselves

As has been exhaustively detailed on this blog, the FDA has failed, time and time again, to protect U.S. citizens from toxic chemicals. Perhaps the most egregious of these failures, at least in recent memory, is its unwillingness to regulate BPA, the endocrine-disruptor found in countless plastics, including baby bottles. I won't get into the science, which has found, overwhelmingly, that small amounts of the chemical affect serious changes in the human body, most particularly in the infant body. Instead, I'll focus on some really heartening news. Cities and states are now taking it upon themselves to simply ban BPA themselves.

Let's talk about Chicago. Last week, the Finance Committee of the Chicago City Council held hearings on a proposal to ban BPA from children's products (by the way, I am waiting for someone from the chemical industry to pull an "Insider" and blow the whistle on the "science" being produced by the industry to keep BPA on the market). According to the Chicago Tribune,

Ald. Edward Burke (14th) and Ald. Manny Flores (1st) have sponsored a resolution that urges the FDA "to expedite its current review of the safety of bisphenol A . . . and take appropriate action." The resolution says that if the FDA doesn't take action by April 30, Chicago will "aggressively pursue" a city ban on BPA.

In Minnesota, a bill to ban BPA as well as one to ban phthalates, both in children's products, passed the state legislature, only to be vetoed by our governor, Tim Pawlenty, for reasons that remain a complete mystery. In fact, I've been told by a source that after being questioned about these vetoes, Pawlenty seemed ill equipped to participate in any intelligent conversation regarding either of these two toxins. He seemed surprised to learn how toxic--and ever-present--phthalates, in particular, are. In any case, Healthy Legacy has again written a bill to ban BPA from children's products. I cannot imagine that if this bill passes the legislature again that Pawlenty can veto it. The outcry over BPA has only grown, especially in Minnesota. That the bill has appeared in two consecutive legislative sessions suggests that the people who elected Pawlenty want this bill passed and want their children protected. I urge anyone who lives in Minnesota to visit the governor's website and take the time to write him an e-mail demanding that he leave the bill unmolested should it pass. You may e-mail Tim Pawlenty at: tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us

Step One: The Review

As many of you know, I am a vocal critic of the FDA. I feel the agency has failed us, time and time again. The BPA fiasco is only one example. The outrageous failures regarding the salmonella outbreak from the peanut factory in Georgia is another. Some of this has to do with blatant scientific interference and incompetence; some of it has to do with the fact that the FDA is hamstrung by idiotic rules. Example: the FDA could not compell the Georgia factory to send its salmonella-positive results, nor could it compell a mandatory recall of the contaminated peanut butter and paste that sickened hundreds and killed--killed--eight people. And of course a large portion of its failure to "catch" things is directly linked to the budget slash-fest courtesy of former president Bush.

You also know that I advocate pressuring agencies and corporations to shape up. I took some of my own advice two weeks ago and wrote in to the Obama Administration, having heard that the administration actually does read the letters it receives from the public. In fact, I read that Obama receives two binders every morning: one containing important security and policy information, and one containing letters from the public. I don't know if this is true. But on the off chance it was, I felt I had to chime in about the FDA and ask Obama to consider completely reworking it.

Then, this week, this news: President Obama has ordered a full review of the workings of the FDA. In an interview this week, Obama said, the FDA had been marked by “instances over the last several years” in which “the FDA has not been able to catch some of these things as quickly as I expect them to catch.” Of course, being the even-tempered, cool-headed man that he is, his words are measured. I would have been far harsher. But then that's why I'm writing this blog and am not running the country! He continued: “At bare minimum, we should be able to count on our government keeping our kids safe when they eat peanut butter."

And, finally, in words I have been longing to hear for years: "We are going to make sure that we retool the FDA, that it’s operating in a highly professional fashion and, most importantly, that we prevent these things, as opposed to trying to catch them after they’ve already occurred.” I hope President Obama will add to that agenda that scientific interference and industry interference in science will also be on the table for examination.