******************************************************************************************************************************

NEW BOOKS AVAILABLE FOR HOLIDAY GIVING

& EXCITING WINTER READING!

TIP has just found a great new source of inspiring, practical and fascinating books and videos to offer at our booths and web store. Chelsea Green Publishing has some titles that our friends and supporters should really enjoy. Take a look and click on books that interest you for details: NOTE: The special book, “Exposed”, described below, is out of stock at the publishers’ site, but you can order it at our site and support TIP as well. Just go to: www.toxicsinfo.org/tipstore.htm See a great new Mark Schapiro consumer safety article at: www.toxicsinfo.org/kids/Buyers%20At%20Risk.htm.

“Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's At Stake for American Power”, by investigative reporter Mark Schapiro. Review from Publishers Weekly: Americans' confidence in their government-sanctioned environmental and consumer protections receives another blow in investigative reporter Schapiro's exposé, which explores such discomforting information as the 2005 U.S. Centers for Disease Control tests that found 148 toxic chemicals "in the bodies of 'Americans of all ages.'" The U.S.'s unique tendency to take no action against businesses and their products until a disaster occurs keeps them tied to 1970s standards-"exposed to substances from which increasing numbers of people around the world are being protected"-while "the principle of preventing harm before it happens, even in the face of imperfect scientific certainty," guides an increasing number of countries; by "creating legal and financial incentives," governments in Europe and Japan have kept citizens relatively safe from what contributes to the deaths "of at least 5 million people a year," according to the World Health Organization. Schapiro (co-author, with David Weir, of Circle of Poison: Pesticides and People in a Hungry World) discovers toxins in personal care products, toys, electronics and foods which are, in some cases, manufactured solely for U.S. consumption, and traces them to the people and events responsible. Though a look at growing support for change in the U.S. provides some hope, a guide to action would have been an appropriate addition to Schapiro's prescient muckraking.

OTHER BOOKS OF INTEREST

(Not sold by TIP, but worthwhile reading)

“Secret History of the War on Cancer”,by Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, Director of the Center for Environmental Ecology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and Professor, Dept. of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health. In her new book,Devra Davisexposes scientists and government officials who have worked to downplay or dismiss preventable causes of cancer. The War on Cancer set out to find, treat, and cure a disease. Left untouched were many of the things known to cause cancer, including tobacco, the workplace, radiation, and the global environment. Proof of how the world in which we live and work affects whether we get cancer was either overlooked or suppressed. This has been no accident. The War on Cancer was run by leaders of industries that made cancer-causing products, and sometimes also profited from drugs and technologies for finding and treating the disease. Filled with compelling personalities and never-before-revealed information, The Secret History of the War on Cancer shows how we began fighting the wrong war, with the wrong weapons, against the wrong enemies – a legacy that persists to this day. This is the gripping story of a major public health effort diverted and distorted for private gain. A portion of the profits from this book will go to support research on cancer prevention. See Christine Wenc’s Alternet article, The Health Industry’s Secret History of Delaying the Fight Against Cancer: www.alternet.org/healthwellness/69775/

Toxic Exposures: Contested Illnesses and the Environmental Health Movement, by Phil Brown, Professor of Sociology & Environmental Studies at Brown University. The increase in environmentally induced diseases and the loosening of regulation and safety measures have inspired a massive challenge to established ways of looking at health and the environment. Focusing specifically on breast cancer, asthma, and Gulf War-related health conditions-"contested illnesses" that have generated intense debate in the medical and political communities-Phil Brown shows how these concerns have launched an environmental health movement that has revolutionized scientific thinking and policy. Brown argues that organized social movements are crucial in recognizing and acting to combat environmental diseases. For more info on this book, visit the Columbia University website at: www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/publicity/brown_excerpt.html (NOTE: Phil has been active with the new Environmental Justice group here in RI)

*****************************************************************************************************************************

CHILDREN’S HEALTH & THE ENVIRONMENT

http://environet.policy.net/health/issue/

Children, along with the rest of us, live in a sea of man-made chemicals. Industry produces more than 6 trillion pounds of synthetic chemicals each year-equal to 22,000 lbs. for every person in the country. Traces of man-made chemicals can be found in almost every human being on earth, yet only a handful of these chemicals has ever been tested for toxic effects, especially at low doses. Even fewer substances have been tested for their effects on children. Now a growing body of scientific research shows that youngsters are much more vulnerable to the effects of these toxic substances than adults. We are exposed to harmful chemicals in the air we breath, the water we drink, and in the food we eat. Children are particularly vulnerable to these daily, unavoidable, exposures to toxics, and as a result:

· The incidence of some childhood cancers has increased by as much as 30%. Overall, cancer is now the second leading cause of death in children.

· Asthma has increased by 40% since 1980 and has become the leading cause of hospital admissions for urban children.

· Testicular cancer among teens is up by 60%.

Why Children are Especially Vulnerable to Toxic Chemicals

· Children breathe more rapidly and take in far more air and food in proportion to their body weight than adults do.

· Children metabolize, detoxify and excrete toxic chemicals at a slower rate than adults.

· The normal behavior of children also increases their exposure to toxics.

· Children's high activity levels and rapid respiration increase exposure to indoor and outdoor air particulates.

· Hand-to-mouth activity and crawling increase ingestion and contact with toxics in dust, soil, and carpets as well as exposure to pesticide vapors concentrated at ground levels, including formaldehyde in new carpeting, insecticides sprayed in the home, herbicides applied to lawns, and chemical flea and tick treatments used on pets.

· Children eat more fruits and vegetables in proportion to their body weight. The average one-year-old eats 2 to 7 times more grapes, bananas, pears, carrots, and broccoli -- along with the pesticide residues on them -- than an adult. By age 6, most American children have already accumulated 35% of their allowable lifetime cancer risk from captan, a fungicide frequently used on apples, grapes, and peaches.

The Environmental Dimension to Health

Epidemiological, toxicological, and wildlife research increasingly implicate environmental factors in a wide range of health effects:

· Exposure to lead has been associated with an array of neurological and developmental effects, including attention deficits, decreased IQ test scores, hyperactivity, and even juvenile delinquency.

· Consumption by pregnant women of fish taken from polluted lakes and streams has been directly linked to low birth weight, weak reflexes, reduced motor function, and measurable deficits in intelligence, memory, and attention in their children.

· Indoor and outdoor air pollution have been linked to infant mortality, bronchitis, pneumonia, aggravation of asthma, and impaired lung function.

· Low-level chronic pesticide exposure has been associated with impairment of the immune, respiratory, and neurological systems in children.

· Incidence of the male genital birth defect known as hypospadias (malplacement of the urinary outlet of the penis) has almost doubled from 1970 to 1993. A Centers for Disease Control study documents this increase and shows that it is not due to increased diagnosis and detection. Many researchers have found an important connection between the condition and disruption of the endocrine system, an effect some toxic chemicals possess.

For decades, chemical makers have been far more ingenious than either toxicologists or public officials. While traces of man-made chemicals can be found in the tissue of almost every human on earth, the vast majority of synthetic chemicals has never been tested for their toxic effects. Even fewer have been tested for their effects on the young.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT TOXIC TOYS & PRODUCTS

-AND SAFER, HEALTHIER ALTERNATIVES

ECOLOGY CENTER: Confronting Toxic Toys

It's not just imported toys that carry harmful chemicals, but brand-name, U.S.-manufactured ones too. One organization is helping shoppers identify non-toxic toys.  Just in time for the holiday shopping season, a coalition of public interest groups led by the Ecology Center has made public a database showing how some 1,200 popular children’s toys stack up in terms of lead content and other harmful chemicals.  See “All I Want for Christmas Are Some Lead-Free Toys, By Mike Shriberg, Ecology Center,  http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/69272/  The useful website,  www.healthytoys.org   includes  info on phthalates and PVCs:   www.healthytoys.org/chemicals.chlorine.php

MOTHERING MAGAZINE: PVC Update, By Lois Gibbs

www.mothering.com/sections/action_alerts/december2007.html#pvc

With all of the toxic toy recalls, more and more parents feel like they're rolling the dice with their children's health when they go shopping. One of the things to avoid is polyvinyl chloride (PVC), better known as vinyl. It is the worst type of plastic for the environment and our health. The amount of PVC being used worldwide today contains a staggering 3.2 million tons of lead. Evidence suggests there is no other plastic that uses lead as an additive. While there are regulations limiting lead in paint that is on toys, there is no standard for how much lead is in PVC. Not only are children who play with some vinyl toys exposed to lead, but also to phthalates, which can harm the reproductive system. Over 90% of all phthalates are used in PVC products and are often found in many toys such as rubber duckies and bath books. When a child puts a PVC toy in his or her mouth, it's like sucking on a toxic lollipop. Last month, California joined the European Union and fourteen countries in banning the use of phthalates in children's and infant's products.

TIME MAGAZINE: Tips for Safe Toys and Other Household Products, By Margot Roosevelt. The growing movement to restrict suspect chemicals in toys, baby bottles and other items used by pregnant women and children under three, has left parents wondering what they can do on their own to limit their kids' exposure to phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA), so-called "endocrine disruptors" which can interfere with hormones that regulate gender. Animal and human studies have linked these substances to a broad swath of health problems, inlcuding prostate and breast cancer, and altered genital development. "Virtually all of us are regularly exposed to low levels of phthalates and BPA," says Shanna Swan, a University of Rochester epidemiologist and an expert on endocrine disruptors. "The risks from these products have not been firmly established. But there are some measures we can take, until the use of these chemicals in everyday materials and products is more aggressively restricted." http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1566958,00.html

NEWS & ACTION ON TOXIC TOYS & PRODUCTS

1. CENTER FOR HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT & JUSTICE: www.chej.org and the

Be Safe PVC Campaign: www.besafenet.com/pvc/

2. CONSUMERS UNION: Not in My Cart, www.notinmycart.org Includes recall information.

3. INVESTOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORK: www.iehn.org

(also, has a 20 minute video) Look for news about shareholders resolutions offered last Spring, and responses by Hasbro, Target, Sears/K-Mart, WalMart and Bed, Bath & Beyond.

******************************************************************************************

CANARY CORNER

CAN NURSES BE CANARIES TOO?

(Well, they’re in the front lines of chemical warfare!)

We’ve learned in our conversations with nurses and from our good friend and TIP Board member Chris Pontus

(an occupational health nurse working for the Massachusetts nursing association) that nurses suffer many reactions to the chemicals with which they work. Here is a report, sent us by our local American Lung Association RI contact, Molly Clark, that confirms the buzz.

******************************************************************************************

From: California Healthline, December 13, 2007:

SURVEY: CHEMICAL EXPOSURE CAN HARM NURSES’ HEALTH

Nurses are being exposed to a range of chemicals during their daily duties that could affect their long-term health and that of their children, according to a survey released on Tuesday by the Environmental Working Group and Health Care Without Harm, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. The online survey of 1,500 U.S. nurses found that nurses who were exposed to the chemicals at least once weekly had higher rates of cancer, asthma and miscarriage. In addition, nurses who were pregnant and frequently exposed to sterilizing agents and anesthetic gases were seven to nine times more likely than their unexposed peers to have children with musculoskeletal defects, the survey found.

The survey examined nurses' exposure to 11 common health care chemicals, including:

Cleaning agents and chemicals for sterilization;
Devices that contain mercury;
Gases for anesthesia;
Hand disinfectants;
Latex;
Medications such as chemotherapy and antiretroviral drugs; and
Personal care products.

Study co-author Jane Houlihan, vice president of research for the Environmental Working Group, said hospitals have few regulations governing chemicals used to sterilize facilities and treat patients. Houlihan noted that the survey results might not fully represent all nurses nationwide because some groups may have been less likely to participate.

Limiting Exposure: Authors of the study said Bay Area hospitals tend to be ahead of national regulations on limiting nurses' exposure to chemicals, the Chronicle reports. For example, many Bay Area hospitals do not use latex gloves because they can cause allergic reactions in some people. Several Bay Area hospitals also limit the amount of vinyl materials in floors, walls and medical devices because the chemicals in vinyl have been linked to cancer and birth defects. Stanford University Medical Center and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital also give new nurses a physical to examine the chemicals in their bodies (Allday, San Francisco Chronicle, 12/12).

CONTACT: Colleen Richardson, CAE, Executive Director
California Thoracic Society (CTS), Tustin, CA

Tel. 714-730-1944, ctslung@aol.com

(CTS is the medical section of American Lung Association of California (ALAC))
Websites: www.thoracic.org/ca.html and www.CaliforniaLung.org

NEW RESOURCES FROM THE COLLABORATIVE

ON HEALTH & THE ENVIRONMENT!

COMMUNITY RESOURCES WEBPAGE

www.healthandenvironment.org/resources/community

Developed in collaboration with the Center for Environmental Health in Oakland, California, the section serves as a one-stop resource for community-based participants on science and how it relates to community issues, and as a resource for site visitors at large to get a sense of how environmental justice and community sectors process and use scientific information for their issues. The major issue areas covered include:

What Are Community Resources?
The Value Of Science: Whose Science?
Translation Of Science
Public Reporting Of The Science
Researching "What's In Your Community?"
Finding And Creating Alternatives

While the Community Resources section does not include the full breadth of the work being done in the area of community action and environmental health, we hope it will be a starting point for communities, scientists, health practitioners and others to explore how various communities have turned science into action. We encourage visitors to utilize the feedback function on the site so we can improve the content over time.

CHE Toxicant and Disease Database

http://database.healthandenvironment.org/

The new CHE Toxicant and Disease Database is a searchable database that summarizes links between chemical contaminants and approximately 180 human diseases or conditions. Diseases and or toxicants can be viewed by clicking on the diseases below or by utilizing the search engine in the column on the right.

For a full description of the database and its limitations, see:

http://database.healthandenvironment.org/intro.cfm

For questions or comments about the database, please contact Eleni Sotos at:

Eleni@HealthandEnvironment.org

INFO FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP (EWG)

EWG Newsletter, 9-25-07 Tips for Packing a Healthy Lunch And Saving a Bundle

With school back in session (and childhood obesity on the rise), you're probably rethinking what to pack in your child's lunch. Before you stock up, make sure you know which fruits and veggies you should buy always organic. Nutritious peaches, apples, nectarines, strawberries, pears, and grapes are popular with kids, but their soft skin means they absorb more pesticides. Buy these organic when you can. Can't always afford (or find) organic? Not to worry. When organic isn't an option, there are plenty of lunchtime favorites that are low in pesticides, like bananas, pineapples, mangoes, and kiwis. Bring our Shopper’s Guide to the store with you to help you remember when to go organic and when conventional is okay. Get the Guide at: www.foodnews.org/ ALSO FIND GREAT ARTICLES AT THE EWG HEALTH & TOXICS PAGE: www.ewg.org/health

*******************************************************************************************************************

FOOD FIGHT: ACTIONS VS. CLONING & HORMONES

LEGISLATIVE NEWS FROM THE CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY

FDA Approval of Food From Cloned Animals Stalled by Passage of Mikulski-Specter Amendment in Farm Bill! (December 14, 2007)

A broad coalition of consumer, farmer, and animal welfare organizations today applauded passage of a provision in the Senate’s Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) that would delay the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) endorsement of the use of food from cloned animals. This amendment, advanced by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) and co-sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), calls for a rigorous and careful review of the human health and economic impacts of bringing cloned food into America’s food supply. The senate overwhelmingly passed the bill this afternoon by a vote of 79 to 14.

The amendment requires that two rigorous studies be performed before the FDA is able to issue a final decision on food from clones. The amendment directs the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to convene a blue-ribbon panel of leading scientists to review the FDA’s initial decision that food from cloned animals is safe, and to study the potential health impacts of cloned foods entering the nation’s food supply. The bill also directs the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to examine consumer acceptance of cloned foods. During a public comment period that ended earlier this year, the FDA heard from more than 150,000 citizens rejecting the Agency’s proposed plan to introduce clones into the U.S. food supply. In addition, dozens of members of the meat and dairy industries and nonprofit organizations urged the FDA to consider comments from the widest possible sample of Americans in consideration of the untested nature of cloning technology.

UPDATE: 12-17-07 We spoke to Joe Mendelson, Center for Food Safety contact. The Farm Bill is going into Conference Committee. The House passed a version without anything on cloned foods. Keep an eye on the CFS website, www.centerforfoodsafety.org, for incoming information and the chance to take action in support of keeping the Mikulski-Specter Amendment in the final bill.

Pennsylvania Restricts rBGH-Free Dairy Labels

Several large dairy producers and food companies have made news recently by getting rid of recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as rBGH or rBST, from their milk supply. This is great news for consumers, since this genetically engineered growth hormone is known to cause harm to cows and may pose health risks to humans. But in Pennsylvania, things appear to be going backwards.

FDA approved the use of voluntary labels more than 12 years ago at the request of dairy companies seeking to respond to customer concerns over the use of the genetically engineered hormone. Earlier this year Monsanto, the company that makes rBGH under the trade name Posilac, pressured the FDA to restrict the use of labels identifying “rBGH-free” or “rBST-free” dairy products, claiming such labels are "misleading" to consumers. FDA rightly refused Monsanto’s request to restrict consumers’ right to know, but now the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) seems to following Monsanto’s lead. In October, the PDA announced new regulations that appear to prohibit any kind of rBGH-free labeling on dairy products, including "rBGH (rBST)-Free" and wording such as "Our farmers pledge not to use . . ."

Pennsylvania's actions have spurred similar discussions in Ohio and New Jersey, and other states may be next! All should keep informed and alert, regarding possible local anti-labeling efforts.

12-17-07 UPDATE: Pennsylvania is reviewing the decision, says Joe Mendelson, CFS contact. PA Pennsylvania residents can act to preserve their right to know by going to the following website:

www.centerforfoodsafety.org/cloning_FBamendPR12_14_07.cfm

Need a Reason to Work Less - Or Use Healthier Cleaning Products?

HOUSEWORK COULD POSE HEALTH HAZARDS, STUDY SAYS

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/hl_nm/housework_hazards_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AvkPTtCPQ74THPzRi58EVv8R.3QA

Fri Oct 12, 12:14 PM ET

Housework might be bad for your health, according to a study suggesting that tidying up as little as once a week with common cleaning sprays and air fresheners could raise the risk of asthma in adults. Other studies have linked these types of products with increased asthma rates among cleaning professionals but the research published on Friday indicates others are potentially at risk as well.

Exposure to such cleaning materials even just once a week could account for as many as one in seven adult asthma cases, the researchers wrote in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

"Frequent use of household cleaning sprays may be an important risk factor for adult asthma," Jan-Paul Zock, an epidemiologist at the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona, who led the study, wrote.

Asthma is an inflammation of the airways with symptoms that include wheezing, shortness of breath, coughing and chest tightness. More than 300 million people worldwide suffer from the condition.

Using data collected from 22 centers in 10 European countries, the researchers studied more than 3,500 people over a nine-year period to see how many developed asthma and whether cleaning could be a cause. Two-thirds of those in the study who reported doing the bulk of cleaning were women and fewer than 10 percent of them were full-time homemakers, the researchers said.

The study found that the risk of developing asthma increased with the frequency of cleaning and the number of different sprays used but on average was about 30 to 50 percent higher in people exposed to cleaning sprays at least once a week.

While air fresheners, furniture cleaners and glass-cleaners had the strongest effect, the researchers said the study did not determine what biological mechanism sparked the increase.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON CLEANING CONCERNS & HEALTHIER ALTERNATIVES, VISIT THE TIP WEBSITE AT: WWW.TOXICSINFO.ORG/TIPS_HOUSE.HTM FOR A STORY ON SOMEBODY DOING A GREAT JOB OF THIS, SEE ARTICLE NEXT PAGE!

ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY PEST CONTROL

Who You Gonna Call?

www.nrdc.org/onearth/07fal/frontlines3.asp

An immigrant family from Central America shows the city of San Francisco how to clean up its infestations with creative thinking, not just chemicals.

Using a stethoscope in a hospital is not such a strange thing to do, unless, of course, you're an exterminator, which Luis Agurto is. Agurto, who owns the San Francisco–based pest control company Pestec, stands on a ladder and presses his stethoscope to the wall. He has the pensive look of a doctor listening for signs of arrhythmia, but Agurto has his ears peeled for a different kind of murmur: the buzz of bees. There is a printed sign on a nearby windowpane -- Do Not Open -- and beyond the glass a swarm of bees goes about the business of setting up shop in the decaying wood frame of a seventh-floor window in the city-run Laguna Honda Hospital, an aging stucco structure built in 1866.

Below Agurto, his son Carlos, 23, arms himself with a power drill. Carlos's brother, Luis Jr., 25, starts manually pumping the Foamer Simpson, a two-gallon jug with a strawlike nozzle that holds a simple mixture of sodium laureth sulfate and water -- not so different from your standard shampoo base, minus the fancy fragrance. The solution doesn't actually kill anything; bugs just want to get away from the stuff. More unseemly pests -- roaches, for example -- do get the ax, though the Agurtos do it with a human-friendly blend of boric acid and sugar. No Raid here.

Agurto's approach is to tailor each pest control solution to the specific problem at hand, and the plan on this particular day is to drill through the window frame, stuff the hive full of soap to drive the bees out, and remove the whole nest from the wall. To Agurto, who immigrated to the United States from Nicaragua in 1979, this approach just makes sense. Every use of pesticides puts more money into the hands of chemical manufacturers. Every job he does using a little creative problem-solving, drawing on decades of experience and an understanding of entomology that would put most biologists to shame, keeps more dollars in the coffers of his small business.

Earlier, Agurto and Luis Jr. made a stop to check up on two technicians who were burying gopher traps along the Juniposera Greenway as part of Pestec's contract with the city of San Francisco. The team lays traps, waits a few hours, then goes back to remove the gophers. The alternative would be to seed the grass with poison, which is just as easily dug up and eaten by neighborhood dogs as it is by rodents. The poisoned pests get picked off by falcons and other predatory birds, which ingest the toxic chemicals along with their prey.

Pestec's annual $600,000 contract with the city accounts for 50 percent of Agurto's business. When he's not busy rodent-proofing City Hall, deploying a fleet of bike messengers to drop mosquito birth control into storm sewers, and sniffing out bedbugs with the company's highly trained beagle, Ladybug, he lectures on integrated pest management, consults for other pest control firms and institutional facilities, and quizzes Luis Jr. on ways to solve hypothetical pest control problems (he's grooming his elder son to take over the business). This year, Pestec became the first pest control company in the United States to be certified by Green Shield, a nonprofit program that endorses businesses that practice effective pest control using fewer pesticides.

The bottom line, Agurto says: "If I'm not willing to spray pesticides in my son's house where my grandkids are playing, why would I spray another person's house where their kids are playing?"

-- Laura Wright

PLASTIC BOTTLES HAZARDS

EARTHTALK: Week of 10/28/2007

www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php?current

Dear EarthTalk: Are the rumors true that refilling and reusing some types of

plastic bottles can cause health problems?

-- Regina Fujan, Lincoln, NE

Most types of plastic bottles are safe to reuse at least a few times if properly washed with hot soapy water. But recent revelations about chemicals in Lexan (plastic #7) bottles are enough to scare even the most committed environmentalists from reusing them (or buying them in the first place). Studies have indicated that food and drinks stored in such containers—including those ubiquitous clear Nalgene water bottles hanging from just about every hiker’s backpack—can contain trace amounts of Bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic chemical that interferes with the body’s natural hormonal messaging system.

The same studies found that repeated re-use of such bottles—which get dinged up through normal wear and tear and while being washed—increases the chance that chemicals will leak out of the tiny cracks and crevices that develop over time. According to the Environment California Research & Policy Center, which reviewed 130 studies on the topic, BPA has been linked to breast and uterine cancer, an increased risk of miscarriage, and decreased testosterone levels. BPA can also wreak havoc on children’s developing systems. (Parents beware: Most baby bottles and sippy cups are made with plastics containing BPA.) Most experts agree that the amount of BPA that could leach into food and drinks through normal handling is probably very small, but there are concerns about the cumulative effect of small doses.

Health advocates also recommend not reusing bottles made from plastic #1 (polyethylene terephthalate, also known as PET or PETE), including most disposable water, soda and juice bottles. According to The Green Guide, such bottles may be safe for one-time use, but reuse should be avoided because studies indicate they may leach DEHP—another probable human carcinogen—when they are in less than perfect condition. The good news is that such bottles are easy to recycle; just about every municipal recycling system will take them back. But using them is nonetheless far from environmentally responsible: The nonprofit Berkeley Ecology Center found that the manufacture of plastic #1 uses large amounts of energy and resources and generates toxic emissions and pollutants that contribute to global warming. And even though PET bottles can be recycled, millions find their way into landfills every day in the U.S. alone.

Another bad choice for water bottles, reusable or otherwise, is plastic #3 (polyvinyl chloride/PVC), which can leach hormone-disrupting chemicals into the liquids they are storing and will release synthetic carcinogens into the environment when incinerated. Plastic #6 (polystyrene/PS), has been shown to leach styrene, a probable human carcinogen, into food and drinks as well.

Safer choices include bottles crafted from safer HDPE (plastic #2), low-density polyethylene (LDPE, AKA plastic #4) or polypropylene (PP, or plastic #5). Consumers may have a hard time finding water bottles made out of #4 or #5, however. Aluminum bottles, such as those made by SIGG and sold in many natural food and product markets, and stainless steel water bottles are also safe choices and can be reused repeatedly and eventually recycled.

CONTACTS: The Green Guide; Environment California; SIGG

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to E/The Environmental Magazine!

******************************************************************************************************************************

COMMENTS TO DEMOCRACY NOW ABOUT 8-1-07 PROGRAM ON WATER

Although I appreciate your putting forth some valuable information about problems with bottled water and privatization of water, I am concerned that some misinformation about tap water was allowed to stand in today's show. Please give similar time to Environmental Working Group (EWG), which has two important information pages on water at its website:

"Tap Water: To Drink or Not to Drink" includes data on tests of D.C. tap water and the hazardous chlorination products in it.

"Down the Drain" discusses widespread contamination by hormone-disrupting chemicals such as Phthalates, Bisphenol A and Triclosan. EWG concludes that the best option is to use carbon filters in faucet-mount (inexpensive), under-the-sink or whole-house units, or filter pitchers. (TIP does not recommend the latter because they involve water sitting for long periods of time in plastic).

You can find this information at:

www.ewg.org/reports/dctapwater

www.ewg.org/reports/downthedrain

See also an article on other water contaminants on our TIP website at:

www.toxicsinfo.org/environment/beauty_aids.htm

Again, I admire your program and thank you for bringing out some important points and issues. I just ask that you balance the coverage by reporting the very real problems with tap water - which is in fact not that pure in many places, where a variety of contaminants are not removed by processing.

Blessings,

Liberty G

********************************************************************************************

TIP TALKS - WINTER ISSUE, 2007

MEMBERSHIPS/DONATIONS

IF YOUR MEMBERSHIP IS UP FOR RENEWAL OR YOU WISH TO GIVE TIP SOME CHEER AND SUPPORT, CONSIDER USING OUR ONLINE CREDIT CARD OPTION! JUST GO TO: http://www.toxicsinfo.org/subscribe.htm (Old-fashioned checks to Toxics Information Project are also gratefully accepted.)

TOXICS INFORMATION PROJECT (TIP), P.O. Box 40572, Providence, RI 02940

Telephone (401) 351-9193, E-Mail: TIPTALKS@toxicinfo.org,

Website: www.toxicsinfo.org