Frances Beinecke's Blog: Health and the Environment

Great Opportunity to Protect American Families from Toxic Chemicals

2010-04-21T18:16:45Z

Last week brought welcome news to anyone concerned about the prevalence of toxic chemicals in our everyday lives. Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced legislation and Congressmen Bobby Rush and Henry Waxman unveiled draft legislation to reform the grossly inadequate Toxic Substances Control Act.

It doesn’t require an advanced degree in chemistry to realize what is wrong with the current law.

If you have ever stood in a store trying to figure out if the baby shampoo you are buying includes phthalates--chemicals linked to altered genital development and low sperm count--then you already know.

Or if you have ever wondered if your loved one’s Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or other forms of cognitive decline may be associated with previous exposure to toxic chemicals, as some researchers are beginning to discover, then you already know.

Or, if like me, you are a breast cancer survivor, and you have asked your oncologist if bisphenol-A--one of the 50 most produced chemicals in the world and found in plastic water jugs, canned food liners, take-out food containers, and many other plastics--really does ramp up cell growth in breast tissue, then you already know.

You already know that the current law places the burden on ordinary citizens--and not the manufacturers--to detect dangerous toxins and keep them out of our homes.

We like to assume that someone is carefully regulating the levels of toxins in daily products, but that simply isn’t the case:

Of the 62,000 chemicals that existed when the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) was passed in 1976 were simply grandfathered in without additional testing or review.
Of the 22,000 chemicals that have come into use since then, industry has provided the EPA with health data for only 15 percent.

TSCA hasn’t even been able to ban asbestos!

If the law designed to safeguard us from toxic chemicals can only manage a small handful out of 84,000 over the course of 35 years, then it is obviously broken.

Now we have an opportunity to fix it. The Obama Administration supports reforming TSCA, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson has already asked Congress to provide her agency with better tools for managing chemicals. Last week, lawmakers in the House and Senate responded by introducing new bills.

Each bill will go a long way toward strengthening our chemical policies. They will:

Expand the public’s right to know about the health and safety effects of most chemicals
Require chemicals to meet a safety standard that protects children and other vulnerable populations
Put the burden on the chemical industry to prove that its products are safe

This is the best opportunity we have had in thirty-five years to fortify the shield that protects our families from dangerous chemicals.

Yet real reform will occur only if Americans make their voices heard. The Obama administration has a crowded domestic agenda, and in order for chemical reform to rise to the top, we must unleash public demand for it. And we must sustain that demand, because the chemical industry has very, very deep pockets with which to finance its opposition to progress.

Still, I believe that if enough people push our lawmakers to do the right thing, we can help keep our families safer. Please join me in spreading the word about this opportunity.

Earth Day Was a Ray of Optimism in a Dark Time

2010-04-09T17:00:33Z

I don’t remember exactly what I did on the first Earth Day 40 years ago, but I remember exactly how I felt: deeply relieved.

You have to realize, the spring of 1970 was a tumultuous time. I was a junior at Yale, but most of us were essentially on strike. We never went to class, because we were far too embroiled in the political upheaval around us.

Students were up in arms about the draft. Protests against the escalation in Vietnam had reached a fevered pitch--indeed four students would be shot dead by National Guardsmen at Kent State that May. Meanwhile the National Guard had descended on the streets of New Haven because Bobby Seale, the co-founder of the Black Panthers, was on trial downtown.

It was a tense, stressful time.

And in the midst of this came Earth Day. It was the opposite of all the chaos surrounding us. Instead of war and killing, Earth Day was about peace, love, and optimism.

It was a spontaneous eruption of idealism. Sure, we could all see the planet was going to hell, but here was a group of people who believed we could turn it around and make a real, lasting difference.

The spirit of Earth Day was like a positive lifeline for many of us who were feeling overwhelmed by those turbulent days. Here is a picture of my from that time.

I hadn’t yet started to call myself an environmentalist then. I was majoring in Urban Studies, and it wasn’t until later that summer when I was working for the New York City Health Department on lead poisoning that I started seeing the connections between what I cared about and the state of the environment. Within a few years, I would be working at NRDC, which also started in 1970.

But I was first moved by the optimism of that first Earth Day. There was an idealism about it that resonates with me still.

Of course, Earth Day has changed over the years, but the fact that is has reached its 40th anniversary is a testament to its enduring values. Earth Day began as a happening, a burst of conviction, but there were a lot of those back in 1970. Most died down after awhile.

Earth Day remains. Its power no longer resides on the Mall in Washington, but instead is spread out across the nation, in communities, schools, businesses, and every day lives. It has morphed into an annual reminder of our commitment to the environment.

It is a time for people to take environmental action on the ground where they live. It is also a time when journalists, CEO’s, and elected officials are called on to take stock of environmental actions. Granted plenty of green-washing goes on every April, but I am still grateful for the way Earth Day brings the environment into the forefront of public consciousness.

Because the only way to sustain Earth Day’s values is to make them the mandate of everyone, not just the environmental community.

As Earth Day approaches again, I urge you to think about ways you take environmental action in your life. Maybe it is switching to compact florescent light bulbs, using public transit more often, or calling your senators in support of clean energy and climate legislation.

Whatever shape your environmental commitment takes, use Earth Day to bring it to the next level. Remember, studies show that many small actions add up to enormous change. Then friend me on Facebook and tell me what you will be doing this Earth Day.

I have already started thinking about my Earth Day Resolutions (here is a post about past resolutions). I will soon be planting my garden, and this year I will try to make it more abundant. I am also exploring ways to make my home greener and to solve some of the challenges of retrofitting a 120-year-old house. I am also helping my daughter plan her wedding, and we hope to make it as green as possible, from using paperless, recycled or bamboo invitations to serving local Hudson Valley food and identifying the public transit options available in New York City.

And of course I will continue to push the Senate to pass clean energy and climate legislation later this spring. It will be a tough fight, but as the first Earth Day demonstrated, people taking positive action really can make a difference.

Climate Change "Pervasive, Wide-Ranging" White House Task Force Reports

2010-03-17T21:49:38Z

Climate change is already having "pervasive, wide-ranging" effects on "nearly every aspect of our society," a task force representing more than 20 federal agencies reported Tuesday.

"These impacts will influence how and where we live and work as well as our cultures, health and environment," the report states. "It is therefore imperative to take action now to adapt to a changing climate."

Indeed, climate change has begun to affect the ability of government agencies to fulfill their missions, reports the White House Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force.

The group is led by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

It is made up of representatives from more than 20 federal agencies, departments and offices, including the Department of Commerce, the National Intelligence Council, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Pentagon. That's diverse - and it's definitive.

President Obama convened the task force in October, directing it to look into whether climate change was affecting the United States and, if so, what might be done about it.

On Tuesday, the group issued preliminary findings. As to the question of whether climate change is impacting our country, the report is emphatic.

"The Task Force has found that climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, nearly every aspect of our society and the environment," the report states. "Some of the impacts are increased severity of floods, droughts, and heat waves, increased wildfires and sea level rise.

"Climate change impacts are pervasive, wide-ranging and affect the core systems of our society: transportation, ecosystems, agriculture, business, infrastructure, water, and energy, among others," the report continues. "Climate change already is affecting the ability of Federal agencies to fulfill their missions."

Strong stuff.

When reports like this come out of a White House task force, each word is parsed, discussed and vetted by all participants. It's a consensus document, meaning it reflects the view of the group as a whole. That makes writing the report a challenge, but it ensures authenticity and weight.

Those are two things notably lacking from the raft of climate change deniers who have been having a field day of late trying to rally an assault on science with a handful of stolen e-mails and a couple of minor errors in a 2,800-page report by the International Panel on Climate Change.

These same critics will likely try to paint the task force report in partisan terms. In fact, it relies on sound science developed over two decades through four administrations – two of them Republican, and two Democratic.

The White House task force tells us the truth. Our climate is changing, and it's affecting our country in fundamental ways.

One reason is that U.S. smokestacks and tailpipes will dump roughly 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere this year alone. That's nearly one-fifth of the world total of this heat-trapping pollution.

We can do better.

The clean energy and climate legislation being drafted in the Senate can put us on the path to curbing carbon pollution. It can put Americans back to work building the next generation of energy-efficient cars, homes and workplaces. And it can make our country more secure by cutting our dependence on foreign oil in half. It needs and deserves our support.

I look forward to October, when the task force issues its final report.

A few things, though, are already clear. Climate change is happening, right here, right now. It threatens our future, our children, our way of life. It's time we face the facts and deal with what's happening right before our eyes – before it’s too late.

Environmental Civil Rights and Andrew Goodman's Legacy

2009-11-22T18:42:24Z

I was humbled recently to learn that I was receiving a Hidden Heroes Award from the Andrew Goodman Foundation. This Sunday, I will be honored to accept the award at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture in Harlem.

The Hidden Hero Awards are just one expression of the remarkable mission of this foundation, which was launched after the murder of Andrew Goodman in 1964. Goodman was only 20 years old when he volunteered for Freedom Summer to register African Americans voters. On his first day in Mississippi, he set out with James Chaney and Michael Schwerner to visit a nearby church, but the three never returned.

Two years after his death, his parents Carolyn and Robert Goodman opened the Andrew Goodman Foundation to promote the values Andrew had lived and died for: universal civil rights, social justice, free speech, and social and political activism.

For me, receiving this award is an important reminder of the deep connections between civil rights and environmental justice. It is well known that people who live, work, and attend school in America's most polluted environments are most often people of color and the poor. This is no accident. Communities of color are routinely targeted to host facilities that bring negative environmental impacts--things like landfills, dirty industrial plants, or truck depots.

Communities of color have been fighting environmental racism for decades, and I am pleased to be able to say NRDC has played a role in some of these battles. We have partnered with local groups to fight polluters, and continually advocate for more just environmental safeguards at the city, state, and federal levels.

Our work ranges from partnering with WE ACT in West Harlem to limit pollution from a sewage treatment plant to pushing port terminals around the nation to adopt cleaner shipping and trucking technologies that prevent pollution from falling on nearby low- and working-class communities.

I am proud of NRDC's work, but Andrew Goodman's legacy reminds me that we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us in the civil rights and environmental justice movement, and that there is so much more to do.

The accomplishments--and sacrifices--of our previous leaders drive me to ensure that NRDC's work continues to advance justice in all that we do.

Just What the Doctor Ordered: Climate Change, Public Health, and Clean Energy

2009-05-18T18:16:28Z

Six years ago, the only people I talked to about global warming were other environmentalists. Now it is the top of the agenda for everyone from corporate CEOs to national security hawks. Last week, another sector joined in the growing chorus to confront the climate crisis: public health.

The Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, just released a report along with the University College London that calls climate change "the biggest global health threat of the 21st century."

That makes it bigger than AIDS, bigger than malaria, and bigger than pandemic flu. And that's why the authors are calling for an international public health advocacy movement dedicated specifically to curbing global warming. The doctors' prescription is clear: low-carbon living will generate major health benefits.

The link between global warming and human health was brought home to me last summer when I traveled through the Arctic Ocean on an expedition to see the signs of global warming up close. As I expected, there were several climate scientists on the ship as well as US lawmakers and environmental leaders. But I was surprised to discover that the director of the Center for Disease Control was also onboard. Health officials at the highest levels are beginning to take global warming very seriously.

The Lancet report indicates why. Its findings include:

Extreme heat waves will cause more deaths; in 2003, Europe got a hint of this when up to 70,000 extra deaths were linked to intense heat waves across the continent.
Changes patterns of infections and insect-born disease will threaten could have devastating impacts on human health.
Reduced water and food availability will lead to malnutrition and diarrheal disease, which can be deadly in impoverished communities.
Within the next 20 years, declining crop yields--brought on by climate change--could increase food insecurity. And by 2100, half of the world's people could face severe food scarcity, as rising temperatures take their toll on farmers' crops.

The Lancet makes it clear that these impacts will land disproportionately hard on the poorest among us. This includes the victims of the Darfur genocide, the millions of people living in the flood plains of Bangladesh, and the inhabitants of Lagos, Mumbai, and other low-lying cities who are too poor to move away from rising seas.

These looming realities give a moral urgency to stopping global warming. The climate crisis was caused by humans, and I believe we can solve it as well. But at the same time we are fighting to put low-carbon solutions in place, we also have to pay close attention to ways human health is already being endangered.

NRDC's Global Warming & Health Project is fast at work on this. As my colleague, Dr. Kim Knowlton points on in her recent post, NRDC reports have already charted future changes in unhealthy ground-level smog, elevated heat-related deaths, and changing climate-ozone-pollen patterns. You can find overviews of this work at the NRDC's Global Warming and Health website.

And as you read NRDC's information and the Lancet findings, remember that we can stave off the worst of these health problems by reducing our global warming pollution.

The clean energy bill that is moving through the House right now is just what the doctor ordered.

Growing Green: Honoring Leaders Who Are Changing the Way We Farm and Eat

2009-05-08T20:01:08Z

Tomorrow night NRDC will do something it has never done before: give out the inaugural Growing Green Awards to leaders in the sustainable food movement. Selected by a panel chaired by Michael Pollan, the best-selling author of the Omnivore's Dilemma, the winners will be celebrated at NRDC's San Francisco benefit.

Why is an organization better known for its policy papers than its culinary expertise wading into foodie territory?

For two critical and timely reasons. First, food production takes an enormous toll on the environment--from spilling pesticides into our drinking water to releasing fossil fuels into the atmosphere. NRDC's Growing Green Awards recognize that sustainable food is potent way to solve multiple ecological challenges at once.

And second, we want to honor the people who have fed America's growing interest in better farming and eating. From the White House garden to the school cafeteria, more and more people want healthier options for their families.

I myself have recently embraced new habits. Two of my daughters are serious sustainable agriculture enthusiasts, and last year, they inspired me to plant a garden in our yard in the Bronx. Now, in addition to the deliveries from our community sustainable agriculture program, we have homegrown kale, chard, lettuce, carrots, and, unlike President Obama, beets.

We also eliminated beef from the family diet. Between the environmental devastation from factory farms and the large carbon footprint that comes from the beef industry, my family decided this was the right commitment for us to make.

Just five years ago, these choices would have seemed unusual outside of a few progressive centers. But today, they are becoming mainstream. Farmers markets, organic food sections in supermarkets, and locally sourced menus are commonplace now. (Click here to see which local foods are available in your area right now.)

The Growing Green Awards celebrate the people who helped unleash this transformation. These are the people who roll up their sleeves and give us the models for how farming and food preparation can best nurture us and the planet.

Here are the winners of this year's Growing Green Awards:

Will Allen has won the Growing Green Award for food producers. As the founder of the Growing Power National Training and Community Food Center, has pioneered a closed-loop system in which water from fish tanks is used to fertilize organic vegetables--all in the heart of urban Milwaukee. (Read this feature on Allen's award in the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal.)
Fedele Bauccio has won the Growing Green award for business leaders. Bauccio, the founder and CEO of Bon Appetit Management Company, has been a pioneer in the food industry, and offered an excellent example that even large food industry companies can embrace sustainable practices.
James Harvie has won the Growing Green award for thought leaders. Harvie, a founding member of Health Care Without Harm, works to remind the health care industry what should be obvious but isn't: health care institutions should promote food that keeps our bodies and our environment healthy.

Breast Cancer Risk and the Air We Breathe

2009-05-05T18:49:25Z

Last week, the American Lung Association came out with its annual State of the Air report, and concluded that six out of every ten Americans live in communities with unhealthy air. I read these results not only as the head of environmental organization, but also as a breast cancer survivor.

What does breast cancer have to do with air pollution? Most of us are familiar with the connection between smog-covered skies and asthma attacks. (See my colleague David Pettit's recent post about what Southern California's pollution does to its residents.)

But there are also over 200 chemicals in air pollution--called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)--that may also lead to cancer, including cancer of the breast. PAHs are the chief component of soot, and enter the air via burning of coal, oil, diesel, gasoline, wood, garbage, tobacco, and even charbroiled meat.

I also read the study's results as a mother. My three daughters--who already have an elevated risk of breast cancer because of my diagnosis--have recently lived in the heavily polluted cities of Johannesburg, Amman, and New York. The United States has taken some steps to reduce air pollution--it still needs to do much more--but tens of millions of women and girls around the globe are exposed to alarmingly high levels of carcinogenic pollutants.

What Air Pollution Can Do to Breast Tissue

Scientists are just beginning to understand the connections between PAHs and breast cancer, but here is what they have discovered so far.

PAHs have caused mammary tumors in rats, and they appear to increase breast cancer risk in a variety of ways. Common PAHs mimic estrogen, and elevated levels of the hormone are known to contribute to tumor growth.

But there is another, more insidious way that PAHs threaten our health. Once in the body, PAHs can bind to genetic material (DNA) and form something with the ungainly name of PAH-DNA adducts. These adducts jumpstart a series of cell changes that can short circuit cell signals, interfere with DNA repair within cells, and ultimately lead to DNA mutations.

I know from my experience being tested for the so-called breast cancer genes that genetic mutations can lead your cells down paths you don't want them to go.

Several studies have connected high levels of PAH-DNA adducts and breast cancer. One study, from the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project, discovered that women with the highest levels of PAH-DAN adducts had a 50 percent increased risk of breast cancer. Another compared breast tissue from women who had breast cancer with women who had benign breast diseases and found that the cancerous samples were two times as likely to have PAH-DNA adducts.

PAHs, Cigarette Smoke, and Breast Cancer Risk

PAHs don't just come from diesel trucks and industrial smoke stacks. They also come from cigarette butts. PAHs in tobacco smoke have been linked to breast cancer, but there is a window when women are particularly vulnerable: the teen years.

If a girl is exposed to secondhand smoke during the time when her breasts are developing through puberty, she is more at risk for getting breast cancer later than a woman who breathes in secondhand smoke after she gives birth to her first child.

A study sponsored by the California Air Resources Board found that women exposed to secondhand smoke have up to 90 percent greater risk of developing breast cancer. And in 2006, the California EPA concluded: "overall, the weight of evidence...is consistent with a causal association between [environmental tobacco smoke] exposure and breast cancer in younger, primarily pre-menopausal women."

Now We Need Prevention

There is a lot more we need to learn about the way PAHs interfere with human cell function, but we know enough to start protecting ourselves from this hazard.

Here are NRDC's recommendations for reducing breast cancer risk for women and their daughters:

Pass tougher standards for diesel-burning vehicles, a leading source of PAHs. Thanks in part to NRDC, pollution from diesel trucks and even off-road vehicles has declined, but diesel fleets could still become cleaner.
Enforce the Clean Air Act provisions that protect the public against cancer risks greater than 1 in 1 million caused by toxic air pollution from industrial polluters. The Bush administration refused to achieve this level of protection and instead adopted policies accepting cancer risks as high as 250 in 1-million and even 400 in 1 million. The Obama administration can and should do better.
Forbid the use of federal funds in connection with any project--such as an expansion of diesel-heavy shipping terminal--that can be shown to increase cancer risk by more than 1 in a million.
Require that all existing coal-fired power plants adopt modern pollution controls.
Ban the incineration of industrial waste.
Extend nonsmoking bans in the workplace and public spaces to reduce the risks from secondhand smoke.

Here are a few ways you can protect yourself from PAH exposure:

Stop smoking, urge those you love to stop smoking, and limit your time in the presence of smokers.
Avoid spending significant time in the freeway traffic, where in-vehicle exposure can run high.
Avoid living, working, or attending school directly adjacent to freeways, where pollution levels spike (for instance, within 500 feet).

Phasing out Phthalates & Clearing the Air

2009-03-12T14:44:25Z

SC Johnson, the maker of some of the world's most popular household cleaning products, has just announced two bold steps that will help consumers make healthier choices. First, the company will provide ingredient information for all of its air care and home cleaning products and second, it will phase out its remaining use of phthalates, a class of hazardous chemicals. Now that SC Johnson has shown real leadership in committing to a consumer's right to know, we hope other companies will follow.

Putting the names of chemical ingredients on air fresheners or bathroom cleaners doesn't mean those ingredients have been studied and found to be safe. But it is the critical first step in the process. Once we know what is commonly being used, we can start assessing its safety. And most important, consumers can make informed decisions.

Take phthalates for instance. Phthalates are commonly used to make plastic more flexible or carry fragrance in products, yet these chemicals may disrupt hormone functioning, cause abnormalities in sexual organs, and lead to male infertility. While the European Union has laws banning the use of certain phthalates, here in America, manufactures don't even have to list them on their labels.

When NRDC public health specialists were trying to identify phthalates in air fresheners, we had to send the products to a lab and pay for elaborate testing. Even the EPA is in the dark. Last year, NRDC asked the agency to take action on phthalates in air fresheners, but the agency admitted it had no idea what was in those products.

SC Johnson's recent announcement will help change that. Not only will consumers know SC Johnson products are free of phthalates (as of 2012), but now they can find out which ingredients are in the cleaners and air fresheners they use by reading the labels, going to a website (in English and Spanish), or using a toll-free number.

What is promising to me is that SC Johnson has made this move voluntarily, after NRDC raised the issue of phthalates in air fresheners last year. It's also promising that this move could signal a broader response to the public opposition to lack of information and unsafe chemicals in household products. Public concern is starting to move not only individual companies like SC Johnson, but the marketplace as a whole, as well as public policy (including a Congressional ban on six phthalates in toys and children's products, and various state laws).

People who buy SC Johnson products let the company know they were concerned about ingredients and wanted more information. The company's response is a testament to the power of consumers to make a difference.

America Leads on Major Human Health Victory: Curbing Mercury Pollution

2009-02-26T17:05:11Z

Over the past year, I have noticed a disturbing trend. More and more people approach me to say that they or someone they love has dangerously high levels of mercury in their system. When actor Jeremy Piven recently bowed out of a Broadway play due to mercury poisoning, the media responded with skepticism. But the truth remains that too many people are at risk from this preventable health hazard.

Last week, the Obama administration took action to help reverse this trend. At international UN negotiations in Nairobi, American representatives threw their support behind an agreement to reduce global mercury pollution.

This in turn prompted China and India to back the treaty, and as a result, more than 140 countries signed on to begin negotiating a legally binding effort that will restrict the international mercury trade, control emissions of mercury from coal-fired power plants and other sources, and phase out the use of mercury in products and industry.

This was a bold reversal of U.S. policy. For six year, the Bush administration blocked international efforts to cut mercury. But President Obama was an early leader in the fight to curb mercury pollution. Several years ago, he read a newspaper article about this dangerous neurotoxin, and like parents everywhere, he was concerned about exposing his children to unsafe chemicals.

Mercury travels through air and water thousands of miles from its original source.
Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury air pollution, emitting 50 tons of mercury pollution every year in the U.S. alone.
Mercury accumulates in large predatory fish, and poisons people mainly through the consumption of contaminated fish, including tuna.
It is especially dangerous for pregnant women, babies and small children, as it can gravely impede brain development.
The EPA estimates that every year hundreds of thousands of American newborns are at risk for problems with fine motor skills and learning difficulties as a result of their mothers' fish consumption during pregnancy.
Emerging research also links mercury exposure with cardiovascular disease in adult men.

As a senator, Obama decided to sponsor a bill to ban U.S. exports of mercury. It garnered bipartisan support and was signed into law last year by then President George W. Bush. Yet because mercury is traded on a global market and its pollution can travel thousands of miles, the new U.S. law was only a first step

The commitment America helped secure in Nairobi is the critical follow up. It will substantially reduce mercury contamination in fish, prevent mercury poisoning in our water, and shield our children from this dangerous chemical. It is truly a momentous human health victory in our battle to make mercury poisoning a thing of the past.

President Obama: Continue to Lead on Restricting Mercury

2009-01-30T17:49:06Z

President Obama has deftly used his time in office to make bold statements on everything from Guantanamo to global warming. In two weeks, he will have another opportunity to send a message to the world that the United States is under new leadership. On February 16, the international environmental community will gather in Nairobi to decide on a global agreement to restrict the dangerous neurotoxin mercury--something the Bush administration blocked for six years.

This is a critical moment. It is the first international environmental meeting during the Obama administration at which a major decision must be made. It is an opportunity for the new administration to demonstrate to the world that the United States is committed to joining international efforts to protect people's health and the environment, rather than block them at every turn.

And it is a chance for President Obama to build on his already impressive efforts to restrict mercury. A few years ago, then-Senator Obama read an expose in his hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, about high levels of mercury in canned tuna, and he became committed to protecting people from this hazard. His staff approached the environmental community and proposed working together to address the problem.

Although his interest was spurred by a local news story -- like parents everywhere, Senator Obama was concerned about exposing his children to unsafe chemicals (click here for a wallet guide to mercury in fish) -- he recognized an important part of the problem: mercury is a global pollutant that does not observe national borders. Mercury released from U.S. power plants may travel to Europe, while mercury escaping from outdated chemical factories in India can easily turn up in fish caught by anglers in the Great Lakes or sold at a Manhattan grocery store. It is a global problem that needs a global solution.

Senator Obama reached across party lines, and with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski sponsored an impressive bill to ban U.S. exports of mercury. Ultimately, the bill garnered strong support from both the environmental community and the mining and chemical industries, and on October 15, 2008, it was signed into law.

Now President Obama can take the U.S. commitment one step further by endorsing an international agreement on mercury. The agreement could restrict the international trade of commodity mercury, phase out mercury from products such as thermometers and dental amalgams, reduce the use of mercury in industrial processes, and limit emissions from major sources such as coal-burning power plants.

Fortunately, many of these goals are readily achievable. For almost every product and industrial process using mercury, there is a cost-effective, readily available, and often energy-efficient alternative. For instance, since the 1800s, people have made chlorine and caustic soda using mercury as a catalyst. But in the 1970s, a much cleaner process was developed that uses no mercury. The international agreement can provide a strong incentive for industries to shift from the 19th century technology to the newer, cleaner process.

But this negotiation is not just about mercury. For the past eight years, the United States has abdicated its international leadership. Here is one of the first opportunities to show the world that the United States is no longer an obstructionist, but a constructive leader once again.

Household Trash Is Managed Better than the TVA’s Coal Ash

2009-01-08T19:22:11Z

Americans have been assaulted on the airwaves with ads about so-called "clean coal." What happened in East Tennessee, where a breach of a coal ash pond at a power plant send a billion gallons of toxic sludge into nearby communities, proved once again just how false that myth is. But it also revealed something many Americans didn't know: our government has failed utterly to regulate the 1,300 coal ash dumps across the country.

The New York Times quoted a specialist as saying: "Your household garbage is managed much more consistently" than this toxic coal ash.

While your municipal government does a good job of handling your trash, the Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to protect Americans from hazardous waste. Coal ash fits the bill.

Coal ash is what's left over after the combustion process that produces electricity. It contains high levels of arsenic and other heavy metals such as cadmium and chromium. Among the greatest concerns is arsenic, which causes bladder, kidney, liver, lung, prostate, and skin cancer. Studies have shown that arsenic in the levels found in drinking water contaminated by coal ash raise cancer risks several hundred times.

I am a cancer survivor, and while my specific cancer is not on that list, I am outraged that our government's negligence is contributing to other people's cancer diagnosis and the fear and devastating treatment that goes with it.

Back in 2000, the EPA committed to developing national regulations for storing coal ash. But the coal and utility industries pushed back, complaining it would cost too much to take care of their own waste--the byproduct of making a profit. Since then, the agency has failed even to propose regulations, never mind enact them.

Meanwhile, communities around the nation remain vulnerable not just to explosive disasters like the one in Tennessee, but also to the slow poisoning of drinking water. In 2007, the EPA's own scientists identified 67 coal and oil ash dump sites that had contaminated groundwater and wells (see the map here.) Still the agency has done nothing to protect us.

It's time to change that. The EPA should designate coal ash as a hazard and establish strict pollution controls for all coal ash dumps. In the meantime, the TVA should provide free medical testing for all the families who request it in the region near the disaster. No one should become ill because of the TVA's or the EPA's failures.

In Memory of a Toxics Warrior

2008-12-22T22:11:46Z

It is with great sadness that I write about the passing of our dear friend and colleague Al Meyerhoff.

A leader in NRDC's San Francisco office from 1981 to 1998, Al was a potent force for NRDC and the environment. He was an aggressive litigator, fighting against exposure to toxic chemicals and for improved health -- for all of us, but with particular focus on those working on farms and in factories, people living in poverty, all who needed the public interest bar to represent them against the pesticide and chemical industry. Al was a great champion of California's Prop 65, using it relentlessly to go after chemical industry abuses.

Al was not only a great litigator, he was an immensely effective communicator and writer, penning off op-eds a mile a minute. He championed our outreach beyond the environmental community to labor and health organizations, to Hollywood, to those involved in progressive politics. While at NRDC, he testified before Congress more than 50 times.

He was more than hugely accomplished, he was also great fun. He was irreverent, funny and always ready to have a good time. He regaled us with stories, challenged us with new strategies, identified people we should get to know and work with. At a dinner he hosted last winter in Los Angeles, Al spoke with such passion and pride about all that NRDC does.

Al represented the very best of NRDC. I will really miss him. We all will.

What's Worse than Chemo? A Common Toxin that Renders It Less Effective

2008-12-16T22:03:56Z

I had breast cancer almost ten years ago, and I found chemotherapy to be more trying than I could have imagined. I prefer to leave it in the past, but recent reports brought it all back and triggered an alarming question: what if a common, everyday toxin made my chemo cocktail less effective?

The New York Times recently reported that Bisphenol-A, also known as BPA, is the culprit. And yet this week, the Washington Post wrote that the FDA has decided maintain its do-nothing position on the toxin.

BPA is among the 50 most produced chemicals in the world. It is found in plastic water jugs labeled #7, baby bottles, canned food liners, soda bottles, and take-out containers from your local deli. I have catalogued the crimes of BPA on this blog before, but this is new information.

According to a study in the journal Environmental Health Perspective, scientists injected low levels of BPA--similar to the levels most American adults carry in their blood every day--into human breast cancer cells in test tubes. They found that the BPA acted like estrogen and actually induced proteins to PROTECT CANCER CELLS from the chemo.

Chemotherapy is a gross tool--it kills most fast-growing cells in the body, not just the cancer cells. But at the same time, it is highly sensitive. My oncologist warned me not to take any vitamin or herbal supplements during the course of my treatment because they could interfere with the chemo's efficacy. And every breast cancer survivor knows we must avoid anything that acts like estrogen, since that hormone fuels breast cancer growth.

How could I have known that a toxin I was exposed to every day could have lowered the chemo's chances of working? The Times quoted a cancer specialist saying that BPA is "protecting existing cancer cells from dying in response to anti-cancer drugs, making chemotherapy significantly less effective."

Going through the insult of chemotherapy is bad enough. But discovering that it could be undermined by a hazard the FDA refuses to regulate makes it worse.

As late as October, the FDA continued to claim that it was safe to have BPA in America's food supply--despite the fact that the agency's own panel of external scientists said the FDA's analysis was inadequate and ignored more than a dozen relevant studies. This week, the agency said it has no plans to change that position.

I count myself among the lucky ones: my cancer has not recurred. But I can not help but be outraged and concerned for the women whose treatment may not be as powerful as it should be. That's why NRDC will keep the pressure on the FDA until it bans BPA from our food supply.

Breast Cancer Awareness: From Pink Ribbons to a Right to Know Law

2008-10-28T17:40:39Z

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I am a breast cancer survivor, and in the years immediately after my diagnosis, I sometimes found the annual proliferation of pink ribbons difficult--it was hard to be reminded of cancer every time I went into the grocery store or read the newspaper.

Despite those tough moments, I am deeply grateful to the many people and institutions that use October to call attention to this disease. Still, I recommend one critical change in this effort. To get at some of the root causes of breast cancer, I think we should change the name to National Right to Know Month.

You may have seen these figures in breast cancer PSAs this month:

Between 1973 and 1998, breast cancer rates in the United States have risen by more than 40 percent.
Women born in the 1960s are twice as likely to get breast cancer as their grandmothers.

But you may not have heard about these closely related numbers:

Right now, there are about 80,000 synthetic chemicals in use here in America.
Only 7 percent of those chemicals have been fully studied for their impacts on humans.

What do these two sets of data have to do with each other? We are only beginning to find out, and that is the problem.

BPA in Plastics Linked to Tumor Growth

Take just one of those chemicals, bisphenol-A, or BPA as it is known. BPA is among the 50 most produced chemicals in the world. It is also a synthetic form of estrogen, and estrogen feeds breast cancer. The estrogen-like properties in BPA are so strong that even when male rodents were exposed to it, they had an increased risk of mammary tumors.

Another alarming study found that when normal breast tissue is exposed to BPA at levels we face everyday it can cause changes in gene expression similar to those seen in highly aggressive breast tumors.

In humans, estrogen can ramp up cell division in pre-cancerous cells and prompt tumors to metastasize. I will never forget when my oncologist explained to me what that means: when breast cancer spreads to another part of the body there is no cure.

The FDA Still Allows BPA in Common Products

Despite the growing alarm--and media attention--about the health hazards of BPA, it continues to be a building block of products we use in our daily lives. It is found in plastic water jugs labeled #7, baby bottles, baby formula cans, and canned food liners to take-out containers from your local deli--to name a few.

The FDA is currently evaluating the safety of BPA in food products and members of Congress have introduced bills that would phase out use of BPA. NRDC had to push the FDA's sluggish efforts along: last week NRDC petitioned the agency to ban BPA from food packaging (see my colleague Sarah Janssen's blog).

If Calories Are on the Label, Why Not Carcinogens?

But until BPA is banned and safe replacements are found, we have a right to know when it appears in our food and household goods. The same should be true for BPA's cousins--other endocrine disrupters like phthalates, which are linked to infertility and cancer yet appear in cosmetics, food, and air fresheners.

Thanks to concerns about obesity, food packaging must now notify us about trans fats. Why not a possible carcinogen? Thanks to concerns about the environment, factories must publicly report every chemical they emit into the air and water. Why not every chemical that goes into the product in our homes?

If the government won't protect us from the chemicals themselves, at least consumer should be able to make an informed choice. Here is what you can do.

Avoid known sources BPA. Buy BPA-free baby bottles, opt for glass jars or paper bricks of food instead of metal cans, and avoid water bottles made from polycarbonate plastic and labeled #7.
Use your consumer muscle. Many products include a phone number on the packaging: Use it. If there is a canned soup you like, but you are worried about its safety, call the manufacturers and ask them if there is BPA in their linings. When manufacturers start hearing from consumers, they do take notice.
Contact your representatives. Demand more rigorous labeling laws and more funding for independent, scientific studies of endocrine disruptors.

Honeybees, NRDC's Lawsuit, and EPA's Discontent

2008-09-04T17:34:11Z

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency registered its discontent with NRDC. Why? Because it claims we are overstepping by asking a public agency to share more public information.

Maybe you don’t view the behavior of honeybees as a matter of public interest. But how about the successful pollination of some of our most common food crops, such as apples, onions, cherries, even the vanilla that goes into your favorite ice cream? Personally, I view $15 billion worth of American food that bees pollinate each year as a public matter. Unfortunately, the government agency tasked with keeping our crops and environment safe failed to make its relevant information public.

A couple of weeks ago, NRDC had to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to hand over records about clothianidin, a pesticide suspected of playing a role in Colony Collapse Disorder—the name given to the rapid decline of almost 30 percent of the honeybee populations that pollinate our food.

No one knows exactly what is causing Colony Collapse Disorder, but France and Germany suspended the use of the pesticide because of concerns that it may be linked to the bees’ demise. Both nations are conducting further studies, and scientists and farmers around the world are eager for any pertinent information they can find.

The EPA Has Information That Could Help

That’s where the EPA comes in. Back in 2003, the agency gave conditional approval for using clothianidin in the United States, but it required the manufacturer to submit studies on how the pesticide might impact bees.

Did the studies ever get completed and filed? What did the studies reveal? How did EPA evaluate the information in deciding to leave the pesticide on the market, and what else did the agency consider? The EPA wouldn’t tell us, so we filed a Freedom of Information Act request. When the agency stonewalled further, we sued them. The EPA wasn’t happy, and it posted a letter to me on the agency’s website.

The Agency Asked Us to File a FOIA Request

We would prefer not to have to resort to FOIA requests and lawsuits in order to review documents that should be available to the public in the first place. It is costly and time consuming. But in this case, the EPA expressly asked us to file a FOIA request after it declined to hand over the records informally.

According to FOIA rules, an agency has 20 days to furnish the request, but the deadline passed and NRDC still hadn’t received relevant information.

Letters of Receipt Don’t Count as Substantive Information

The EPA claims it responded to our requests with two letters. The first one we received said that the agency had received our request. The second one (posted August 18, the day we filed our lawsuit, and not received until August 20) said that the agency still had not made a final determination on our requests.

This kind of bureaucratic reaction doesn’t count as a meaningful response to our call for scientific studies. And it certainly doesn’t meet the agency’s legal obligation to provide a final ruling on our FOIA request within 20 days.

You Call That Transparency?

In the agency’s letter to me, it claims the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Program “sets the bar” for transparency and public participation. NRDC begs to differ. The program has repeatedly refused to disclose information in response to FOIA requests until months or even years after the deadline. Several times, federal judges have rebuked the Office of Pesticide Programs in cases NRDC was forced to litigate regarding the EPA’s lack of transparency.

There has even been significant press coverage of the agency’s repeated private negotiations with the pesticide industry on key regulatory decisions—to the exclusion of public health and environmental groups.

The Public Has a Right to Know

The most important issue here is that there is still no complete public record of the agency decision that NRDC is concerned about here: the EPA’s approval of a new pesticide dispute expressing significant concerns about harm it may cause to bees.

The agency has posted some information on its website since our lawsuit, but we will push until all relevant material is shared. We believe that a decision about a pesticide which might impact what the USDA says is one-third of the diet of the average American should be made openly. The public has a right to know.