The Soft Landing Blog » Phthalates

Toxic Chemical Lobby: Exclusive Leaked Footage [Video]

Alicia — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:57:36 +0000

Toxic chemicals aren’t sitting around passively, they’re wreaking havoc with our health, and even designing a PR campaign too make sure they don’t become outlaws!

The Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition is bringing the truth of this out-of-control situation to the forefront with a video created to galvanize public support for Congressional action. The characters you will meet in the video are cartoons, but the plot is ripped straight from the headlines. Enjoy and please share it with your friends, co-workers and family!

A Note from our Friends at the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition

Bisphenol A in baby bottles, water bottles, and food cans. Formaldehyde in furniture. Phthalates in air fresheners, soft plastics, and fragrances.

Scientists once thought these chemicals stayed put in their products, but now we know they leach out of their containers and into our bodies. These common chemicals have not been tested for safety, yet they are found in products we use every day — under your kitchen sink, in your bathrooms and bedrooms.

We need Congress to act now, to make sure the products we reach for, sleep on, and eat from every day aren’t loaded with toxic chemicals. You can help Congress stay strong in the face of chemical industry pushback but only if you speak out.

Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families believes that effective and comprehensive reform of TSCA will not only protect public health; it will also help American companies by spurring innovation and job creation dedicated to making the next generation of safer chemicals and products.

This is our time to make toxic chemicals history! Let’s tell Congress to strengthen and reform the law so that the most dangerous chemicals are taken off the market and that chemicals are safe for use before being added to products.

Chemicals aren’t sitting still – and neither should you! Click HERE to send a message to your Members of Congress now!

60 Minutes Asks: Are Phthalates Really Dangerous?

Alicia — Mon, 24 May 2010 14:08:30 +0000

Phthalates are found in an extraordinary number of everyday products. While it’s proven that the chemicals leach out of these products in high amounts, there’s still a bit of gray area in tying them, beyond all question, to health consequences. CBS News tackles these questions in the video below discusses. And as always, there are two sides to every story.

In the meantime, we parents are left wondering how best to protect our growing children. Do throw our lot in with the chemical industry, who claims the undeniable safety of phthalates? Or do we take precautions based on the available research? Is it safe to wait for more studies to be completed, risking genital deformities and infertility in our boys at an increasingly alarming level?

I’m sure you know where we stand on this issue. But we want to hear your thoughts as well. Have you decided on a wait and see, or on a precautionary route?

Watch CBS News Videos Online

>> You’ll find a large discussion of both sides of the story on the CBS website HERE.

PET (#1) Plastic May Leach Endocrine Disruptors

Alicia — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:50:36 +0000

If you’ve been following the current toxic plastic avoidance advice, you know that recycling category #1 (PET) has been considered a safer choice. We know it’s BPA-free, so we just use it once and recycle it, right? Well, that assumption may be wrong.

What is PET and Where is it Found?

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is the main ingredient in most clear plastic containers used for bottled water, soda, sports drinks, and condiments such as vinegar and salad dressing. PET bottles are also commonly used for the packaging of cosmetic products, such as shampoo, particularly when such products are sold in clear plastic bottles.

Does PET Leach Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals?

In a review published by Environmental Health Perspectives, Leonard Sax investigated evidence that bottles made from PET may leach various endocrine disrupting phthalates. He also considered evidence that leaching of antimony from PET containers may lead to endocrine-disrupting effects, but we’ll talk more about that in an upcoming article.

As you’ve probably noticed, “phthalate” is actually part of the PET name “polyethylene terephthalate” which begs the question about the plastic’s chemical makeup. In response, the plastics industry has emphasized a distinction between PET and phthalates. In a letter to Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), a spokesperson for the American Plastics Council wrote:

Plastic beverage bottles sold in the United States are made from a type of plastic known as polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Although polyethylene terephthalate (the plastic) and phthalate (the additive) may have similar names, the substances are chemically dissimilar. PET is not considered an orthophthalate, nor does PET require the use of phthalates or other softening additives. (Enneking 2006)

But is there more to the story? Mr. Sax says there is. He asserts that the available research suggests that phthalates are present in PET bottles, and that the concentration varies according to several factors:

Phthalates leach from the plastic into lower pH products such as soda and vinegar more readily than into bottled water
Temperature also appears to influence the leaching both of phthalates (and antimony), with greater leaching at higher temperatures
Combining both variations of low PH and high-heat exposure could result in an even higher leaching of phthalates
Variations in the composition and manufacture of PET may also influence the leaching of these substances into the contents of the bottle. PET is typically a homopolymer, but some copolymers are also categorized as PET (copolymers have been found to be less vulnerable to degredation, thus leaching less)

The author concludes that the evidence suggests PET bottles may yield endocrine disruptors under conditions of common use, particularly with prolonged storage and elevated temperature. And because of the widespread use of PET plastic worldwide, more research is needed to clarify how PET containers may be contaminated by endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Meet Me at Dr. Greene’s for a Series on Toxic Plastic

Alicia — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:33:00 +0000

I’m honored to be featured as Dr. Greene’s Perspectives blogger this week for a brand new, updated series on Toxic Plastic!

Here’s our schedule of topics for this week:

Monday: A little background on why I left nursing to research endocrine-disruptors found in food storage, baby teethers and toys

Tuesday: What is BPA?

Wednesday: What are Phthalates?

Thursday: What is PVC?

Friday: How to Avoid BPA, PVC and phthalates

We’ll be offering all of these new updates and how-to’s in a downloadable format soon, so you can take it with you to share with friends and family members who need a little more convincing

The Disappearing Male

Alicia — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:00:16 +0000

Wow. I’ve been immersed in the world of environmental toxin hazards for years, but The Disappearing Male documentary was shocking. It has a Doomsday feel to be sure, but the dramatic increases in genital deformities, low sperm count, sperm abnormalities and testicular cancer in males can no longer be ignored.

We’re just beginning to see the fall-out of chemicals that go vastly unregulated and untested. While it’s true that we can’t avoid every chemical, we can – and should – avoid known endocrine disruptors. Carve out 45 minutes to watch this video and share it with others – we owe it to our children.

Background Info Provided by CBC on The Disappearing Male

“We are conducting a vast toxicological experiment in which our children and our children’s children are the experimental subjects.” Dr. Herbert Needleman

The Disappearing Male is about one of the most important, and least publicized, issues facing the human species: the toxic threat to the male reproductive system.

The last few decades have seen steady and dramatic increases in the incidence of boys and young men suffering from genital deformities, low sperm count, sperm abnormalities and testicular cancer.

Some researchers say that declining male fertility rates could be the first sign of extinction.

At the same time, boys are now far more at risk of suffering from ADHD, autism, Tourette’s syndrome, cerebral palsy, and dyslexia.

The Disappearing Male takes a close and disturbing look at what many doctors and researchers now suspect are responsible for many of these problems: a class of common chemicals that are ubiquitous in our world.

Found in everything from shampoo, sunglasses, meat and dairy products, carpet, cosmetics and baby bottles, they are called “hormone mimicking” or “endocrine disrupting” chemicals and they may be starting to damage the most basic building blocks of human development.

>> READ Nora Chute’s excellent take on this documentary on Healthy Child Healthy World’s blog.

Phthalates May Harm Mental Development and Soften Bones

Alicia — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:06:49 +0000

Yep – phthalates are in the headlines again. This time with even more damning evidence in two recently released studies.

Bone Plasticizers?

Environmental Health News (EHN) discussed a study published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry in which phthalates were found to provoke DNA damage that can lead to bone cell death in mouse cells. According to the researchers, it is probable that chronic exposure to phthalates at low concentrations will affect new bone formation with implications on bone homeostasis and mineral density.

EHN explains the roll of estrogen-mimicking phthalates:

This study shows how a low-dose exposure to two types of commonly found phthalates has a profound effect on bone cells. Based on the results, long-term exposure to phthalates could have devastating effects on developing bones in young bodies and accelerate deterioration in aging bones. Estrogen deficiency is responsible for a number of bone diseases such as osteoporosis. For this reason, many are concerned about the effects of phthalate exposure on bone health.

It’s amazing to think that plasticizers are capable of working to soften bones the same way they soften plastic!

Girls with Decreased Mental Development?

To further condemn phthalates, Simple Steps (a resource of NRDC) reviewed a study by researchers at Mount Sinai Children’s Medical Health Center. They found that newborn girls whose mothers have high levels of phthalates contained in plastics show markedly lower levels of attention and alertness than newborn boys of similar mothers.

Significantly, this is one of the first studies to look at the effects of phthalates on infant girls. These chemicals have already been associated with altered male genital development, damage to DNA in sperm and decreased sperm quality. One cause for the altered behavior may be phthalate-related low thyroid levels in the mother and the effects of phthalates on thyroid levels have been documented. Because the mother supplies all of the fetus thyroid hormones during the first half of pregnancy when brain development is in its initial phases, low thyroid levels at this point can be very harmful.

Simple Steps recommends the following actions to avoid the damaging effects of phthalates:

Avoid buying plastics that may be treated with phthalates, including vinyl toys, shower curtains, gloves or other products. Look for “PVC”, “V” or the“3” recycling code on the object or its packaging.
If you have vinyl tiling in your home, damp mop regularly since phthalates bind to dust on the floor. Direct sunlight on vinyl tiles causes it to release phthalates more quickly so put lower blinds on windows that shine directly on flooring. Finally, if you’re already considering replacing the flooring, choose non-vinyl options such as cork, linoleum, wood or stone.
Toys with the worst phthalates should already be off the shelves, but check to see if toys you already own have them.
Look for products that don’t include fragrance in their ingredients.
When buying cosmetics, purchase from companies that have pledged not use phthalates.

And of course, shopping at The Soft Landing makes avoiding toxic chemicals easier because we offer only BPA, PVC and phthalate-free products

Dexbaby MilkBank Vacuum Storage System Review

Joanie — Mon, 25 May 2009 16:40:11 +0000

My first impression of the Milk Bank System was that it seemed like an overbuilt product and I just wasn’t sure it would be anything to write home about. But after using the system and seeing how it actually works, I discovered that they were definitely onto something here . . .

Positive Aspects:

It claims to protect vital nutrients and preserve flavor. I wanted to put that claim to the test and see how fresh it actually would keep the milk, so I decided to use cow’s milk that was one day from expiring. I refrigerated one vacuum storage container and froze the other, both for 5 days. Afterward, I tasted each and was amazed at the quality of milk. It was just as fresh as when I put it in the containers and tasted so good!
The feeding/storage bottles are convenient because you store it, freeze it, warm it and use it – all in the same container.
They are also quite durable: stuff in my freezer gets bumped around a lot and I don’t have to worry about these breaking or leaking in any way.
They are reusable and reduce waste in all senses of the word. No more filling the landfills with unneeded disposable breastmilk storage bags, it doesn’t waste precious breastmilk and can be used for multiple children in the years to come.
You definitely only have to buy it once. The warming bottle uses the feeding/storage bottles to deliver the milk to the baby while keeping it just the right temperature.
The system works great – this is truly a quality product.
Every piece of the system is made without BPA, PVC and phthalates, removing the worry of leaching chemicals during long-term storage.

Negative Aspects:

The system does have a lot of parts and it can be hard to keep track of all of them.
There is not an area for dating the expressed milk (I used masking tape and a marker); this would be a great addition to the system.
The pump has to be held tightly to the storage container to get maximum vacuum suction.
Because I work from home, I don’t do a whole lot of pumping and storing of breastmilk, so I’d be able to use the system without having to purchase additional storage bottles. This could be a drawback to mothers that need to be able to store many servings (the vacuum storage system with pump includes three feeding/storage bottles – additional storage bottles would be needed to use this system effectively).

If having high quality breastmilk from creation to consumption is a high priority, then this storage system is the one for you. I can’t imagine that any other system could possibly keep milk this fresh. You will feel assured that the milk your child is consuming, whether expressed a week or 6 months ago, is the best possible tasting milk you ever made.

Special Introductory Discount

Thank you to Dex Baby for letting us give it a try! We liked it so much that we’ve added it to our store and we’re offering you a 20% discount for the next week.

Enter “milkbank20” during checkout to take advantage of the savings

When is Vinyl not PVC?

Alicia — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:38:03 +0000

There is a growing awareness of PVC’s toxic nature, but the quest to avoid it is daunting. In order to successfully stay away from such a pervasive plastic, we need to take a closer look at what it is and where it’s found.

Common uses for PVC

PVC is everywhere and can be difficult to avoid. It’s commonly used in bath toys, teethers, baby bibs, pool toys, children’s playground ball pits, dog toys, shower curtains and in almost all non-slip bath mats. And that’s just for starters . . .

Is “vinyl” the same as PVC?

Vinyl is commonly used as a nickname for polyvinyl chloride (PVC). It can generally be assumed that a product is made with PVC when the term “vinyl” is used to describe it. This is a red flag so before buying, the product should be investigated further.

The Healthy Building Network offers an extremely informative article on PVC. They explain that in chemistry, the term “vinyl” actually has a broader meaning, encompassing a range of different thermoplastic chemical compounds. In addition to PVC, “vinyls” may also include:

Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA)
Polyethylene Vinyl Acetate (PEVA) a copolymer of polyethylene and EVA

EVA and PEVA are commonly used in baby teethers, bibs, inner water-proof lining of reusable food containers (lunch bags and sandwich wraps), shower curtains, shock absorber in tennis shoes, Crocs brand shoes, padding in equipment for various sports such as ski boots, and even biomedical engineering applications as a drug delivery device used within the body.

What makes PVC different from EVA and PEVA?

PVC is different because of the addition of chlorine. Chlorine is a major health concern associated with PVC, but it isn’t the only problem. Earth911 discusses the full effects PVC, and the facts are stunning:

Due to its chlorinated makeup, the entire life cycle of vinyl is responsible for the formation of more dioxin than any other single product. Dioxin is a well-known carcinogen and can affect the reproductive, immune, endocrine and neurological systems.
Chlorine production for PVC results in the release of over 200,000 pounds of mercury to air, water and land each year.
To make vinyl products flexible, controversial plasticizers known as phthalates are used, accounting for nearly 90 percent of total phthalate consumption. This translates into more than five million tons used for vinyl every year.
Lead is often added to vinyl construction products as a stabilizer to extend its life. It is estimated that 45,000 tons of lead each year are released into the environment during its disposal by incineration.

How do we avoid PVC?

Take an extra minute to investigate the materials used in products before you buy. You’ll need to assume that the term “vinyl” means PVC until you’ve been able to verify the details with manufacturer. The Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) recommends the avoidance of PVC and the alternative use of EVA and PEVA as safer substitutes to PVC in their campaign, PVC: The Poison Plastic.

>> Download CHEJ’s Pass Up the Poison Plastic PVC-Free Guide

>> Shop for PVC-free products at The Soft Landing.

Should Toys Made in the USA, Canada and Europe Be Exempt from Lead and Phthalate Testing?

Alicia — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:44:56 +0000

UPDATED 12/23/08 (see below)

My brain has been churning with the new CPSIA regulations on one hand, and numerous petitions calling for an exemption from testing for smaller toy makers on the other. My first response was a feeling of distress over what many bloggers describe as the imminent doom of many small toy companies. I went immediately to sign the petition put together by the Hand Made Toy Alliance, but as I read through the grievances and the proposed solutions, I became more unsettled than ever. I realized then that I wasn’t sure what I thought about this whole situation. So I handled it the way I always do – I stepped back from my emotional response and began asking myself the hard questions:

1) Didn’t I fight for mandatory lead and phthalate testing?

2) Are toys made in the USA (and the other countries deemed more “trustworthy” like Canada and Europe) really safer based solely on their origin?

3) Are the required tests for lead and phthalates truly so cost-prohibitive that small toy companies will be forced to close their doors forever?

4) When it comes down to it, would I really feel comfortable giving my child a toy that hasn’t been tested?

Here’s how everything shook out for me:

1) Yes – I fought for mandatory testing and now the CPSC is finally giving children the protection they’ve needed for years.

2) No – I’ve learned the hard way that the quality of a product doesn’t have as much to do with its country of origin as it does with the company doing the producing. In fact, I was prompted to write a FAQ on why we sell products made in China over nine months ago in response to the inquiries of concerned parents. This point was cemented by the 2008 HealthyToys.org test results, when numerous products made in countries deemed as “safe” by some of the circulating petitions proved to be loaded with lead and other chemicals. It’s just too simplistic to say that avoiding toys made in China will solve all of our problems and will keep our children safe. The HealthyToys.org FAQ speaks directly the issue of product origin in stunning clarity:

Are toys made in the USA safer than those made in other countries?

Eighty percent of all toys purchased in the U.S. are made in China. Therefore, the majority of toys that we tested were from China. HealthyToys.org has not found a consistent correlation between the country of manufacture and the presence of toxic chemicals in toys. 21% of toys from China and 16% of those from all other countries had detectable levels of lead in 2008. 17 toys manufactured in the U.S. were sampled and 35% of those had detectable levels of lead. Seven toys (2%) had levels above 600 ppm. One of the highest lead levels detected (190,943 ppm) was on a Halloween Pumpkin Pin made in the USA. In February 2009, the U.S. government will begin to phase in new restrictions on lead and some phthalates in children’s products. While these regulations are intended to become more stringent in the future, the U.S. does not currently regulate any other chemicals in kids’ products.

3) I don’t know – so far I’ve seen no hard, fast evidence that testing will be as cost prohibitive as everyone is assuming. Will Feb. 10, 2009 really end up being remembered as National Bankruptcy Day? Let’s say it did come to that – should I throw my support behind such an ambiguous set of testing exemptions? I’m not convinced.

4) No – I’m not willing to chance giving my child an untested toy. I certainly don’t want find out a year later when HealthyToys.org releases their 2009 report showing that the toy my baby has been teething on is chock-full of lead. It’s too late by that time, and there is no justifiable reason for chancing irreversible harm when I have the opportunity to prevent it.

After considering the issues most important to me, my own personal convictions will not allow me to support such general exemptions, no matter the size or origin of the company. Instead, I believe we need to look at safety testing as a basic cost of doing business.

UPDATE 12/23/08: I just came across a letter of petition posted at CapWiz.com titled “New Product Safety Legislation Needs Clarifications Now.” I read through the letter and found that I felt much more comfortable with its wording and overall requests. It doesn’t call for general exemptions based on country of origin or levels of production, but instead asks Congress to work with the CPSC in clarifying specifics of application and testing, as well as a allowing a more lenient and non-retroactive implemention schedule. It is directed more at the clothing and footwear, but is also applicable to toys made inteaded for babies to mouth:

Urge your members of Congress today to work with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to develop a pragmatic approach to the implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Strengthening our product safety system is an important goal, but this can only be achieved if there are predictable and commonsense regulations that address safety risks.

As you know, the August 14, 2008 legislation included a new ban on lead in children’s products (no more than 600 parts per million (ppm) by weight of any part of the product). According to the CPSIA, the new lead requirements take effect beginning February 10, 2009. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), however, has determined that this new requirement will apply to goods in inventory, as well as goods made on or after that effective date. This ruling effectively makes this new lead requirement retroactive. This means that product that I produced several months ago, and which is safe and legally compliant today, will not be able to be sold on February 10. This seems unfair, as it means we are being held responsible for a standard that didn’t even exist when we made those goods. Moreover, it will be extremely difficult – and in some cases impossible – to retroactively certify that individual goods already in the warehouses and on the store shelves meet the new lead standard.

In short, the ruling puts at risk millions of dollars of inventory.

Moreover, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has so far failed to provide clear guidance or issue regulations on how the new lead rules should apply to garments and footwear, even though this rule takes effect in just under 75 days. Guidance has thus far been provided in a piecemeal approach while the CPSC wades through a backlog of information requests and juggles multiple new rule makings with limited resources. Because of the incomplete guidance, we are being forced to undertake duplicative testing of components or to test elements of garments and footwear that are either inaccessible or that are inherently lead free. While testing forms an important validation, we do not see how these conflicting and burdensome requirements – especially for products and components that are inherently lead free – advance children’s safety.

I respectfully request your help ensuring that the CPSC institute rulemaking to clearly define the scope and applicability of the new lead regulations and testing requirements for apparel and footwear products. I also urge that CPSC announce and implement an orderly enforcement schedule that focuses initial phases on education of these new requirements. Finally, I believe the decision by the CPSC to apply the lead ban retroactively needs to be reconsidered as soon as possible since the practical impact of this decision, in today’s economic environment, will have an adverse effect at a time the government is spending billions to stimulate the economy.

>> READ about how the author of WAHM Solutions is trying to work through these same issues of unclear portions of the CSPIA regulations here. She explains how the regulations need more clarification in order to be implemented correctly by small business owners.

CHEJ’s New Guide Makes it Easy to Avoid the Dangers of PVC

Alicia — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:10:14 +0000

Mike Schade and his colleagues have created a masterpiece in Pass Up the Poison Plastic – the PVC-Free Guide for Your Family & Home. They’ve answered the call for a definitive explanation of why it’s worthwhile to avoid PVC, then followed through with a practical way to get it done.

Here’s a glimpse of what you’ll learn from the PVC Experts:

Top Ten Reasons to Buy PVC-Free Products
Quick Tips for Avoiding PVC
PVC-Free Products and Suppliers

We want to send a special Thank You to CHEJ for highlighting The Soft Landing as a leading PVC-free resource! We appreciate all of their hard work in providing cutting edge information on PVC – we learn from them constantly

>> Download your free PVC-free Guide here.