Sunscreen Safety Questioned

  • Many chemicals in sunscreens have not been tested for safety. (Photo courtesy of U.S. General Services Administration).

An environmental group is critical of the claims by many sunscreen manufacturers. They’re calling for better regulation of the industry by the government. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

An environmental group is critical of the claims by many sunscreen manufacturers. They’re calling for better regulation of the industry by the government. Lester Graham reports:

Health experts say sunscreen should not be your first line of defense for protection from the sun. They recommend protective clothing and staying in the shade.

Once you’re out in the sun, though, health experts say sunscreen is a must.

But a new study by the Environmental Working Group found a lot of problems with sunscreens. The study says many contain suspect chemicals, some known as hormone disruptors. And Sonya Lunders says her group is skeptical about sunscreens that claim SPF protection of 50 and as high as 100.

“And we know that those products don’t offer a similar amount of protection from the sun-damaging UVA rays.”

Giving users a false sense of security about protection from sun damage.
Of the hundreds of sunscreens on the market, the group only recommends 39 of them on its website.

It blames the FDA for allowing a lot of confusing claims about sunscreens.

For the Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham

New Food Safety Law?

  • Representative Bart Stupak has investigated food contamination problems from peanut butter to spinach. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

A bill to make the food system safer is stalled in the Senate. Lester Graham reports… the bill’s supporters in the House say they hope for a Senate vote soon.

Transcript

A bill to make the food system safer is stalled in the Senate. Lester Graham reports… the bill’s supporters in the House say they hope for a Senate vote soon.

Representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, has investigated food contamination problems from peanut butter to spinach. The House has already passed a bill Stupak supported to keep track of food in case there is a contamination problem.

“Traceability from the time it’s planted in the field, harvested in the field, processed at the warehouse, shipped to the store that traceability is a big part of it.”

“There’s been a lot of concern about overlap of agency responsibility and gaps in responsibility. Will the legislation address that?”

“I think some of those gaps have been closed. Not all of them! But, I think some of them have been. I would still rather see us limit where food enters this country so you can have some control over it and by control I just mean inspection.”

Stupak says the Senate will likely take it up the food safety bill once the Senators finish with Wall Street financial overhaul legislation.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Overestimating the Organic Label

  • The "organic" label means that food's grown without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, but Lee says some shoppers think it means "healthy" in other ways.(Photo courtesy of Mica M CC-BY-SA)

Researchers have known for a while that food labels, such as “low in fat,” can mislead dieters into thinking they’re eating healthy. Shawn Allee reports the “organic” label could lead dieters astray, too.

Transcript

Researchers have known for a while that food labels, such as “low in fat,” can mislead dieters into thinking they’re eating healthy.

Shawn Allee reports the “organic” label could lead dieters astray, too.

Cornell University ran an experiment to look at how people think about food made with organic ingredients.

One researcher was Jenny Lee.

Lee gave people cookies – some were labeled organic, some not.

Then people guessed the calorie count.

“We found that those who ate cookies with the organic label rated those cookies to be lower in calories than those who ate cookies without the organic label.”

Actually, they were exactly the same cookies: organic Oreos.

The “organic” label means that food’s grown without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, but Lee says some shoppers think it means “healthy” in other ways.

“You have to be a little suspicious about what the label’s actually claiming and not to draw any other inferences.”

Lee says people need to think about what they expect from food labeled “organic,” since organic products are becoming common in mainstream grocery stores.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Overseeing Over-The-Counter Drugs

  • Consumer advocate Larry McNeely says there are not enough government inspectors keeping an eye on the pharmaceutical industry.(Photo courtesy of Clean Walmart CC-BY)

Some consumer advocates say more oversight is needed on over-the-counter drugs. Their concerns come after the recent recall of infant’s and children’s Tylenol and other medicines. Rebecca Williams has more:

Transcript

Some consumer advocates say more oversight is needed on over-the-counter drugs. Their concerns come after the recent recall of infant’s and children’s Tylenol and other medicines. Rebecca Williams has more:

McNeil Consumer Healthcare recalled more than 40 different varieties of medicine for babies and kids.

That happened only after inspectors from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found major problems at a plant in Pennsylvania. Inspectors found raw ingredients were contaminated with bacteria. They also found the company did not have adequate lab facilities to test the drugs. And they found the company did nothing after complaints from consumers who found dark specks in liquid Tylenol products.

Larry McNeely is with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. He says there are not enough government inspectors keeping an eye on the pharmaceutical industry.

“We need more of those inspectors and I think we were just lucky and dodged a bullet because we were able to stop this before somebody got hurt.”

The FDA says you should stop using all of the recalled products. But the agency says generic versions of these drugs are safe.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Consumer Concerns Over Corn Syrup

  • The 'Sweet Scam Lineup' ad produced by the Center for Consumer Freedom is one of many run by corn syrup manufacturers and food companies. They're running to combat what these industries see as myths about high fructose corn syrup. (Center for Consumer Freedom - screenshot)

High fructose corn syrup and sugar sweeten lots of food.

They’re in sweet stuff like soda-pop, but they’re also added to pasta sauce, gravy, bread, and other foods that don’t seem sweet.

Scientists are debating whether high fructose corn syrup is worse than sugar when it comes to making us fat.

But Shawn Allee reports high fructose corn syrup is losing ground before that science is finished.

Transcript

High fructose corn syrup and sugar sweeten lots of food.

They’re in sweet stuff like soda-pop, but they’re also added to pasta sauce, gravy, bread, and other foods that don’t seem sweet.

Scientists are debating whether high fructose corn syrup is worse than sugar when it comes to making us fat.

But Shawn Allee reports high fructose corn syrup is losing ground before that science is finished.

Let’s face it, most of us did not know high fructose corn syrup sweetened so much food.

We have no excuse now: the food industry sponsors ads like this one.

“sugar cube face forward.”

Here, a policeman lines up suspects.

There’s an ear of corn, a sugar cube, and a plastic honey-bear bottle.

The cop turns to the victim of the crime.

“… Do you see the one responsible for you gaining weight?”

“I’ve seen that high fructose corn syrup guy on the news. maybe it was him.”

“you mean you’re making all this up without any proof?”

At this point … the policeman lets the corn sweetener go.

The sugar cube and the honey bear bumble out, too.

“maybe it’s a sugar-cube. No, no, no. the honey bear!”

There’s a reason we’re seeing ads like this.

One market research survey showed more than half of consumers had “some concern” about corn syrup.

Some feel like the victim in that ad – they have this vague fear corn syrup’s worse for your waistline than sugar.

And they know scientists really are looking at this question.

“this particular study has stirred up extraordinary interest … much more than we expected.”

Dr. Bart Hoebel is from Princeton University.

A while ago his research team fed rats watered-down sugar.

Those rats didn’t get fat, but recently his team looked at what happened when rats drank watered-down corn syrup.

“The ones drinking fructose gained more weight … even though they’re taking in fewer calories there was something special or different about the high fructose corn syrup in that group.”

Hoebel says there’re several studies like his moving through the scientific pipeline.

They all look at whether eating high fructose corn syrup is worse than eating sugar … but he worries the public’s missing a big point.

Nearly all scientists agree we get too many calories from both corn syrup and sugar.

But … market research shows people miss the caveats and mixed results behind the science.

They’ve made up their minds.

“They’re looking for an ingredient that they know and sugar is a more recognizable ingredient.”

That’s Dr. Helen Jensen.

She studies food economics at Iowa State University.

She says some food companies don’t care if customers have the science right or wrong.

“so from the manufacturer’s point of view, they’re looking to make more product mixes that offer consumers the choice of having a sugar-based product.”

That’s why you’re seeing products that say sweetened with real sugar.

For example, the Pepsi company is pitching a sugar-version of Mountain-Dew while its regular version is still sweetened with corn syrup.

Other companies are switching, too.

Jensen says this is a big change.

“Tariffs raise the price of sugar. And subsidies for corn used to make corn syrup cheap.”

today it’s a little different. While sugar is still more expensive, it’s not as expensive as it used to be.

So, Jensen says if consumers are pushing a company to switch from corn syrup to sugar, the company just might pay more for ingredients to keep more customers.

But Jensen has a word of caution for people who hope sugar wins the battle over our sweet tooths.

She says countries like Australia sweeten a lot of food, too.

But they use almost no corn syrup … they use sugar, and Australians have gotten more and more obese, just like we have in the U-S.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Financing Energy Efficiency

  • More than half the houses in the U.S. were built before 1970. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laborator)

Reducing your carbon footprint
by using less energy can cost
money. Efficient cars, energy
efficient homes, and energy-saving
appliances all take money. That’s
why some states are testing whether
homeowners would be willing
to borrow money to upgrade their
homes and, in turn, save a few
bucks in energy costs. In one
state, the plan is to get private
banks and credit unions to finance
energy efficiency. Peter Payette reports:

Transcript

Reducing your carbon footprint
by using less energy can cost
money. Efficient cars, energy
efficient homes, and energy-saving
appliances all take money. That’s
why some states are testing whether
homeowners would be willing
to borrow money to upgrade their
homes and, in turn, save a few
bucks in energy costs. In one
state, the plan is to get private
banks and credit unions to finance
energy efficiency. Peter Payette reports:

When you hear green building, you might think of a fancy new house with solar panels. But most homes are not new, so reducing the amount of energy communities use means doing something about old houses.

Max Strickland owns a business in Michigan that certifies green homes and buildings. He says more than half the houses in the U.S. were built before 1970.

“We had very little energy code requirements previous to that.”

But upgrades cost money that many homes owners don’t always have. And a lot of people saw whatever equity they had in their house disappear during the past couple of years.

Now, the State of Michigan is trying to help people find the money to make their homes more energy efficient. The program is called Michigan Saves. The state launched the pilot project in a rural area of the state. The pilot is a collaboration of a local credit union, an electric cooperative and a building supply company.
Borrowers will have their new payment tacked onto their monthly utility bill.

Trevor Williams is with Brown Lumber, the building supply company involved in the pilot. Williams says it’s likely most of the improvements will be in heating costs. He says to begin with, home owners will be encouraged to have an energy audit.

“The audit it would say things that need to be done, the top three things that are recommended. Furnace replacement, ceiling ducts and weatherizing the house those going to be the three most common items.”

But homeowners can also borrow money for new energy efficient appliances like refrigerators and hot water heaters. Sometimes loans like this are promoted as immediately paying for themselves. That is, it’s suggested the money you save on your utility bills will fully cover your new payment. That’s not necessarily the case.

Marc McKeller is with Members Credit Union which is financing the project. He says after a few years, people will be able to break even on the costs. Government tax incentives and other rebates will help that happen. But McKellar says people shouldn’t expect to take out a loan, retrofit their house and not have more to pay each month.

“The only way it could be was if a government was to give zero percent loans out and that they received tremendous rebates from the utilities and that they received a tremendous government credit.”


But, McKellar says it’s still a good deal. The interest rate for project’s loans will be a little bit better because the state is backing the loans.

And tight credit means not many banks are loaning people money to make their house energy efficient and not many people are putting money into a home that’s lost value because of the housing market bust. That’s one of the reasons they need to run a pilot project.

“They’re trying to determine through this study, how do you get a consumer to actually do this and what are the benefits?”

The directors of Michigan Saves hope to roll out a statewide program later this year. So far no banks have agreed to participate but there are other credit unions interested in the concept.

For The Environment Report, I’m Peter Payette.

Related Links

Making Manufacturers Take It Back

  • Craig Lorch, co-owner of Total Reclaim in Seattle. His company is certified to recycle electronic waste under Washington's e-waste law. (Photo by Liam Moriarty)

It used to be that when a company
sold you a widget, they got your
money, you got the widget, and
that was the end of it. Now, that
way of doing business is changing.
Liam Moriarty reports that in Europe, and in the
US, businesses are being required
to take responsibility for their
products in new ways:

Transcript

It used to be that when a company
sold you a widget, they got your
money, you got the widget, and
that was the end of it. Now, that
way of doing business is changing.
Liam Moriarty reports that in Europe, and in the
US, businesses are being required
to take responsibility for their
products in new ways:

(sound of recycling machine)

In a huge industrial building in Seattle, forklift-loads of TVs and computer monitors are heaved onto conveyor belts. Workers go at them with screwguns and hammers.

“They’re pulling the plastic covers off of devices, they’re pulling the picture tubes out of them. They’re basically dismantling it to component parts.”

Craig Lorch is co-owner here at Total Reclaim. His company is certified to recycle electronic waste under Washington’s e-waste law.

The law requires that these old machines don’t end up being dumped, where their toxic chemicals can poison humans and the environment.

Recycling old electronics has been happening for years. John Friedrick explains what’s new about Washington’s e-waste law.

“It’s a producer responsibility law, which takes the burden of all of this off of the taxpayer.”

Friedrick runs the state-wide recycling program that’s fully paid for by electronics manufacturers. It started just a year ago, and already it’s collected more than 38 million pounds of e-junk, costing producers nearly 10 million dollars. Basically, it requires electronics companies to cover the end-of-life costs of the products they sell.

That concept – called extended producer responsibility – is new in the US. When Washington’s e-waste law was passed three years ago, it was the first to put full responsibility on manufacturers. But this isn’t a new idea in Europe.

Klaus Koegler is with the European Commission’s Directorate General for the Environment in Brussels. He tells me about a keystone of EU environmental policy – what’s called the “Polluter Pays” principle.

“That simply means whoever causes damage to the environment is responsible, also in financial terms, to repair it or to minimize it right from the beginning.”

Koegler says that gives regulators the muscle for a range of laws. One example: any car sold in the EU has to be 85% recyclable. Koegler says that creates an incentive.

“If you are responsible for the recycling, that means you will try to design a car to make your life as a recycler as easy as possible.”

And a product that’s easy and cheap to recycle is likely to be easier on the planet, too. Europeans also see making manufacturers take back and recycle their old products as a way to reclaim resources. For instance, nickel and other metals are becoming more scarce and expensive.

“So in keeping the waste here, recycling it here, and recovering these metals, we are protecting the environment. At the same time, we are helping to secure supply for our industries.”

So, the EU is moving toward setting even more ambitious goals for recycling. In the US, Wisconsin recently became the 20th state to pass a take-back law for electronics. States are also extending producer responsibility to other products – including batteries, fluorescent lamps and paint.

Now, the electronics industry is pushing back. Two major industry groups have filed a lawsuit against the e-waste law in New York City. They say it’s unconstitutional. Environmental activists see the suit as an attack on the whole concept of producer responsibility.

But Rick Goss with the Information Technology Industry Council insists it’s not.

“We support producer responsibility. We understand and recognize, that as manufacturers, we have a role to play in offering our consumers options and solutions for used products here. But we don’t have the only role to play.”

Still, the suit makes constitutional arguments that could be used to challenge the right of states to impose recycling requirements on manufacturers.

For The Environment Report, I’m Liam Moriarty.

Related Links

Greenovation: Eco-Certified

  • When doing home improvement projects, WaterSense, EnergyStar, GREENGUARD, and FSC certifications are some to keep an eye out for. (Photo by Michelle Miller-Freeck, courtesy of FEMA)

When you’re planning a home
improvement project, you can
be overwhelmed with decisions
about the right materials, the
right quality, and the right
design. Trying to keep it eco-
friendly on top of everything
else just adds to the confusion.
Lester Graham reports it can be
as simple as finding a label:

Transcript

When you’re planning a home
improvement project, you can
be overwhelmed with decisions
about the right materials, the
right quality, and the right
design. Trying to keep it eco-
friendly on top of everything
else just adds to the confusion.
Lester Graham reports it can be
as simple as finding a label:

Julia Weinert and her boyfriend like the idea of making their place nice, but even something as simple as painting causes concerns.

JW: “We want to support environmentally friendly options and we just don’t want to be smelling it for three days out and have to be running the fans. We just want it to be convenient and we think it would be an easy thing to do.”

LG: “Well, you’re in luck. We’re at the local Home Depot and we just happen to have Greenovation.TV’s Matt Grocoff here. Matt, you’ve got some advice for her.”

MG: “And it’s really, really simple. When you’re trying to find a paint that’s healthy for you or another product, you shouldn’t have to be a chemist when you go to the store. There’s a really simple thing you can look for. Just look for the simple GREENGUARD label. GREENGUARD is an independent organization that lets you know with a simple label that that product is safe for you.”

So, none of the really strong paint smells that mean polluting chemicals are being released. GREENGUARD Environmental Institute sets indoor air standards for products and buildings. Julia and I sniffed a can of paint WITH the GREENGUARD label, and then one without.

LG: “I’ll let you sniff first.”

JW: Okay. Oh! Yeah! Oh my gosh! That is ridiculous. I mean, it smells so much stronger than this one. You can’t even smell that one compared to this one.”

A gallon of paint with the GREENGUARD label DOES cost a few dollars more, maybe as much as ten bucks.

Matt then herded us to another part of the store, the plumbing section, where Julia and I were confronted by all kinds of shiny chrome and brass faucets.

JW: “There’s a whole wall, a whole aisle of faucets here and I just don’t know which ones to look for.”

LG: “So, Matt. You got any fancy labels here?”

MG: “Absolutely. Again, if you’re looking for that eco-friendly option, a way to save yourself some money and some water, it’s simple. Just look for the WaterSense label. The EPA does EnergyStar labels for appliances. The EPA also does WaterSense label for plumbing fixtures.”

WaterSense means the fixture – whether a faucet, shower head or toilet – will use less water but still works well.

As we wandered over to the lumber section of the store, Matt told us the last label he wanted to show us is the most ignored label – and it might just be the most important one.

MG: “FSC stands for the Forest Stewardship Council. And what that means is they’ve made a commitment that they’re not going to be tearing down forest and clear-cutting them in order for you to build some bookshelves in your home. This is one of the biggest causes of greenhouse gases is that we don’t have these forests capturing this carbon any more. Instead of having to have a PhD in forest management, you can just simply look for a piece of wood that has an FSC label on it.”

So, labels. Julia says, works for her.

JW: “It’s going to be great, taking my boyfriend around the store and showing him all these cool things I can get to make our home improvements a little more cheap and environmentally-friendly.”

LG: “Alright remind me, go over this again. What am I supposed to be looking for?”

MG: “It’s very simple. If you’re looking for paint, look for GREENGUARD. For plumbing, WaterSense. For lumber, FSC, Forest Stewardship Council certified.”

LG: “That’s Matt Grocoff, Greenovation.TV. Thanks again, Matt.

MG: “Lester, it’s always a pleasure. Thank you.”

For The Environemnt Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Taking Back the ‘Take Back’ Law?

  • 19 states have passed ‘take back’ laws that require manufacturers to take back old electronics and pay to recycle them. But manufacturers are challenging these laws. (Photo source: dirkj at Wikimedia Commons)

The City of New York is being sued
by the electronics industry. Samara
Freemark reports it’s over recycling
electronic waste, such as cell phones
and computers:

Transcript

The city of New York is being sued by the electronics industry. Samara Freemark reports it’s over recycling electronic waste such as cell phones and computers:

Electronic waste contains all sorts of hazardous chemicals, but safely recycling it is expensive.

So 19 states have passed ‘take back’ laws that require manufacturers to take back old electronics and pay to recycle them.

Now manufacturers are challenging these laws. Two industry groups have sued New York City. They want the city’s take back law overturned.

Kate Sinding is a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council. That group has joined New York in the suit. She says a decision in the case could have consequences beyond electronics take backs.

“There are a lot of deeper questions that are raised by the lawsuit, including issues of corporate responsibility. If somebody’s going to produce something that has toxic components, what is their ongoing responsibility to deal with that, even after it’s sold into the market?”

The court will decide that next year.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Interview: The Price of Cheap Goods

  • Ellen Ruppel Shell writes that we spend about 80% more in a discount environment. (Source: Urban at Wikimedia Commons)

In this recession, we are looking at money
differently. A bargain – getting things cheap –
has been the all-consuming goal. Ellen Ruppel Shell has written a new book entitled
‘Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture.’ The
Environment Report’s Lester Graham talked with
her:

Transcript

[Please note: the following transcript is for a shorter version of the interview. If you would like a complete transcript, please contact us.]

In this recession, we are looking at money
differently. A bargain – getting things cheap –
has been the all-consuming goal. Ellen Ruppel Shell has written a new book entitled
‘Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture.’ The
Environment Report’s Lester Graham talked with
her:

Lester Graham: Your book tells the story of how we came to value cheap, but, you know, my dad used to say, ‘cheap things aren’t good and good things aren’t cheap.’

Ellen Ruppel Shell: I think that retailers and multinationals have gone really far to make us not think like that. Your father insisted on value. You know, there’s an old Russian saying, ‘I’m too poor to be cheap.’ You know, this is something that people used to take for granted – we used to know that we got what we paid for. Now, how did this common wisdom get forgotten?

Graham: Most of the products we get, we throw away – because they are so cheap.
We don’t have to worry about the cost of repairing them, because we can simply replace them with something brand-new.

Shell: Absolutely, and, of course, that disposability has been marketed to us as a big advantage. And I’ve also gotten that comment from folks, ‘Well, you know, who cares? I’ll just throw it away. I don’t want something that lasts a long time. I want something new all the time.’ Our relationship with objects has really become distorted – I mean, the very idea that you would buy shoes knowing, almost as you leave the store, that they’re not going to last. And, studies show, that if you believe that, you don’t take care of them. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. You assume they’re going to fall apart.

Graham: Your book makes it sound as though we’re in a spiral, downward, in pursuit of cheap goods. Why do you make that argument?

Shell: Well, I think it’s a spiral we might, now, have the opportunity to pull ourselves out of. But, yes, I do think it’s a spiral – the idea that prices have to go lower and lower. And the reason for this, of course, is that since the 1970s, incomes in the United States have been essentially flat, controlling for inflation. And even going down somewhat, for most Americans. At the same time, three-quarters of our income goes to pay for fixed costs – those things we can’t live without – healthcare, education. So, what have these low priced goods done for us? Well, I argue, not a lot. It’s made tee-shirts, and shorts, and other things, maybe cheaper than ever before, but we have sacrificed – in terms of our wages, our job security, and our stability as an economy – as a consequence of these increasingly low prices, this incredible – what we used to call ‘predatory’ – pricing.

Graham: Many of us feel we can only afford ‘cheap.’ What are you suggesting we do?

Shell: My goal in writing this book was to get consumers to re-think why they shop in the first place. We spend about 80% more in a discount environment. And, then, we’re getting what we think are these amazing deals. And this triggers in our brain this kind of game-playing behavior – we want to make all these, you know, we want to win. Do we go to buy things that are going enhance our life and add value to our life? Or, is it a game-playing exercise? And I think most of us would say, rationally, well you know, look, ‘I go to purchase things that are going to enhance my life.’ And, if that’s the case, I think that you will actually spend less money, you will buy fewer things, and you’ll think harder about why you’re buying those things, and you’ll get precisely what you want at the price that’s going to work for you.

Graham: Ellen Ruppel Shell is the author of the book ‘Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture.’ Thanks very much for your time.

Shell: Thank you. It’s been fun.

Related Links