Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.

EcoWatch

Posts tagged environmental working group

May 20 '13
2013 Guide to Sunscreens: What to Use, What to Lose EWG’s guide helps consumers find products that get high ratings for providing broad-spectrum, long-lasting protection and that are made with ingredients that pose fewer health concerns.http://ecowatch.com/2013/2013-guide-to-sunscreens/

2013 Guide to Sunscreens: What to Use, What to Lose

EWG’s guide helps consumers find products that get high ratings for providing broad-spectrum, long-lasting protection and that are made with ingredients that pose fewer health concerns.

http://ecowatch.com/2013/2013-guide-to-sunscreens/

Mar 9 '12
The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), faced with a series of legal actions from environmental groups, is poised to decide whether to move toward barring the toxic chemical bisphenol-A from food packaging.
The agency’s decision is expected by March 31.
Five years have passed since Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) groundbreaking 2007 study showed that BPA leached from epoxy linings of cans into surrounding food and drink. EWG’s tests showed the highest concentrations of the chemical, a synthetic estrogen, in canned soup, pasta and infant formula.
“FDA is the only agency with the power to protect consumers from being exposed to BPA from the food they eat,” said Sonya Lunder, senior research analyst for Environmental Working Group. “Let’s hope the agency’s upcoming decision will keep the public’s health at the forefront.”
A second EWG study in 2007 showed that 1 in 16 formula-fed infants were being exposed to levels of BPA toxic to animals in research studies.
Because BPA has been shown to disrupt the hormone system, EWG has repeatedly called on FDA to order it removed from food and beverage packaging, starting with infant formula.
The FDA decision comes as Campbell’s Soup has announced its intention to seek a safer substitute for BPA-laden epoxy in the linings of its cans.
(Photo by Steven Depolo)
For more information, click here. 

The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), faced with a series of legal actions from environmental groups, is poised to decide whether to move toward barring the toxic chemical bisphenol-A from food packaging.

The agency’s decision is expected by March 31.

Five years have passed since Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) groundbreaking 2007 study showed that BPA leached from epoxy linings of cans into surrounding food and drink. EWG’s tests showed the highest concentrations of the chemical, a synthetic estrogen, in canned soup, pasta and infant formula.

“FDA is the only agency with the power to protect consumers from being exposed to BPA from the food they eat,” said Sonya Lunder, senior research analyst for Environmental Working Group. “Let’s hope the agency’s upcoming decision will keep the public’s health at the forefront.”

A second EWG study in 2007 showed that 1 in 16 formula-fed infants were being exposed to levels of BPA toxic to animals in research studies.

Because BPA has been shown to disrupt the hormone system, EWG has repeatedly called on FDA to order it removed from food and beverage packaging, starting with infant formula.

The FDA decision comes as Campbell’s Soup has announced its intention to seek a safer substitute for BPA-laden epoxy in the linings of its cans.

(Photo by Steven Depolo)

For more information, click here

Mar 6 '12
Campbell’s Soup, whose iconic red and white label is found in pantries across the country, says it will soon stop using the notorious chemical bisphenol-A, or BPA, in the linings of its cans.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the company has been testing alternative substances to replace BPA, an integral component of epoxy can linings, and plans to make the switch as soon as it can find “feasible alternatives,” company spokesman, Anthony Sanzio told the Journal Sentinel’s Meg Kissinger.
“When the world’s largest soup maker moves to remove BPA from its cans, that sends a signal to the rest of the food and beverage industry to do the same,” said Jane Houlihan, Environmental Working Group (EWG) senior vice president for research. “Unlike some of its competitors, Campbell’s has listened to its customers’ concerns. It plans to remove this toxic chemical, which is associated with a very long list of serious health problems, many of which are on the rise among Americans.”
Last September, the Breast Cancer Fund and Healthy Child Healthy World launched their Cans Not Cancer campaign which generated more than 70,000 letters to the company urging it to find an alternative can lining that did not contain BPA, a synthetic estrogen that disrupts the hormone system.
“I applaud our friends and colleagues at the Breast Cancer Fund and Healthy Child Healthy World for helping to keep the pressure up, using the power of grassroots advocacy to change markets,” Houlihan said.
To learn more about BPA in cans, click here. 

Campbell’s Soup, whose iconic red and white label is found in pantries across the country, says it will soon stop using the notorious chemical bisphenol-A, or BPA, in the linings of its cans.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the company has been testing alternative substances to replace BPA, an integral component of epoxy can linings, and plans to make the switch as soon as it can find “feasible alternatives,” company spokesman, Anthony Sanzio told the Journal Sentinel’s Meg Kissinger.

“When the world’s largest soup maker moves to remove BPA from its cans, that sends a signal to the rest of the food and beverage industry to do the same,” said Jane Houlihan, Environmental Working Group (EWG) senior vice president for research. “Unlike some of its competitors, Campbell’s has listened to its customers’ concerns. It plans to remove this toxic chemical, which is associated with a very long list of serious health problems, many of which are on the rise among Americans.”

Last September, the Breast Cancer Fund and Healthy Child Healthy World launched their Cans Not Cancer campaign which generated more than 70,000 letters to the company urging it to find an alternative can lining that did not contain BPA, a synthetic estrogen that disrupts the hormone system.

“I applaud our friends and colleagues at the Breast Cancer Fund and Healthy Child Healthy World for helping to keep the pressure up, using the power of grassroots advocacy to change markets,” Houlihan said.

To learn more about BPA in cans, click here

Mar 2 '12
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has warned New York state  regulators that their plan to allow drilling and hydraulic fracturing  for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale could endanger private water  wells, municipal aquifers and New York City’s drinking water supply.
The assessment of the USGS, widely regarded as impartial and  authoritative on drilling issues, intensifies pressure on Gov. Andrew  Cuomo (D-NY) not to proceed with a drilling plan drafted by the New York  State Department of Environmental Conservation. Cuomo has pledged to  “let the science and the facts make the determination, not emotion and  not politics.”1
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has separately written  New York regulators arguing that they are ill-equipped to regulate a  boom in shale gas drilling and have limited financial means to enforce  the numerous new regulations they have proposed. The EPA has raised  additional concerns, among them, that the state has understated the  severity of radioactive pollution associated with drilling and doesn’t  know how such contaminants would be disposed of.
To read more about the USGS’s advice to NY regulators, click here. 
To keep up-to-date with news about fracking, click here. 
(Photo by James Thilman for Gothamist)

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has warned New York state regulators that their plan to allow drilling and hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale could endanger private water wells, municipal aquifers and New York City’s drinking water supply.

The assessment of the USGS, widely regarded as impartial and authoritative on drilling issues, intensifies pressure on Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) not to proceed with a drilling plan drafted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Cuomo has pledged to “let the science and the facts make the determination, not emotion and not politics.”1

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has separately written New York regulators arguing that they are ill-equipped to regulate a boom in shale gas drilling and have limited financial means to enforce the numerous new regulations they have proposed. The EPA has raised additional concerns, among them, that the state has understated the severity of radioactive pollution associated with drilling and doesn’t know how such contaminants would be disposed of.

To read more about the USGS’s advice to NY regulators, click here

To keep up-to-date with news about fracking, click here

(Photo by James Thilman for Gothamist)

Feb 29 '12
State regulators have no idea how many oil and gas wells have been  fracked in California despite having requested and received $3 million  in new funding in 2010 to regulate the practice. Lacking actual data,  they insist that drilling companies rarely use the technology in  California—a head-in-the-sand stance that has now been contradicted by Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) research showing that fracking has been used in the state since 1953 and is now widespread.
The state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources says it does  not plan to monitor or manage use of the technology unless the  legislature requires it or the agency is handed “evidence of manifest  damage and harm.”
“On the one hand, the Division remains in denial about fracking for  oil,” said Bill Allayaud, EWG’s director of government affairs for  California. “On the other hand, they ask for and receive funding to  regulate it and then don’t do it—and have no plans to do it.”
To read more, click here. 
(Photo by Abrahm Lustgarten for ProPublica)

State regulators have no idea how many oil and gas wells have been fracked in California despite having requested and received $3 million in new funding in 2010 to regulate the practice. Lacking actual data, they insist that drilling companies rarely use the technology in California—a head-in-the-sand stance that has now been contradicted by Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) research showing that fracking has been used in the state since 1953 and is now widespread.

The state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources says it does not plan to monitor or manage use of the technology unless the legislature requires it or the agency is handed “evidence of manifest damage and harm.”

“On the one hand, the Division remains in denial about fracking for oil,” said Bill Allayaud, EWG’s director of government affairs for California. “On the other hand, they ask for and receive funding to regulate it and then don’t do it—and have no plans to do it.”

To read more, click here

(Photo by Abrahm Lustgarten for ProPublica)

Feb 27 '12
A new research paper finds that most farmers support the  long-standing conservation compact that has helped protect the rich soil  and clean water that sustain food, farming and public health.
Conservation Compliance: A Retrospective…and Look Ahead by conservationist Max Schnepf concludes through a comprehensive review  of public opinion polls that the farming community has consistently  supported the historic deal between taxpayers and farmers that was  struck in the 1985 farm bill. Under it, growers agreed to keep soil from  washing away and chemicals out of waterways in return for generous  taxpayer support.
However, Schnepf notes that Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) 2011 report, Losing Ground,  found that high prices, intense competition for farmland leases and  ethanol mandates have put unprecedented pressure on land and water. As a  result, the historic gains in soil conservation the compact achieved  are being lost.
In the negotiations over a 2012 farm bill, agribusiness lobbyists are  pushing their allies in Congress to gut the conservation compact  entirely, with dire consequences for the environment and public health.
To find out more and read EWG’s recommendations to Congress for reinvigorating the conservation compact, click here. 

A new research paper finds that most farmers support the long-standing conservation compact that has helped protect the rich soil and clean water that sustain food, farming and public health.

Conservation Compliance: A Retrospective…and Look Ahead by conservationist Max Schnepf concludes through a comprehensive review of public opinion polls that the farming community has consistently supported the historic deal between taxpayers and farmers that was struck in the 1985 farm bill. Under it, growers agreed to keep soil from washing away and chemicals out of waterways in return for generous taxpayer support.

However, Schnepf notes that Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) 2011 report, Losing Ground, found that high prices, intense competition for farmland leases and ethanol mandates have put unprecedented pressure on land and water. As a result, the historic gains in soil conservation the compact achieved are being lost.

In the negotiations over a 2012 farm bill, agribusiness lobbyists are pushing their allies in Congress to gut the conservation compact entirely, with dire consequences for the environment and public health.

To find out more and read EWG’s recommendations to Congress for reinvigorating the conservation compact, click here

Feb 24 '12
If Americans knew exactly how much added sugar came with the food and  beverages they and their families consume, many might make different  choices.
A coalition of public health organizations is calling on the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require that food labels display information on added sugar.
“While current regulations stipulate what foods can be labeled ‘No  Sugar Added’ or use a similar phrase, there is currently no requirement  that added sugars be shown separately on the ingredients list,” the  group wrote FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg. “We recommend that FDA  require that added sugars be listed on the ingredients section of food  labels so that consumers can make healthier choices when they shop.”

If Americans knew exactly how much added sugar came with the food and beverages they and their families consume, many might make different choices.

A coalition of public health organizations is calling on the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require that food labels display information on added sugar.

“While current regulations stipulate what foods can be labeled ‘No Sugar Added’ or use a similar phrase, there is currently no requirement that added sugars be shown separately on the ingredients list,” the group wrote FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg. “We recommend that FDA require that added sugars be listed on the ingredients section of food labels so that consumers can make healthier choices when they shop.”

Feb 21 '12
For the last two years, the pesticide lobby, especially a front group  called the Alliance for Food and Farming, has waged a multi-front  campaign to get the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to repackage  its pesticide data with industry talking points that downplay risks and  consumers’ concerns. And they attacked Environmental Working Group’s  (EWG) Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce in the bargain.
We expect to see USDA’s 2010 pesticide data soon and fully expect  that the agency has not caved to industry pressure. Giving you the  information you need is too important. Your tax dollars paid for the  government’s pesticide tests. Stand with Environmental Working Group (EWG) today to make sure the USDA  tells us the whole truth about pesticides on our food.
Take action today by clicking here to tell the USDA not to cave to industry’s pressure—you want to know what you’re eating.
- By Ken Cook, EWG

To read more, click here. 

For the last two years, the pesticide lobby, especially a front group called the Alliance for Food and Farming, has waged a multi-front campaign to get the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to repackage its pesticide data with industry talking points that downplay risks and consumers’ concerns. And they attacked Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce in the bargain.

We expect to see USDA’s 2010 pesticide data soon and fully expect that the agency has not caved to industry pressure. Giving you the information you need is too important. Your tax dollars paid for the government’s pesticide tests. Stand with Environmental Working Group (EWG) today to make sure the USDA tells us the whole truth about pesticides on our food.

Take action today by clicking here to tell the USDA not to cave to industry’s pressure—you want to know what you’re eating.

- By Ken Cook, EWG

To read more, click here