GoodGuide | Blog

By Dara O'Rourke, January 29, 2010

GoodGuide has a cool new feature where you can create your own lists of favorite products - or products to avoid. And then publish these lists in a simple “widget” format on any blog or website.

Here is the list I created in 3 minutes.

This is a great feature for bloggers, journalists, educators, etc. If you are writing a story about a health, environmental, or social issue, or reviewing products, you can give your readers a view into the full performance of the products via GoodGuide’s growing database of product ratings.

Comments

By Alastair Iles, January 19, 2010

For a long time, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been very slow in acting on emerging chemical concerns. As many GoodGuide users have heard, Bisphenol-A is increasingly associated with a range of human health impacts, particularly on child development. Just last week, a new US study concluded that BPA exposure at even very low levels could exacerbate adult heart disease. In response to consumer demands, many plastic bottle manufacturers are voluntarily eliminating BPA from their products.

Yet, under President Bush, the agency insisted in an assessment in 2008 that BPA was safe. Scientists charged that the FDA had selectively used research and used criteria that favored industry-funded studies. Last year, facing much public criticism, FDA promised to review the latest scientific evidence. The agency repeatedly delayed the report’s release for months. Finally, on January 15, FDA officials said that they had “some concern” about BPA’s safety.

Despite the growing evidence of BPA’s toxicity, the FDA says that it currently lacks the power to regulate the chemical. This is in part because BPA is “generally recognized as safe” for use in food, a ruling that was made over 40 years ago and that cannot be easily challenged.

A leading environmental health expert, Peterson Myers says,

“Most scientists actively involved in BPA research would observe that this is a baby step in the right direction: good, but insufficient.”

Myers thinks that the BPA decision may mean that the FDA is overhauling its approach to evaluating chemical risks. Still, the FDA has not yet even looked at the very latest data, with new studies appearing weekly. Congress needs to empower the agency to review its antiquated “generally recognized as safe” list.

Until the FDA acts, you can take action to reduce your BPA exposure by using BPA-free plastic bottles, and avoiding food packed in epoxy-lined cans.

Professor Alastair Iles is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Iles studies science, technology, and environment, with a focus on how technologies – ranging from chemistry, energy systems, environmental health monitoring, to information technology - affect society and the environment. He received his PhD in Environmental Law and Policy from Harvard University, and previously studied Law at the University of Melbourne, Australia.

Comments (1)

By Dara O'Rourke, January 12, 2010 · Posted under Health Issues

Sweat itself is almost odorless—it is the bacteria feeding on the sweat that emits an odor. Antiperspirants reduce sweat, deodorants prevent bacterial growth or in some cases bind to foul smelling molecules to eliminate odor. Sometimes scents are also used to mask unpleasant odors. Here are tips you might want to consider when choosing your deodorant or antiperspirant.

Stay away from Triclosan. Many deodorants use an added chemical called Triclosan to kill odor-causing bacteria. The wide use of Triclosan may also be promoting a Triclosan drug resistance in that same bacteria. Drug resistant bacteria reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics and thus reduce the tools we have to treat infections or prevent the spread of infection in hospitals. In addition, Triclosan has been detected in many U.S. waterways and is extremely toxic to aquatic wildlife.

Avoid Aluminum. Aluminum compounds in deodorant are the culprits in yellow armpit stains. Aluminum salts, such as aluminum chlorohydrate, were some of the first antiperspirants developed to reduce perspiration. Newer and more effective aluminum zirconium chlorohydrate-glycine complexes have been developed and are used in several brands of solid and gel antiperspirants. These ingredients have the added benefit of having antimicrobial activity, meaning they also act as deodorants. There is inconclusive evidence that aluminum-containing compounds increase the risk of certain neurological diseases (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease).

Stop the (aerosol) spray. If you are concerned about the environment, you may want to avoid aerosol antiperspirants. Some propellants used in these products can be toxic. Others, such as tetrafluoroethane, are not toxic but are global warming agents.

Good Alternatives:

Deodorant crystals which are made from alum-based mineral salts.

An age-old alternative to Triclosan is tea tree oil which is often listed as TTO on the label.

Zinc ricinoleate reduces odors by binding to stinky chemicals, making them imperceptible to most noses. If you use a zinc ricinoleate-based deodorant, opt for a fragrance-free formulation because fragrances can interfere with zinc ricinoleate’s odor fighting capacity.

Comments (4)

By Alastair Iles, December 14, 2009

Recently, a British poll shed light on the potentially large exposure to chemicals that many women may face because of their heavy use of personal care products. The deodorant company, Bionsen, funded a survey of 2000 women that discovered the “average” British woman wears 515 chemicals on her body daily.

These chemicals come from the multiple ingredients contained in personal care products such as lipstick, perfume, deodorants, and moisturizer. The study found that most of the chemicals were present on the face or head of the women. This means that women can breathe or ingest the chemicals more easily, increasing their exposures. The usually low dose chemicals can mix on the face and perhaps create greater risks. Many of these chemicals have not yet been tested for their effects on people’s health.

What’s not surprising is that the researchers found,

“More than a third of the women who took part in the study were unaware of the key ingredients in their toiletries, with only nine percent aware of most of the ingredients in the cosmetics they put on each day.”

My appalled friend Vicky, who has worked in cosmetics marketing, says that some American women are likely to wear even more chemicals because of their pattern of product use. To my surprise, she said that men, too, are increasingly covered with chemicals because they’re being targeted by the personal care industry as a valuable new market. I likely wear many chemicals on my body since I use deodorant, toothpaste, shampoo, and moisturizing lotion for my dry hands. Some of my male friends use many more products.

Since I joined GoodGuide, I’ve switched to safer products, which will hopefully help reduce my risks. But as companies add even more “functions” to their products, they’re adding more and more complicated ingredients. That’s why companies should provide full details on what they use in their products – and give consumers the choice of buying simple, safer products instead.

Comments (5)

By Dara O'Rourke, December 08, 2009

We want to apologize again for comparing our test results with federal standards that are based on a different testing method.

We realize this was a mistake and I’m writing to tell you about the steps we have taken to correct this. We are announcing new protocols today for strengthening our testing procedures.

December 8, 2009 — San Francisco — GoodGuide, which provides health, environment and social responsibility ratings for consumer products, announced today that it has implemented new protocols to enhance testing of consumer products.

“GoodGuide remains steadfast in its commitment to be the most trusted source of information on the health, environmental and social impacts of the products we buy,” said Dara O’Rourke, the company’s co-founder. “These new protocols reflect our belief in complete transparency and our goal of continually improving the way we operate.”

New Protocols

All test results of consumer products performed by GoodGuide which indicate a violation of federal standards will be sent to certified laboratories for independent verification. The vast majority of product tests reviewed by GoodGuide are conducted by independent laboratories or third party organizations.
Test methodologies will match U.S. or European government standards whenever results are compared to regulated levels.
If tests conducted by GoodGuide or an independent laboratory indicate the presence of chemicals above regulatory standards, GoodGuide will raise these issues with the appropriate government agency.

GoodGuide released test results on December 4, 2009 that showed that certain popular holiday toys contained levels of antimony and chromium that exceeded federal standards. Two days later, GoodGuide learned that it had used a testing methodology that was different than the one used to determine the federal standards. In keeping with its commitment to transparency, GoodGuide announced this fact on its website the same day and in a press release the following morning, December 7.

“It was inappropriate to compare our results to federal standards because we used a different testing methodology. Our new protocols are designed to ensure that this does not happen again,” said O’Rourke, who is also an associate professor of Environmental and Labor Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. “We apologize for any confusion and inconvenience that we may have caused consumers who have come to rely on GoodGuide for expert advice on the safety of toys and other products.”

GoodGuide’s testing involved a precise methodology that is used by industry and federal agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. The test measured chemical levels with a Thermo Scientific NITON XL3t series X-ray fluorescence analyzer, which is designed to detect total chemical elements on the surface of a material, including toys. The testing procedure for establishing federal standards uses a different method in which materials are tested for their soluble metals content.

One of the toys cited in the results published by GoodGuide on December 5 was the popular Zhu Zhu Pet Hamster, Mr. Squiggles. GoodGuide is referring all questions about the safety of the toy to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Because of the differing methodologies used to test the toy, GoodGuide has removed from its website the product review of the Zhu Zhu Pet Hamster, Mr. Squiggles, pending additional testing. The company also removed reviews of the other toys that were cited in the results published on December 4.

Comments (26)

By Dara O'Rourke, December 07, 2009

We have been overwhelmed by the media response to our testing of toys this year, and in particular to the results of our tests of the Zhu Zhu Pet Mr. Squiggles Toy Hamster.

We would like to clarify our testing methodology and results since there has been some confusion about our research.

As we explained in our original press release, we tested the Zhu Zhu pet using a NITON XL3t series X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer.

XRF technology is a method for determining levels of elements found on the surface of a toy. This is a non-destructive testing method that measures the “total” contaminants present on the surface of the toy.

We did not test these toys using the new government standard for toy companies to determine the “soluble” level of contaminants in a toy.

The federal standard for antimony is 60 parts per million soluble. We found antimony between 93-106 parts per million total on the surface of the toy.

While GoodGuide considers the presence of any antimony on the surface of a toy to be a concern, we want to clarify that we used a testing methodology to evaluate the toys that is different from the testing methodology incorporated into the federal standards.

Here is our official statement on this issue.

Comments (81)

By Dara O'Rourke, December 01, 2009

What’s the best way to get Congress’s attention to reform our 30-year-old chemical policies and to get toxic chemicals out of everyday household products?

How about organizing a million babies to crawl to Washington, D.C. to demand Congress take action and reform our health and environmental protection laws?

Okay, maybe getting even one baby to crawl to D.C. would be a little hard. So Seventh Generation, the maker of natural household products, has launched a virtual march on Washingon D.C. to capture the attention of Congress and show support for chemicals policy reform.

In this surprising form of online activism - each crawler represents a virtual signature on a petition that gets delivered to Congress in January. So far, over 15,000 people have signed on to crawl to Washington to demand chemical policy reform.

Hopefully, this will get politicians’ attention as more and more people - and even a few companies like Seventh Generation - are organizing to say “no” to toxic chemicals in household products!

Click here to join the Crawl and demand chemical policy reform.

Comments

By Dara O'Rourke, November 30, 2009 · Posted under Environmental Issues

I attended a conference in Half Moon Bay, California last week and drove by several picturesque tree farms and pumpkin patches. This immediately made me think I should take my six year-old daughter to cut our own tree this year.

But before I establish a new holiday tradition, I thought I better research whether cutting our own tree is better environmentally than buying a tree from a local store, or even buying an artificial tree.

The way we assess decisions like this at GoodGuide is through a method called “Life Cycle Assessment” (LCA). LCA is a tool for analyzing the full impacts of a product across the different stages of its “life cycle” – from growing a crop or extracting raw materials, to manufacturing the product, to transportation, to using the product, to final disposal. It is often surprising to learn where the biggest environmental impacts are along a product’s life cycle, and to see which products ultimately are greener.

So which is greener: natural or artificial trees?