GoodGuide - Home

GoodGuide Lists and Widgets

2010-01-29T23:02:00Z

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.

FDA changes its stance on Bisphenol-A

2010-01-20T07:01:00Z

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.

Tips to Picking the Best Deodorant (and Antiperspirant)

2010-01-12T17:41:00Z

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.

Wearing Hundreds of Chemicals Without Knowing It

2009-12-15T00:20:00Z

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.

New Protocols to Enhance Product Testing

2009-12-08T20:36:00Z

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.

GoodGuide Clarifies our Toy Testing Methodology

2009-12-07T14:28:00Z

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.

Million Baby Crawl

2009-12-01T20:44:00Z

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.

Natural or Artificial Trees? Which is Greener?

2009-12-01T06:07:00Z

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?

Most people reading this blog probably assume the answer is obvious: natural is more natural!

But after that truism, things get more complicated. Natural trees can sequester carbon. But they also require land, water, fertilizers, and pesticides. Artificial trees can be used for years and years. But they are usually made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) treated with potentially toxic flame retardants, and shipped from China.

Not surprisingly the American Christmas Tree Association – the trade association for the artificial tree industry – released a study in 2008 claiming that artificial trees are better for the environment than natural trees if you use them for over 10 years.

The ACTA study seemed largely unconcerned with the potential environmental and health impacts of manufacturing polyvinyl chloride, or the potential dioxin emissions if the PVC is burned at the end of its life.

A more recent, and more independent, Life Cycle Assessment conducted by a Canadian consulting firm – Ellipsos – came to very different conclusions. The 50 page report, with 4 appendices, and peer review comments, comes down on the side of natural trees.

When compared on an annual basis, the artificial tree, which has a life span of six years, has three times more impacts on climate change and resource depletion than the natural tree. It is roughly equivalent in terms of human health impacts, but almost four times better on ecosystem quality compared to the natural tree. The natural tree contributes to significantly less carbon dioxide emission (39%) than the artificial tree. Nevertheless, because the impacts of the artificial tree occur at the production stage, and since it can be reused multiple times, if the artificial tree were kept longer, it would become a better solution than the natural tree. It would take, however, approximately 20 years before the artificial tree would become a better solution regarding climate change.”

One interesting finding that both studies agreed on was that:

the most significant contribution to global warming came from fossil fuel consumption in transportation of real Christmas trees from tree farms and lots to consumer homes. The study also indicated that driving out to a tree farm and cutting down a tree is the worst environmental choice you can make when buying a Christmas tree and that it’s substantially better for the environment to buy a tree from a local retailer rather than to drive out to a farm, due to the incremental fossil fuel consumed.”

The bottom line: it is definitely not a good idea for me to drive to the mountains to cut down my own tree. The emissions from my car will swamp the other environmental impacts of the tree.

So my conclusion is that if I can’t convince my household to go for a living, potted tree - that unfortunately doesn’t look anything like a Christmas tree - we will likely purchase a farm-raised tree from a local store.

Testing Toys for the Holidays!

2009-11-27T08:21:00Z

It is the start of the holiday shopping season, and at GoodGuide that means…time to research the health, safety, and environmental performance of the hottest toys of the year!

While most people are out trying to decide which toys would be the most fun for their kids, we have been hard at work taking toys apart and testing them for lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, antimony, chlorine, bromine, and other chemicals of concern.

We started this project by first partnering with the HealthyToys project run by the Ecology Center in Michigan. By combining HealthyToys.org data with GoodGuide’s ratings of the environmental and social performance of the leading toy brands, we will be releasing ratings on over 700 new toys and 40 toy brands on December 4th.

We also decided to buy and test the “hot” toys of the year. These are the best selling toys from Toys R Us, Amazon, Target, and Walmart.

To test these top selling toys, we had to wait until the “hot” toy lists (like Toys R Us’s “Fabulous 15” list) were released. We then purchased 30 of the top-selling toys (and in most cases 3 of each toy) including very hard to find Zhu Zhu pets, Bakugans, Transformers, Princess and the Frog dolls, and more! We also purchased top-selling “mouthable” toys that toddlers and infants often put in their mouths (such as teethers and rings.)

We then hired a technician to work with the GoodGuide ratings team to test these toys with an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer.

To explain it simply, the XRF gun shoots x-rays at the toy. When hit by the x-rays, the material (whether it is plastic, wood, metal, paint, etc.) emits light (fluoresces). The wavelength of the emitted light provides a “fingerprint” of the chemicals in the material. We employed a similar methodology to our partners at HealthyStuff.org. We scanned different parts of each toy, and tested each toy three times. The XRF gun gave us readings on the presence of chemicals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, tin, antimony, chlorine, and bromine.

Without giving away too much, let me just say there were definitely some surprising results in the testing.

We will be releasing the results on Friday Dec. 4th. So sign up for the GoodGuide email alerts, follow us on Twitter or check back next Friday to receive the full story on the Hottest Toys of the year.

The Greenest Toy Companies of 2009

2009-11-27T08:11:00Z

Just in time for the holidays, the GoodGuide science team set out to find the Greenest Toy Companies of 2009. We evaluated over 40 leading brands on their materials – from the type of plastics they use, to the source of their wood, to the their paints and coatings – their energy use, environmental management systems, customer relations, health & safety programs, treatment of workers, labor rights, and transparency.

Over three quarters of the toys sold in the US are now made in China. Many of these are constructed from low-cost plastics such as PVC, and then treated with low-cost paints and coatings. Even many of the wood toys sold in the US are now made from pine grown in the US or Canada, shipped to China, processed and painted, and then shipped back to the US.

The intense pressure to lower costs and speed up delivery has made it increasingly hard for toy companies to not follow this low-cost strategy. Our research found the following brands stand out for their commitment to putting the environment and child safety ahead of cost cutting.

The Greenest Toy Companies of 2009 include:

Plan Toys: Plan Toys use organic rubberwood - trees that no longer produce natural latex - for their wooden toys. No fertilizers are added to the soil for three years prior to harvest so that their wood can be certified organic. Plan Toys uses chemical free kiln drying, and a proprietary, non-formaldehyde glue. They use only non-toxic, water-based dyes. Their company is solar powered and they use low emission befouls to power the machinery that kiln-dries their wood. Many of Plan Toys products are made in Thailand and they have been recognized by the Thai Environment Institute’s “Green Label” program for their low impact on the environment.

Green Toys: Green Toys uses recycled milk containers as the main material in their toys. The used milk containers – which are made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) - are reprocessed into clean plastic in California, and then shaped into new toys. The toys are tested by an independent, third-party lab, which asserts that they contain no traceable amounts of Phthalates or BPA. The toys are also designed without any external coatings, eliminating the need for lead paint. Green Toys’ products are packaged in recycled corrugated boxes with no plastics, cellophane or twist-ties, and are 100% recyclable.

North Star Toys: North Star Toys are made from “sustainably managed” wood or wood scraps from local cabinet makers. The company assembles all of its toys in a “sweat-free” workshop in Questa, New Mexico, which runs on 100-percent renewable energy. North Star use a food-grade mineral oil for the finish on each toy, and all paints are certified nontoxic. The paints and finishes used are manufactured in the US, and meet or exceed all guidelines governing the use of lead in paints and toys.

Haba Toys (owned by Habermaass): Haba wooden toys are made primarily in Germany, but some of their toys are manufactured in China. The company lists toys that are made in Germany on its site. Haba’s German operations are ISO 14001 certified – meaning they have an environmental management program in place at the factory. The company employs renewable energy to power their facilities in Germany – photovoltaics on the roof of their factory, wood scrap burned to generate heat, and a ground source heat system. The company also uses water-based stains and finishes on their wooden toys.

We will be releasing ratings of all the major toy companies and over 700 toys on December 4th. So sign up for the GoodGuide email alerts, follow us on Twitter or check back next Friday to receive the full story on the Hottest Toys of the year.

Ten Things You Didn’t Know About Your Thanksgiving Dinner

2009-11-18T23:05:00Z

Turkeys labeled “Natural” may actually have been treated with antibiotics and fed corn and soy meal grown with synthetic pesticides. The USDA defines “natural” as a turkey containing no artificial ingredients such as added flavors or colors, and that is only minimally processed. It turns out, this leaves out a lot. A turkey labeled “natural” can be fed grains grown with pesticides and raised on a farm that uses pesticides on their fields. Antibiotics can be used not only to treat illnesses, but also as growth promoters. Look for turkeys that are USDA Organic or that say “free of antibiotics”.
“Free range” turkeys may have never set foot outdoors. According to the USDA, “free range” means simply that the turkey “has been allowed access to the outside.” This can mean that they are raised primarily in “range pens” or houses, and that there is a door to the “outside,” which might simply be a cement patio. So “free range” turkeys may almost never see the range.
“Fresh” turkeys may be over 2 months old. The USDA definition of “fresh” refers to turkeys whose internal temperature has never been below 26°F. “Hard-chilled” means the turkey was kept between 0°F and 26°F. “Frozen” means the turkey was kept at or below 0°F. The surprising thing about this standard is that it only mentions temperature, not time. Most Thanksgiving turkeys are processed in September and October, but are still labeled “fresh” in November.
The turkeys we eat (or 99% of them) can’t run, fly, or mate when fully grown. The most common turkeys found in the US - the Broad Breasted White – have been bred to maximize their growth (particularly of breast meat), and are thus unable to reproduce without artificial insemination. They can’t run or fly, and they often go lame due to their heavy breasts. These birds grow twice as fast, and often twice as big as “heritage” turkeys – the turkeys the pilgrims would have seen.
If you buy “basted” or “plumped” turkeys, you are getting a turkey with up to 10 times the sodium levels, and you will be spending several dollars on salt water rather than meat. Basted or plumped turkeys have been injected with up to three percent of their weight (eight percent if they are boneless) of a solution containing butter or other fats, water, flavor enhancers, or “other approved substances,” such as sodium phosphate. Watch out for small print saying “contains up to 15% saltwater.”
The vast majority of turkeys raised in the US are grown in large-scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) where they are often packed in tight conditions, and where their beaks and parts of their toes may be cut off to prevent pecking and cannibalism between animals.
Turkey skin is the least healthy part of the turkey. The skin contains 482 calories and 44 grams of fat, and also has the least protein. A fresh turkey with skin has 231% more fat, 59% more calories, and 23% more cholesterol than a turkey with no skin. Turkey wings with skin are the second least healthy. Wings with skin contain 238 calories and 13 grams of fat per serving.
Breast meat without the skin is the healthiest part of the turkey. Breast meat without skin has only 161 calories and 4 grams of fat per serving.
Two tablespoons of cranberry sauce will give over 1/3 of the sugar you need for the day. And many cranberry sauces contain High Fructose Corn Syrup.
Two tablespoons of gravy sauce give you over 1/3 of the sodium you need for the day. Many gravy products contain have artificial colors of concern, and some contain transfats.

Surprised By the Turkey Ratings? So Were We!

2009-11-18T03:33:00Z

Turkeys – the food of American tradition and holiday memories – get a 3.8 (out of 10) on the GoodGuide health score?!?! . Hard to believe. And I have to admit, people around the GoodGuide office were surprised as well by the low ratings many top-selling turkeys received in our food rating system.

In case you haven’t perused our ratings methodology recently, let me explain how we rate food products. GoodGuide’s health rating begins with a nutrition assessment called the “Ratio of Recommended to Restricted nutrients” (RRR). Put simply, this method calculates the ratio of “good” to “bad” nutrients. Recommended nutrients include: protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, and fiber. Nutrients to minimize include: calories, saturated fat, cholesterol, sugar, and sodium. The RRR score is then adjusted based on a set of thresholds and recommended values for each nutrient.

Meats don’t rate all that well in our nutritional assessment, or in the assessment of most nutritionists. For example, the NuVal nutrition scoring system out of Yale University gives turkey with skin a 31 out of 100. This is one of the lowest rated meats, only slightly above baby back ribs!

While turkey does provide an affordable source of protein—and many happy memories at Thanksgiving—it also contains saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. Americans in general already get enough (or too much) protein. So turkey ends up with more restricted than recommended nutrients.

The Thanksgiving turkeys we studied had surprisingly high levels of sodium. In fact, average sodium levels were often four times higher in turkey products than in similar servings of fresh chicken, pork or beef. Basted, plumped, and cured turkeys have even more sodium. Our worst rated turkey maxed out at a whopping 1140 milligrams of sodium per serving—almost half your daily value of sodium in one 3 ounce serving.

Whole turkeys also have high levels of fat as they include the skin and the fattier parts of the turkey. Turkey skin contains a surprising 482 calories and 44 grams of fat per serving. On the other hand, breast meat without skin has only 161 calories and 4 grams of fat per serving. If you can hold back and avoid eating the skin this year, you can reduce your cholesterol intake by about 33% and your saturated fat intake by about 50%. Check out our tips on how to eat healthy this Thanksgiving.

Finally—and don’t take this the wrong way—most of us go over the “recommended serving size” on Thanksgiving. The GoodGuide ratings don’t account for serving size, but you should remember that one of the keys to healthy eating is moderation. We aren’t saying you shouldn’t eat turkey—in fact we have recommendations on the best turkeys to eat this year—but we hope you will eat a balanced diet, and avoid the skin!

Happy Thanksgiving!

GoodGuide Partners with Alice.com

2009-11-17T15:00:00Z

We’ve now made it even easier to find the products rated by GoodGuide through our new partnership with Alice.com. Alice.com is a young company which has generated a lot of buzz thanks to its innovative way of helping consumers purchase essential household items. We share a common goal of giving consumers the option to make smarter shopping decisions - so both sides jumped at the chance to partner.

When you are shopping on Alice.com, you’ll now see GoodGuide product ratings next to a product, providing you with as much information as possible before purchasing. When you’re researching on GoodGuide, we also provide links to Alice.com so you can buy the products you’re interested in and have them delivered to your home with no shipping costs.

This partnership is another step in our journey to put GoodGuide ratings into the hands of consumers everywhere they are shopping: whether they are on GoodGuide, partner websites, our award-winning iPhone application, or simply browsing the aisles of grocery stores. Our goal is to make sure you can access GoodGuide information wherever and whenever you want so you can choose better products for your family.

Alice.com joins TheFind and a growing number of sites who support GoodGuide’s transparent, science-based ratings system to communicate the health, environmental, and social impacts of products and companies to their users

New iPhone App for Finding Nanotechnology

2009-11-16T17:04:00Z

We recently covered the discovery by British scientists that at least one nanomaterial may affect human cells at a distance. This is only one of the many human health and environmental issues associated with nanotechnology. Unfortunately, some companies are rushing to use nanotechnology without screening it for risks to human health.

Now, the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Nanotechnology Project has released a new application for the iPhone or iPod Touch: findNano. This app allows consumers to look up the Inventory with their phone to see if the product they’re looking at may have nanotechnology. Often, the ingredient list and the package doesn’t mention the presence of nanomaterials, but the Woodrow Wilson Center has gathered data from what manufacturers say about their products. Currently, the inventory lists over 1000 products, with more showing up each week.

Consumers also now have the ability to snap a picture of a product that they think has nanotechnology and send it to the Woodrow Wilson Center for investigation. We’re particularly excited by this innovation, since it gives consumers the power to ask questions of companies. This is an example of making product ingredients more transparent, as the GoodGuide Transparency Manifesto urges.

Nano Health Effects at a Distance

2009-11-10T06:08:00Z

Nanotechnology is increasingly in the news, both for the benefits that it could bring – and for the very uncertain risks it could pose to our health.

Last week, British university researchers reported a startling result from a toxicology experiment. They exposed human cells to nano-scale cobalt-chromium and used a human cell barrier of 4 cells thick to protect the cells. To their surprise, the metal seemed to interfere with the DNA inside the cells, by sending chemical signals through the barrier.

A medical law expert, Professor Thomas Faunce said,

What [this latest research is] saying is once nanoparticles are in the body they have a capacity to cause toxicological effects at a distance.”

This study has been criticized by other leading experts on nano toxicity for using artificially high exposures to the metal, and not using actual human organs. Still, the bottom line is that nanotechnology may have very unexpected effects on human bodies, and scientists have much to learn about these effects. We just don’t know at this time whether the “action at a distance” effect might be important in our bodies.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of companies don’t disclose whether their products feature nanotechnology. Yet, the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Nanotechnology Inventory just went past 1000 products that claim to have nano-particles in them. Many sunscreen products have nano-titanium dioxide, and nano-silver is increasingly used as an anti-microbial in clothes such as underwear. Companies should be honest about what’s in their products, so that we can decide whether we want to take the risk.