By Dara O'Rourke, November 17, 2009 · Posted under Health Issues

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.

Read more...

Comments (1)

By Alastair Iles, November 16, 2009 · Posted under Environmental Issues, Health Issues

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.

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

By Alastair Iles, October 14, 2009 · Posted under Health Issues

Endocrine disrupting chemicals, which can interfere with the hormone system, potentially harming people’s ability to have kids, and children’s healthy development, have been in the news a lot lately. These chemicals have been identified in a wide range of personal care products. What’s not as well known, is that foods may also be an important pathway of exposure to endocrine disruptors.

Not surprisingly, Europe is ahead of the United States in testing foods for endocrine disruptors. Since 2004, a network of European scientists, called CASCADE, has published over one hundred papers that assess whether foods contain endocrine disruptors. They have discovered that there’s real reason for concern.

As the CASCADE scientists point out, because endocrine disruptors are more likely to build up in animal fat, and because most people high on the food chain, they are likely to be exposed to foods with higher levels of endocrine disruptors.

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.

Read more...

Comments (2)

By Dara O'Rourke, March 18, 2009 · Posted under Health Issues

As Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) labels show up in grocery stores, we are learning that approximately 80% of our seafood, 90% of lamb and mutton, 30% of fresh fruits and nuts, and 13% of vegetables are imported from around the world. The top 10 countries importing food and beverages into the U.S. include: Canada, Mexico, China, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, Chile, New Zealand, Colombia and the European Union.

Developing countries such as Mexico and China are increasingly important in our food supply. Food imports from China into the U.S. have quadrupled over the last decade. China is now our number one country for importing prepared/preserved fruits, number two for prepared/preserved vegetables, and number four for fresh or frozen vegetables. China also is the number one producer of farmed fish and shellfish in the world, and the number one supplier of apple juice.

China supplies 80 percent of the world’s ascorbic acid– vitamin C – one-third of the world’s vitamin A, much of the supply of vitamin B-12, and many health-food supplements, such as lysine. Perhaps most surprising, a growing percentage of imported “organic” foods are now coming from China as well. So my daughter’s lunch of fish sticks, crackers, a fruit snack, apple juice, and a vitamin could all be from China. But is her food safe?

Read more...

Comments (5)

By Dara O'Rourke, March 16, 2009 · Posted under Health Issues

On March 16, 2009, the US government will finally begin enforcing Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for meats, fruits, vegetables, and some raw nuts. This comes almost seven years – and a lot of industry lobbying – since Congress originally passed the COOL law in 2002.

With this required disclosure, grocery store shoppers can finally know the country of origin of their beef, pork, lamb, chicken, goat, fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, raw peanuts, pecans, ginseng, and macadamia nuts. Labeling for seafood went into effect in 2006.

Unfortunately, COOL only covers unprocessed foods. So while fresh peanuts must be labeled, roasted peanuts and peanut butter are not. A bag of frozen peas is covered, but a bag with a mix of peas and carrots is not (this is considered processed). Cooked shrimp? You guessed it, not covered. In fact, cooked meats such as bacon, cured ham, and almost any products with more than one ingredient are exempt from disclosing their country of origin.

Despite these gaps in what COOL covers, we still consider it a big step towards greater transparency in the marketplace.

Enjoy the exciting new tour of countries of the world in your grocery store!

Comments (7)

By Dara O'Rourke, December 09, 2008 · Posted under Health Issues

A parent’s job has always been difficult. But this holiday season it seems you need a team of elves with PhDs to find out where the toys you’re buying came from and what chemicals might be lurking inside them. Of 1,500 popular toys tested by HealthyToys.org, 1 in 3 were found to contain significant levels of toxic chemicals such as lead and arsenic.

GoodGuide has assembled a team of science elves and partnered with leading nonprofit groups around the country — such as HealthyToys.org, the Center for Health and Environmental Justice, Healthy Child Healthy World, and the City of San Francisco — to identify safe toys and toxic toys on store shelves.

Our Holiday Guide to Safe Toys includes only toys that are free from chemicals of concern such as lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, bromine, and phthalates. Hopefully, they’re also fun for your kids! We've searched for everything from safe dolls to safe puzzles, from safe arts and crafts to safe action figures.

Continue reading to see our list of Safe Toys...

Read more...

Comments (3)

By Dara O'Rourke, December 09, 2008 · Posted under GoodGuide Happenings, Health Issues

According to Consumers Union, product recalls due to safety hazards were up 19% this year, with over 29 million children’s products recalled in the last 12 months alone and over 12 million toys recalled due to lead contamination.

A new law passed in August was designed to protect children from hazards in toys by tightening standards for lead and by banning phthalates outright in toys. These chemicals are causes for serious concern: lead is a known childhood developmental toxin, while phthalates have been banned in Europe for almost a decade due to suspected threats to the hormonal system, including risks of boys being born with smaller penises and undescended testicles.

Unfortunately, despite the continued flow of problematic toys into the US, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recently issued a legal interpretation of this law effectively delaying its implementation. The CPSC has ruled (in response to industry lobbying) that products manufactured before February 10, 2009, are grandfathered in and not subject to the new safety rules.

This means that toxic toys with phthalates can be sold on US toy store shelves not only this Christmas, but for many years to come. The Wall Street Journal reports that some toy makers are now stockpiling toys with phthalates and may be flooding the market with these products in order to sell off their inventory before the federal ban takes effect.

Particularly troubling for parents is that toy companies do not have to disclose the “ingredients” in their products. It is thus almost impossible to know whether a rubber ducky on the shelves contains lead, phthalates, or other hazards. US shoppers may unknowingly be purchasing unsafe toys during this and many future holiday seasons.

GoodGuide has been working to fill this gap in information by developing a database of safe toys that rates toys for lead, cadmium, mercury, phthalates, environmental performance, treatment of workers, safety recalls, and other issues. We have partnered with HealthyToys.org, the Center for Health and Environmental Justice, Healthy Child Healthy World, and the City of San Francisco, to pull together the best available information for concerned shoppers.

Today, we are releasing our ratings of the safest toys. Visit GoodGuide.com or download the newest update to our iPhone application for all of this data. You will be surprised to see how many products from famous brands still contain hazardous materials. And you will be relieved to know you can still find safe toys while you’re online or out shopping in a store - you just have to know where to look.

Arm yourself with GoodGuide’s information on safe toys, tell your friends, and then have a safe and healthy holiday!

Comments (1)

By Dara O'Rourke, November 20, 2008 · Posted under Health Issues

In the last 30 years, we’ve seen a fairly alarming trend of increasing childhood disease rates worldwide. Research in the United States and Europe shows increases in incidences of childhood cancers, as well as increases in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, early-onset puberty, asthma, and allergies.

There’s also a growing body of scientific studies linking chemicals found in consumer products with specific illnesses (usually studied in animals). And while there is no scientific consensus on the overall causes of these trends, there is enough evidence now to help people buy better products to avoid certain chemicals, until those chemicals are proven safe. This perspective is called the precautionary principle. With babies I think it makes a lot of sense. Rather than requiring that someone (usually an under-funded regulatory agency, or even less-funded non-profit organizations) prove these chemicals definitively cause childhood cancers and other illnesses, we simply say, let’s avoid them until industry provides the data to prove that they are safe.

Based on that idea, many chemicals are now banned in baby care products in Europe and Japan. So when I go shopping for stuff for my five-year-old daughter, I try to avoid these chemicals as well:

Triclosan Oxybenzone 1,4-Dioxane Formaldehyde Phthalates

Cocamide DEA and Lauramide DEA Propylene Glycol Talc Fluoride Parabens

Read more about the top 10 chemicals to avoid in babycare products after the break.

Read more...

Comments Off (3)

By Alastair Iles, November 13, 2008 · Posted under Health Issues

Green chemistry is now a hot topic in California. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two green chemistry bills in Sacramento on September 29 in an effort to create greener products through the transformation of the state’s regulation of chemicals.

Most immediately relevant to GoodGuide users is SB 509, which Senator Joe Simitian sponsored. Starting in 2009, the California Department for Toxic Substances Control will build an online Toxics Clearinghouse Database with detailed information on chemical hazards to human health and ecosystems. The agency will pool data from existing chemical databases across the world, not just the US. (GoodGuide already uses many of these databases to help generate our health ratings.) This should vastly increase the amount of information that consumers can use to protect themselves.

Unfortunately, the new law does not impose a basic requirement on manufacturers to disclose all ingredients in consumer products, as opposed to reporting only hazardous active ingredients or using vague terms such as “surfactant” or “fragrance”. Nor does the law require the toxics database to address consumer products specifically.

The original bill, in fact, did have such a requirement. Companies were to reveal all substances constituting over 0.1% of a consumer product’s composition on their product labels or websites by March 2009, an effort to help consumers find healthier products. But, in August, Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature succumbed to heavy industry lobbying and abandoned this badly needed reform.

Read more to learn what this lack of reporting means for you.

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.

Read more...

Comments (2)

By Alastair Iles, October 01, 2008 · Posted under Health Issues

The Food & Drug Administration announced in a draft paper on August 15 that bisphenol-A, a plastic hardener widely used in drinking bottles and food cans, is safe. BPA can leach out into food and water, but in amounts that, according to the FDA, are too small to worry consumers. This statement is only the latest step in a long-running government investigation of whether BPA is toxic.

Opinions on the FDA’s report are divided. Chemical companies are delighted, asserting that the regulators used the latest available scientific data to make a balanced decision – although the scientific data may come primarily from industry-funded research.

As environmental groups say, there’s also evidence that BPA can upset the hormone systems of humans and wildlife. A leading United States government expert agency, the National Toxicology Program, says in an April 2008 report that “some concern” exists regarding children’s health. This view is based on research on animals that shows lower birth weight and growth for newborns, and brain changes in baby mice and rats. No evidence exists yet for human health effects.

Critics believe the FDA tends to favor industry interpretations of the data. They call for precautionary action: ensuring that the humans most vulnerable to chemicals, babies, aren’t exposed.

Canada has already decided to ban BPA from use in baby products, and the California Legislature will vote soon on a similar ban. Some retailers are withdrawing water bottles containing BPA, while Wal-Mart is eliminating BPA from its range of products for children. The U.S. government risks being left behind yet again when it comes to protecting Americans.

An update: Researchers at the Yale University School of Medicine announced a few weeks ago that they had discovered a link between BPA and brain problems in monkeys, the first time that BPA health effects have been found in primates.

For more on the FDA draft position: http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/foodpackaging081908.html

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 (2)