You’ve probably already heard in the news that three chemicals used as oil repellants in pizza boxes, microwavable popcorn bags, fast-food wrappers and pet food bags to stop grease from leaking through the packaging have now been banned for use by the FDA.

These chemicals are related to perfluorooctanoic acids, or PFOAs, which have been connected to thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and preeclampsia, a potentially life-threatening high blood pressure in pregnant women.

The good news is that PFOAs have already been being phased out for some time. They were typically found in non-stick coatings on pots and pans, but are now being replaced with “PFOA-free” coatings. Likewise, these chemicals have been disappearing from food packaging as well.

I wanted to share this story with you because it’s a good example of how change is made. This change is the result of a petition filed in 2010 by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Food Safety, the Breast Cancer Fund, the Center for Environmental Health, Clean Water Action, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Children’s Environmental Health Network, Environmental Working Group, and Improving Kids’ Environment. These groups made it known there was a danger. By the time the FDA banned these chemicals, they had already been phased out by industry.

We can do this with other chemicals too. This is why we should be supporting these groups and others like them.

Here are some excerpts from the official FDA announcement.

On 4 January 2016 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a ruling amending the food additive regulations to no longer provide for the use of three specific perfluoroalkyl ethyl containing food-contact substances (FCSs) as oil and water repellants for paper and paperboard for use in contact with aqueous and fatty foods because new data are available as to the toxicity of substances structurally similar to these compounds that demonstrate there is no longer a reasonable certainty of no harm from the food-contact use of these FCSs.

The three FCSs which are the subjects of this petition are:

1. Diethanolamine salts of mono- and bis (1 H, 1 H, 2 H, 2 H perfluoroalkyl) phosphates where the alkyl group is even-numbered in the range C8-C18 and the salts have a fluorine content of 52.4 percent to 54.4 percent as determined on a solids basis;

2. Pentanoic acid, 4,4-bis [(gamma-omega-perfluoro-C8-20-alkyl)thio] derivatives, compounds with diethanolamine (CAS Reg. No. 71608-61-2); and

3. Perfluoroalkyl substituted phosphate ester acids, ammonium salts formed by the reaction of 2,2-bis[([gamma], [omega]-perfluoro C4-20 alkylthio) methyl]-1,3-propanediol, polyphosphoric acid and ammonium hydroxide.

All three of the FCSs subject to the petition contain extended alkyl chains where all of the hydrogens are replaced by fluorine (hence the FCSs are “perfluorinated”). The toxicological profile of extended perfluorinated alkyl chains varies with chain length: On a general basis, those with extended perfluorinated alkyl chains greater than or equal to eight carbons in length demonstrate biopersistence in chronic feeding studies, while those with extended perfluorinated alkyl chains less than eight carbons in length do not (Ref. 1). Biopersistence is defined as persistence and accumulation of a material in a biological tissue due to preferential deposition of the material in the tissue combined with resistance of the material to removal from the tissue by natural clearance mechanisms (Ref. 2). As such, compounds containing extended perfluorinated alkyl chains are often classified as long- (i.e., ≥ eight carbons in length) or short-chain perfluorinated compounds, with implications for toxicology analysis including consideration of biopersistence. All three of the FCSs contain extended perfluorinated alkyl chains ≥ eight carbons in length and as such are long-chain perfluorinated compounds (PFCs).

Question from Tonia

Hi Debra,

If latex wasn’t an option. What would be less bad: 100% soy based foam, or the CertiPur-US polyurethane foam?

And what do you think about this headboard:
www.overstock.com/#/9098385/customer-reviews.html?selectedOption=13075177

Debra’s Answer

First of all there is no such thing as 100% soy-based latex. If you’ve found one, please let me know. I’d like to see it. Typically soy-based foam is only about 30% soy and the remainder is just standard polyurethane.

Here is my analysis of CertiPur-US: CertiPur-US Polyurethane Foam

Personally, I wouldn’t use either one of them. If they were the only options…I don’t know which I would choose. Eating soy messes up my hormones, so I don’t think I would want to sleep on it. I would choose one of the natural beds I’ve listed at the Beds & Bedding page on Debra’s List

The headboard…in the Details it says it’s made of “wood” and then in the Specs it says “MDF, veneer, wood”.

MDF is fiberboard with resins that might contain formaldehyde, veneer requires adhesives that usually contain solvents, and you need to know what type of wood is used. Finish is unknown and may outgas solvents. Without actually physically inspecting this piece, I wouldn’t buy it. Try an unfinished furniture store for a similar style that would be made from solid wood and apply your own nontoxic finish.

This unfinished solid pine bed frame is from Bare Woods Furniture. There are many others.

Add Comment

Question from Sandy F.

Hi Debra,

Hi, I’m writing on behalf of Linda H., a chemically injured friend. She recently had a new boiler and oil burner/motor installed in the basement of her apartment building in MA. She is on the second floor, and is getting a lot of fumes when the new system runs.

The boiler is a Peerless Premiere and is cast iron, and the burner/motor is made by Burnan (Burnam?). Does anyone have an idea of what the source of the fume problems might be, and what a “fix” or “fixes” might be?

FYI, she has already tried turning the thermostat up to 80 degrees, and leaving the apartment with the windows open for a day, and another day with the heat off while she was elsewhere. When she returned, still the problem.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Debra’s Answer

Readers, any suggestions?

Add Comment

Question from Em

Hi Debra,

Are clear vinyl clothes covers used in closets to protect clothes from dust safe to use? These are the covers that go over the rod and cover the shoulder part of clothes. The product labels says “complies with California Prop 65” but when I check the website it states has listed AC Prop 65 chemicals. I find this confusing. I purchased this product from Bed Bath and Beyond – Closetware – Closet Rod Cover.

I am allergic to dust and I would like to cover my clothes in my closet to prevent dust settling on them. Even a few days of dust accumulation which is not notifiable to the eye will create allergic problems for me.

Thank you.

Debra’s Answer

The Product Information clearly states that the product is made from “PVC,” which is considered the most toxic plastic by the environmental group Greenpeace.

This is akin to a vinyl shower curtain, which emits fumes that pollute the air.

In a small enclosed area such as a closet, these fumes could concentrate to very high levels.

I don’t recommend using this product.

Add Comment

Question from Suzanne

Hi Debra,

I am in need of a new sofa. I know as of January 1, 2015 you can buy sofas without chemical flame retardants, but there are other toxic chemicals in most new furniture . I can’t afford the prices for completely toxic free sofas. If you cover sofa with a quilt or blanket, will it block the other chemicals that might be offgassing?

Debra’s Answer

Yes there are other toxic chemicals in many of the new sofas that say they are “flame retardant free.”

Unfortunately, throwing a quilt or blanket over the sofa will NOT block VOCs that may be offgassing from the sofa. The tiny molecules of these gasses with go right through the fabric.

What you need is a very thick polyethylene plastic, or even better, two sheets of polyethylene with a layer of foil in between. Like a “space blanket”

Not very attractive, but this would block any fumes.

Or you could get an air purifier.

Add Comment

Question from Sue Mironer

Hi Debra,

This was posted to my Facebook page today. I’m concerned about the black plastic utensils that I ordered with my Extrema cookware. Are they safe? Are others I bought like it at other stores safe?

www.countryliving.com/shopping/g2932/the-10-most-toxic-items-at-dollar-stores

Debra’s Answer

Just went to the Xtrema website to double check what their utensils are made of and found they are not including them in their sets any more.

I remembered that they were made of nylon and found on their site that it’s OK to use nylon utensils. They are not plastic like the Dollar Store utensils.

I also saw they are now selling my favorite brand of wooden utensils, which is what I use with my Xtrema cookware.

Add Comment

Question from Liz

Hi Debra,

Recently you’ve been talking about electronics. I have a big problem with dust. I was using damp flannel and then washing it then I realized my washer must have the chemicals now. I probably should dust with disposable wipes. Do you have a suggestion?

Debra’s Answer

I wouldn’t use disposable wipes since they are often scented.

Maybe damp paper towels?

But the problem is bigger than this. Those chemicals from electronics are also getting into the air in your home. You would need an air filter to handle that.

Add Comment

Question from Steve

Hi Debra,

Have you done any research on iphone cases? If so, I’m looking for a healthier version to use on my newly purchased iphone 6s.

Debra’s Answer

I have been researching cases for the iPhone 6S because I need to get one myself.

I haven’t looked at all the regular cases because I want to get one that protects against radiation.

I’ve had a Pong case on my old phone that I am happy to see that Pong Research now makes one for the 6s

I wouldn’t use my cell phone without the protective case.

Add Comment

Last week the FDA announced that is is requesting comments on the use of the term “natural” on food labeling.

Currently there is no legal definition of “natural,” though it is used on many labels and even for whole groups of products such as “the natural foods industry” and the “natural cosmetics industry.”

I have always thought “natural” means there are no artificial ingredients in the product, such as artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives. But it has never referred to the basic food ingredients themselves. So I product can be labeled “natural” but still have pesticides and other artificial and toxic chemicals on the basic food ingredients.

Now some are saying that GMO foods should be allowed to be called “natural.”

The FDA stated

Although the FDA has not engaged in rulemaking to establish a formal definition for the term “natural,” we do have a longstanding policy concerning the use of “natural” in human food labeling. The FDA has considered the term “natural” to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food. However, this policy was not intended to address food production methods, such as the use of pesticides, nor did it explicitly address food processing or manufacturing methods, such as thermal technologies, pasteurization, or irradiation.

Since the FDA is asking for our opinion, I gave some thought to this, this morning.

The term “natural” related to foods began to be used I think in the 1970’s, as a way to distinguish foods with additives from foods without additives. I remember this. At the time, consumers were beginning to be concerned about artificial colors and flavors and preservatives, just as we are now concerned about GMOs. There was just no awareness of pesticides on foods. And so “natural” made sense because there was the basic food supply and then there were these additives and “natural” meant that the foods didn’t contain these additives.

It wasn’t until much later that the term “organic” began to be used, first by small local certifiers that wanted to distinguish their foods from those with pesticides. Eventually the organic certification and labeling became the National Organic Program that we have today, with the USDA Certified Organic seal. This goes far beyond what “natural” ever intended.

GMOs are a whole other category. Since “natural” doesn’t address the food itself, but only the lack of additives, a “natural” food could be GMO without additives.

But the term “natural” also has another use with regards to products.

“Natural” can also mean that the base materials used come from nature. A natural food, for example, would basically be an apple or a pig and the like. A natural cosmetic would have all it’s materials come from nature, and no synthetics. Natural fibers would be cotton, linen, silk, etc, and not polyester. However, it did not include how these materials from nature instead of a factory were grown or processed. So you could have natural cotton with pesticides and toxic dyes and finishes and it would still be called “natural.”

Ideally what we need and want is a natural material in it’s natural state. An apple should not have pesticides or waxes. It should just be an apple and nothing else. Just apple as nature intended. No pesticides. No GMO alterations. Just Mother’s Nature’s apple.

And we already have a label for that: “organic.”

It’s fine with me if “natural” is used as described above. The problem is that most consumers don’t understand the terminology.

I don’t think “natural” need to be redefined, I think more people need to understand where it comes from and how it’s commonly understood in our culture.

“Natural” can distinguish materials made by nature from industrial materials made by man. “Organic” can be used to distinguish those natural materials in their natural state, uncontaminated by synthetic materials in growing or processing.

Those are the current definition in common use, they just are not widely known.

I do think, per the FTC “Green Guides,” that if the term “natural” is used, it should be further defined on the label or webpage, as it could be false and misleading without further explanation.

FDA: “Natural” on Food Labeling

Add Comment

Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, I received an email with the subject line: “The Google spinoff tracking toxics in buildings.” Google tracking toxics? What is this?

So I clicked through to the article GreenBiz: Google, thinksetp, Flux and their database of building materials’ enviro impact

I had to see this. www.quartzproject.org

The Mission:

The Quartz Project is an open data initiative that promotes the transparency of building products. Our goal is to drive market transformation towards less toxic, lower-impact materials for better buildings and healthier communities.

It’s an interesting site. They’ve analyzed 101 common building products. “For the first time, both life cycle impact and health hazard data are integrated into an open database>” Read the Methodology page. It’s pretty interesting.

I’m going to walk you through it because it took me a while to figure it out.

I went to a product (acoustical ceiling panels) . You’ll see a general description and then there are 5 big headlines. When you click on the headlines, they open to give more information.

I clicked on “General Composition” and saw two components: gypsum and PVC. There’s a column called “Health Hazards” that drops down to a list of hazards with colored boxes next to them, but I’m not sure what this means.

Then I clicked on “Impurities.” Impurities? Apparently these are all the chemicals that are in the two components. There are 27 impurities listed for the two components. Things like formaldehyde, mercury, lead, a few radioactive materials. 

Then there is a “Health Profile” and an “Environmental Profile”, and a comprehensive “Sources” list, with each title linked to the actual source material.

But what interests me most are these impurities. I’ve never seen this disclosed before. This is a whole new level of looking at toxics. A whole new level of disclosure. It turns out there is a whole field of “toxic impurities” that we never see as consumers. I’m starting to research this and will be writing more about it in the future.

This level of data kind of makes current product labeling look really inadequate.

But I have to say, knowing about all the impurities didn’t make a difference for me in terms of evaluating the toxicity of the product. It just reinforced my earlier decision not to use this product. I rejected it years ago because of the PVC. I don’t need to know all the impurities in PVC to know it’s toxic. PVC has already been established as a toxic plastic. But it does need to be known to formulators, so they can work to eliminate them.

Great start. I’d like to see this data for every product. It’s like looking through a toxics microscope.

Add Comment