L.A. Green Bean

A recent New York Times column on sunscreen has been getting a lot of traction on the internet, and since it's partly about, um, us, we thought it was worth a response.

In the column, author Tara Parker Pope quotes Dr. Warwick L. Morison as saying of EWG, "What they are doing is developing their own system for evaluating things." He's right, to a degree, but the method we use is far from "arbitrary" as Morison suggests. In fact, our assessment is based on sunscreen industry data and other published studies on sun protection.

Morison doesn't mention that the Skin Cancer Foundation, where he sits as chairman of the Foundation's photobiology committee, also has their own system for evaluating sunscreens. Unfortunately, SCF's methods fall short.

At a cost of $10,000 to the manufacturer, the Skin Cancer Foundation endorses sunscreen products based on an evaluation that fails to consider two critical factors: whether or not the product protects against UVA protection, and whether the ingredient soaks through the skin and raises health concerns. A quick scan of the sunscreens they endorse reveals several products that don't contain a single approved UVA-screening chemical -- including a product made specifically for kids. Did you catch that? The Skin Cancer Foundation actually endorses a children's sunscreen that provides completely insufficient protection from UVA rays.

As chair of the committee that heads up these assessments, Dr. Morison may not be paid for his work, but he might realize that the organization could be perceived as having a vested interest in defending the products they endorse. The Skin Cancer Foundation's limited and financially conflicted method does not protect consumers.

Our scientists go beyond these limited factors to assess if products provide full-spectrum UV protection, and if they end up in the body in significant amounts. We base our assessments not just on SPF ratings (UVB protection), but also on industry models of UVA protection and peer-reviewed scientific studies on exposures and health risks from sunscreen chemicals.

Dr. Morison's critique of EWG's methods would be more productively aimed at FDA, which has failed to finalize the sunscreen safety standards they began developing 30 years ago. Currently, sunscreens aren¹t required to protect from damaging UVA radiation, manufacturers can (and do) use misleading claims like "instant" and "all-day" and "waterproof" protection, and many brands contain chemicals that absorb through the skin into the blood, raising potential health concerns.

What it comes down to is this: not all sunscreens are the same. We highlight products the provide solid UVA and UVB protection without putting potentially toxic chemicals into the blood of people who use them. Oxybenzone is a chemical to avoid because there's clear evidence that it gets into our blood, and because there's some data implicating it in hormone disruption and UV-related damage. There are sunscreens on the market that offer better protection without all those health risks. Why on earth wouldn't we recommend them?

The Environmental Working Group recommends products that work without posing significant health concerns. The Skin Cancer Foundation and the FDA should ensure that they are doing the same. With more than a million cases of skin cancer diagnosed each year, people can't afford to wait any longer.

PCBs were banned in the '70s, but not before they had already done their damage. They're linked to problems with the brain, nervous and hormone systems, and although average levels in the human body have dropped, human exposure continues. See, PCBs are persistent contaminants, which means they build up in the environment and in us.

Evidence continues to build that PCBs also affect birth sex. A recent study of blood serum from women who were pregnant in San Francisco in the '60s found that those with higher PCB levels were more likely to give birth to boys than those with low PBC levels. The study puts another nail in the coffin for PCBs, but Dr. Pete Myers brings up an important point in his summary of the report:
The exposure levels observed in the study are high compared to today. Thus if these results are indicative of a causal relationship (never possible to confirm with epidemiological studies) then the simplest prediction would be that the chances of having a boy baby should be increasing because PCBs have been decreasing. That is not the case, at least as of the most recent analysis from Canada and the US.
He's right. Evidence from a large-scale study of four industrialized nations indicates that the sex ratio is skewed, and fewer boys are being born -- and, since PCB levels have dropped, we probably can't blame it on that.

But we can look to PCBs as evidence that in-utero exposure to pollutants can affect a child's sex. There are more than 80,000 chemicals in production today, many of which are known to be persistent or to disrupt hormone systems, and most of which haven't really tested for their impact on human health. And you know what? By the time we get around to cleaning up those culprits, they will have done their damage, too.

How many times must history repeat itself before we get our act together and demand that chemical companies put people before profits?

Photo by Erik R. Bishoff.

The state of California, responding to a petition from EWG and other groups, is going to re-evaluate the health effects of perchlorate, the explosive ingredient in rocket fuel and a potent thyroid toxin. The Office of Environmental Hazard Assessment agreed they should look at new evidence that wasn't available in 2004, when they set a Public Health Goal of 6 parts per billion in drinking water, which the state has since adopted as a drinking water standard. EWG's March 2007 analysis of a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Boston University found that Boston-area infants were receiving twice as much perchlorate as the federal government's profoundly inadequate safety standard. We hope the new evidence convinces California to join Massachusetts by setting a new drinking water standard of 1 ppb or lower.

Nowadays, everything seems to be on sale. And I am not talking about the end of the season clearances in stores around us. I'm talking about how if you have enough money you can often buy what ever you want with it -- public support, freedom, education and yes, science.

Here at EWG we work extensively on science for sale issues. Our chromium fraud investigation revealed that safety standards from chromium-6 – the “Erin Brockovich” chemical – had been skewed by a cancer study that was faked by an industry scientist. We revealed the influence of industry on a Harvard professor's suppression of research on fluoride and bone cancer. We blew the whistle on corporate-cozy government contractors in the case of potent chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) and uncovered the major conflict of interest of Sciences International, a consultant that was running the federal safety review of BPA while also working for the chemical industry. As the result of our work, Congress began an investigation of corrupt contracting throughout all regulatory agencies.

But even with EWG's work and the work of other watch dog groups, the situation is still far from being resolved. The question to ask, when thinking about conflict of interest, is who is paying for it and how is that influencing the questions being asked.

BPA is a poster child chemical for funding biases. According to a recent Washington Post article by David Michaels,

"One of the eyebrow-raising statistics about the BPA studies is the stark divergence in results, depending on who funded them. More than 90 percent of the 100-plus government-funded studies performed by independent scientists found health effects from low doses of BPA, while none of the fewer than two dozen chemical-industry-funded studies did.

This striking difference in studies isn't unique to BPA. When a scientist is hired by a firm with a financial interest in the outcome, the likelihood that the result of that study will be favorable to that firm is dramatically increased. This close correlation between the results desired by a study's funders and those reported by the researchers is known in the scientific literature as the "funding effect."

Having a financial stake in the outcome changes the way even the most respected scientists approach their research. Scientists make many decisions about the doses, exposure methods and disease definitions they use in their experiments, and each decision affects the result."

Often, the scientists just plainly manipulate the results. But, according to the Michaels, sometimes close examination of those studies shows that they are comparable in the quality of data and sometimes even better. The puzzle is then, how does that happen?

There are many ways to manipulate the science when the industry is paying the tab—the scientist might not be asking the questions they should be asking; industry funded studies might also be designed to create certain results (and not show some others); as the case with Sciences International and BPA analysis shows, there could be industry presence in choosing the scientific literature that could have big impact on conclusions and so on.

Corporate sponsorship of science should stop once and for all. With the global increases of diseases, public health is not something that should be taken lightly. And there should be no price tag attached to it.

What do drilling for gas on public lands and antibacterial chemicals in consumer products have in common? Neither of them are the answer to our problems. We've got the rundown on two new EWG reports in this edition of Mixed Greens.

Mixed Greens is EWG's environmental health podcast. You can subscribe in iTunes or in a reader, or listen right here in your browser. Check out previous episodes for more Mixed Greens goodness!

Links for this edition:

EWG Report: Coming Up Dry
EWG Report: Pesticide in Soap, Toothpaste and Breast Milk - Is It Kid-Safe?
Cheatsheet: Triclosan

What is triclosan?
Triclosan is an antibacterial chemical found in many consumer products. It’s nearly ubiquitous in liquid hand soap and dishwashing detergent, but those aren’t the only products it’s in. Triclosan is also a common ingredient in toothpaste, facewash, deodorant, a host of personal care products, and even mattresses, toothbrushes and shoe insoles.

A U.S. FDA advisory committee has found that household use of antibacterial products provides no benefits over plain soap and water, and the American Medical Association recommends that triclosan not be used in the home, as it may encourage bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

What problems are associated with triclosan?
Triclosan is linked to liver and inhalation toxicity, and low levels of triclosan may disrupt thyroid function. Wastewater treatment does not remove all of the chemical, which means it ends up in our lakes, rivers and water sources. That’s especially unfortunate since triclosan is very toxic to aquatic life.

HOW TO AVOID TRICLOSAN

• Forgo antibacterial soap. FDA says it’s no more effective than plain soap and water.
  
• Watch for the antibacterial chemicals triclosan and triclocarban (triclosan's chemical cousin) in personal care products. Read ingredient labels or use Skin Deep to find products without them.
  
• Avoid “antibacterial” products.Triclosan is used in everyday products like toothbrushes, toys, and cutting boards that may be labeled “antibacterial,” "fights germs," "protection against mold," or make claims such as “odor-fighting” or “keeps food fresher, longer.”
  

Triclosan may be in these products:

• soap and dishwashing liquid
  
• towels
  
• mattresses
  
• sponges
  
• personal care products
  
• shower curtains
  
• toothbrushes
  
• phones
  
• kitchenware and plastic food containers
  
• shoes
  
• flooring and carpets
  
• cutting boards
  
• clothing and fabrics
  
• toys
  

Tips to control germs:
To protect your family’s health from harmful microorganisms, follow these helpful tips from the EPA:

• Wash hands frequently and thoroughly with plain soap.
  
• Wash surfaces that contact food (e.g., utensils, cutting boards, counter tops) with a regular (not "antibacterial") detergent and warm water.
  
• Wash children's hands and toys regularly. Again, simple soap and good old-fashioned scrubbing will suffice.
  

Where can I learn more?
Read EWG's report on triclosan exposure.
Use this handy map to track down the triclosan in your house.
Triclosan-free body care products in Skin Deep.

Photo by Anthony Salvi.

This post is by EWG research intern Natalia, who's been hard at work assisting with our report about triclosan in consumer products.

Although most shoppers probably don’t know it, "antibacterial" isn’t just for soap anymore. From sports clothing to cutting boards, deodorants, and children’s toys, a wide range of consumer products are now commonly treated with antimicrobial pesticides such as triclosan.

Never heard of triclosan? You’re not alone – most people haven’t! But if you look at the back label of your antibacterial soap, it’s likely you will find it listed as the active ingredient. In fact, you might be amazed how many consumer products contain triclosan. Besides extensive use in liquid soaps and numerous personal care products, different antibacterial chemicals are added to plastics and textiles to provide protection against bacteria and mold and to eliminate odors.

It’s easy to think that antimicrobial products solve many immediate problems: they kill bacteria on your hands and prevent mildew growth in your carpet. And indeed, in a time when many Americans are becoming increasingly concerned with cleanliness, antimicrobial products may appear to be perfect weapons in our "war on germs." However, the American Medical Association, Food and Drug Administration, and numerous scientists all around the world would beg to differ.

In 2002, the American Medical Association has publicly recommended that “[because] no data exist to support their efficacy when used in such products or any need for them […] it may be prudent to avoid the use of antimicrobial agents in consumer products.”

And in 2005, researchers from Tufts University, Columbia University, and University of Michigan reached the same conclusion: “Currently, no evidence suggests that use of antibacterial soap containing 0.2% triclosan provides a benefit over plain soap in reducing bacterial counts and rate of infectious symptoms in generally healthy persons in the household setting.”

Fair enough; but the argument against the use of antimicrobial products isn’t simply about whether or not antibacterial hand soap has health benefits. It’s also about what happens after you wash that soap down the drain.

Antimicrobial compounds like triclosan tend to be broad-spectrum in focus, acting against a large group of micro-organisms rather than a particular species. The problem is that not everything that these chemicals target is actually bad for you – in fact, you probably rely on the help of some of these organisms every day. I’d like to take this moment to introduce the humble Pseudomonas.

Accompanied by several species of industrious bacteria, protozoa, and occasionally fungi, this tiny bacterium plays a vital role in many wastewater treatment plants across the country as part of the "activated sludge process." Because they help break down raw sewage to prepare it for later processing, proper sewage treatment would not be possible without these little guys – but unfortunately, they’re also very vulnerable to antimicrobial compounds.

The problem doesn’t stop there, however. Standard sewage treatment methods are not designed to remove pharmaceuticals, chemicals from personal care products, and antimicrobial compounds that flow down the drain. And indeed, scientific studies indicate that a significant portion of triclosan remains in the wastewater discharged by sewage treatment plants into lakes, rivers, and oceans.

On top of that, when pure triclosan is sold as an additive to manufacturers, the EPA requires all product safety labels to include this warning: “This pesticide is toxic to fish and other organisms. Do not discharge into lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans, or other public waters.” I’ve added the bolding, but warning’s meaning is quite clear: even if the amount of triclosan released to our waterways may seem small, it can nevertheless have big effects.

When concentrations of triclosan build beyond certain (fairly low) levels, it can kill all kinds of aquatic life, including algae and invertebrates such as crawfish and crabs. Furthermore, it can disrupt entire food chains, as fish that eat the affected algae and invertebrates can accumulate triclosan in their own tissues. In turn, this can lead to buildup of triclosan in the fatty tissues of birds and humans that consume these fish, thereby completing the unpleasant cycle.

Ultimately, it seems that although antimicrobials are now found in a wide variety of consumer products, the “perfect solution” they offer is in fact not so perfect at all. Although antibacterial compounds in hand soaps and surgical masks do play an important role in preventing the spread of infection in hospital settings, studies have shown that compounds such as triclosan provide dubious, if any, short term health benefits in everyday settings. In addition, these chemicals’ harmful effects on helpful bacteria and aquatic life can have further consequences for human health.

So the next time you’re at the store, show your local fish and Pseudomonas that you care – take a moment to read the ingredients label before buying that new bottle of soap. They’ll thank you for it.

Photo by Anthony Salvi.

What exactly is that stuff you're washing your hands with?

The Environmental Working Group is releasing a report Thursday morning about antibacterial chemicals in consumer products -- and we think you'll be surprised to find out how many products this stuff is in.

We're inviting Enviroblog readers to join EWG Scientist Rebecca Sutton for a video Q&A about the report tomorrow (Thursday, July 17th) at 4:30 EST.

Just go to http://www.ustream.tv/channel/environmental-working-group and type in your questions about the report, and you'll get to see Rebecca answer them. Isn't technology awesome?

See you there!

Photo by Anthony Salvi.

What exactly is that stuff you're washing your hands with? The Environmental Working Group is releasing a report Thursday morning about antibacterial chemicals in consumer products -- and we think you'll be surprised to find out how many products this... Amanda http://enviroblog.org/bio.htm

So, how do you feel about bubbly water?

EPA has issued an initial rule on carbon sequestration -- that's where coal plants and other major carbon dioxide sources pump the gas into the ground, where (hopefully) it stays and doesn't contribute to climate change. Because the sequestered gas could potentially leak into drinking water sources, the proposed rule would add specific rules for carbon dioxide burial to the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act.

The Associated Press said the rule "creates extensive siting, testing and monitoring requirements to prevent leaks." That sounds promising, doesn't it?

I sure hope their assessment is correct. If they're wrong, and EPA doesn't hold companies to strict regulations, the result could be a lot worse than bubbly tap water. If it leaks into drinking water, too much carbon dioxide can make the water acidic. Acidic water can leach heavy metals from rock, and I'm guessing you probably don't want to be drinking lead-water. Also, sequestration would have to be done well and carefully to ensure that carbon dioxide didn't leak out of the ground and back into the atmosphere.

Obviously the best plan is to stop producing so much carbon dioxide, but it looks like carbon sequestration is going to happen. There won't be a final rule for another two or three years, though, so we'll be keeping an eye on the technology and the regulations to see if it can be done safely.

Photo by Philosophy Geek.

So, how do you feel about bubbly water? EPA has issued an initial rule on carbon sequestration -- that's where coal plants and other major carbon dioxide sources pump the gas into the ground, where (hopefully) it stays and doesn't... Amanda http://enviroblog.org/bio.htm

Imagine a flame-retardant chemical so clearly toxic that the National Cancer Institute, the World Health Organization and the Consumer Product Safety Commission all consider it harmful. Enough studies document its link to cancer that manufacturers no longer use it in children's pajamas. It's also clearly linked reproductive and developmental problems in lab animals.

Now imagine -- and this probably won't be hard -- that the government still allows this chemical to be produced, and manufacturers use it increasingly in a wide variety of products, from couches to baby carriers, and that the EPA's website only lists studies by the chemical industry, only one of which was peer-reviewed or published. Imagine that all of those studies say the flame retardant is safe. (Try to imagine that you're surprised.)

So you're imagining a toxic chemical that's being used widely in consumer products, and you're probably thinking that your imaginary self would want to avoid it. Wish her good luck, and then imagine this: there's essentially no way to avoid it, not only because products that contain it aren't labeled, but because not even manufacturers know when this risky chemical is being used.

The chemical is real, and it's called chlorinated Tris. Angry? I imagine you are. I know I am. Chlorinated Tris is one of 80,000 reasons that we need a new chemical regulatory law.

Photo: Cutest Baby Ever by Call It Crazy.

Imagine a flame-retardant chemical so clearly toxic that the National Cancer Institute, the World Health Organization and the Consumer Product Safety Commission all consider it harmful. Enough studies document its link to cancer that manufacturers no longer use it in... Amanda http://enviroblog.org/bio.htm

Raise your hand if you want your food packaging – hamburger wrappers, french-fry bags, pizza boxes – coated with cancer-causing Teflon chemicals that pollute the bodies of unborn babies and Arctic polar bears. How about baby bottles and sippy cups made with hormone-disrupting chemicals that are about to be banned in Canada and that Wal-Mart and Target have pulled off the shelf?

I didn't think so.

But the chemical industry, with its typical regard for your health, is waging a take-no-prisoners war in California to stop the state from banning those same chemicals.

The American Chemistry Council and DuPont are leading the ranks of lobbying groups and companies who, between them, have hired an army of lobbyists – including a K Street firm that ran Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's first campaign – and are paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars to block the proposed bans. They're using scare tactics, telling food banks that a ban on bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles would mean the end of canned goods. They're brazenly greenwashing, calling one of their food-packaging chemicals – C6, which EWG found in the blood of 10 of 10 newborns – a shining example of the "green chemistry" movement they say is going to transform the industry.

An aide to Sen. Ellen Corbett, author of Senate Bill 1313, which would ban perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) from food packaging, counted 13 lobbyists who've been hired by companies or groups trying to stop the bill. The odds seemed so long against the outnumbered environmental, health and labor groups backing the bill that gasps were heard from lobbyists in the hearing room when the Assembly Health Committee approved the bill a couple of weeks ago.

SB 1713, by Sen. Carole Migden, would ban BPA from baby bottles, sippy cups, and any food container or feeding device intended for children 3 and under. It doesn't have as many registered opponents arrayed against it. But the most recent players to come on board are Navigators LLC, a lobbying firm with offices in Washington and Sacramento, that steered Gov. Schwarzenegger's 2003 campaign and his campaign for budget reform in 2004. Navigators principal Mike Murphy was chief campaign strategist for Arnold in 2003 and Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign in 2000, and just joined NBC and MSNBC as a pundit, after speculation that he would step in to rescue McCain's currently floundering campaign.

Navigators wasted no time in raising the ante and lowering the bar. On July 9, Colleen Coghlan, a senior communications consultant in the Sacramento offices of Navigators, sent the following email, obtained by EWG, to an unknown number of non-profit food banks in California. I'm not sure who the coalition she mentions consists of; disclosure reports for current lobbying activity won't be available until the end of the month.

Canned Goods Removed from Food Banks?

By way of introduction, my name is Colleen Coghlan and I am working with a large coalition of members within the health, business and food community to build awareness of a bill moving ahead in Sacramento.

As written, SB 1713 (Migden) could lead to the removal of food from the shelves of grocery stores as well as those from local food banks. SB 1713 becoming law will result in the loss of safe and necessary consumer products such as the following canned and jarred:

• Fruits
• Vegetables
• Sauces
• Olives
• Pickles
• Tuna and other seafood
• Pasta
• Beans
• Soup
• Chili
• Whipped Toppings
• Cooking Spray
• Chicken
• Sausages
• Meats
• Milk, condensed and evaporated
• Juice

The burden on consumers created by SB 1713 unfairly falls upon society’s most vulnerable who do not have access to alternatively packaged products which are often more expensive and less available to consumers. This bill would ban Bisphenol A (BPA), an epoxy lining, which acts as a barrier to contamination, used in almost all food containers.

BPA has been tested, scientifically reviewed and approved for safe use in food containers by the responsible regulatory agencies in the USA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency), European Union (European Food Safety Commission), Canada (HealthCanada) and Japan (Japanese Ministry of Environment) and has been safely used for over 50 years.

Ensuring CA families eat healthy and have access to the foods they need should be a priority for the state. The current manner in which this bill is written would create greater difficulty for parents to get access to the food their families need.

I could call in an EWG toxicologist to refute Coghlan's claims one by one, but it should suffice to counter the biggest whopper: Migden's bill is specifically aimed at containers for food intended for babies and toddlers – most importantly, formula packages. Even if you don't believe the hundreds of studies showing harm at current levels of BPA exposure, shouldn't we be more cautious when it comes to babies?

This is not nanny government. Neither one of these bills tries to ban all uses of the chemicals, or any uses for which there aren't already safe alternatives. Corbett's bill seeks to eliminate the most direct route of exposure – putting the chemical in your mouth and swallowing it – for a chemical that DuPont has agreed to phase out nationally by 2015. That's too long to wait on a toothless, loophole-ridden agreement the company only accepted after the EPA fined it $16 million for concealing evidence of PFCs' health risks.

The chemical industry is trying to have it both ways, saying legislators shouldn't have to make chemical-by-chemical decisions, but at the same time refusing to support more ambitious reform bills. If reform must come, they would rather see it come from the state-sanctioned Green Chemistry Initiative, which gives corporations a seat at the table in proposing safer chemicals. But the GCI is still in its first draft, and today's 3-year-olds could be in middle school before we see results. I don't think the prospect of a better chemical regulatory system in the future frees the Legislature – or the governor – from taking action now against two very clear threats to public health.

Raise your hand if you want your food packaging ??? hamburger wrappers, french-fry bags, pizza boxes ??? coated with cancer-causing Teflon chemicals that pollute the bodies of unborn babies and Arctic polar bears. How about baby bottles and sippy cups... Bill http://enviroblog.org/bio.htm

Living on or near agricultural land has feminizing effects on male cane toads, according to a recent report by Florida scientists. After comparing toads from a range of areas, from non-agricultural suburbia to 97% farmland, they found that male farm toads were more likely to have female physical traits. In the two heaviest agricultural areas examined, 60% of the male toads were feminized to some degree, and 40% were fully intersexed (meaning they had equal parts male and female reproductive tissue).

We probably shouldn't be too surprised. Two common agricultural chemicals (Round-Up and atrazine) are already known estrogen-mimicking hormone disruptors. There's a good chance that other agricultural chemicals are contributing to the toad problem.

In the unlikely case that you're thinking "Okay, so there are some girly frogs, who cares?" - - Allow me to explain. For starters, amphibian levels are tanking, and that disrupts the entire food chain (which, despite our distance from our food sources, we are still a part of). Not startling enough for you? How about this: toads and humans have the same sex hormones and very similar endocrine systems. If we're only just figuring out that hormone disrupting agricultural chemicals are having profound effects on toad reproductive systems, what more subtle effects are they having on us?

Photo by Doug Greenberg.

Living on or near agricultural land has feminizing effects on male cane toads, according to a recent report by Florida scientists. After comparing toads from a range of areas, from non-agricultural suburbia to 97% farmland, they found that male farm... Amanda http://enviroblog.org/bio.htm

I don’t believe that it’s the rising worldwide population that is leading to the environmental problems we are facing today. While I have to acknowledge that population growth plays a small role in it, I believe that most environmental degradation comes from the behavior of that population. Especially concerning is the behavior of the few developed countries that contribute much more to global degradation than the less developed ones.

Having that in mind, I can appreciate the United Nations- sponsored World Population Day coming up tomorrow, July 11. According to the UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund:

“This year’s World Population Day reaffirms the right of people to plan their families. It encourages activities, events and information that will help make this right real – especially for those who often have the hardest time getting the information and services they need to plan their families, such as marginalized populations and young people.

When people can plan their families, they can plan their lives. They can plan to beat poverty. They can plan on healthier mothers and children. They can plan to gain equality for women. “

There are many reasons why family planning is important: It could save women’s lives and help them participate in the labor force, as well as give them the opportunity to choose when and how they want to establish their family.

To read some of the environmental implications of the lack of family planning, read this. If you are interested in doing something in your community, the UN web site offers some good suggestions.

I don???t believe that it???s the rising worldwide population that is leading to the environmental problems we are facing today. While I have to acknowledge that population growth plays a small role in it, I believe that most environmental degradation... Jovana

A former EPA adviser alleges that Vice President Dick Cheney's office pressured the agency to delete nearly half of their testimony on the public health effects of climate change.

President Bush took responsibility for the deletion when it made headlines in October, claiming that there wasn't the science to back up the EPA's claims. Now Jason K. Burnett says that in fact it was Cheney's office that called for the deletions, because the Vice President worried that the testimony would "make it harder to avoid regulating greenhouse gases."

Wouldn't it be nice if we could control our own lives the way the administration apparently controls science? If you got a bad grade in a class, you could just delete it from your transcript. Bad review from your employer? Couple of clicks and it's gone!

But not only is that not possible for the rest of us -- most of us wouldn't do it anyway, because it's dishonest. And that's nothing compared to manipulating science because it isn't good for your business interests. That's absolutely shameful.

Photo by Down the Waterfall.