The Survive and Thrive Boomer Guide

What consumers need to know about sunscreen as more ‘fun in the sun’ days approach

The vast majority of sunscreens available to the consumer aren’t as good as most people think they are, but a handful of products rise above the rest.

Those are the findings of the Environmental Working Group, which recently released its 7th annual Sunscreen Guide that rates the safety and effectiveness of more than 1,400 sunscreens, lotions, lip products, and makeups that advertise sun protection.

The EWG researchers found that only 25 percent of products on the market in 2013 offer strong and broad UV protection and pose few safety concerns.

Protection from clothing and shade

“The best advice for concerned consumers is to use sun-protective clothing, stay in the shade to reduce intense sun exposure, and schedule regular skin examinations by a doctor,” said Sonya Lunder, senior research analyst at the EWG.

Lunder said consumers should use the EWG’s guide to find the best sunscreens for skin that isn’t protected by clothing.

“Despite an increasing awareness of the sun’s risks, rates of melanoma – the deadliest skin cancer – have tripled over the past 35 years, with an annual increase of 1.9 percent per year since 2000,” she said.

Sunscreen protection weak

Part of the reason for the increase may be the decades of deceptive marketing claims by sunscreen manufacturers, EWG researchers said. 

The EWG believes that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should require companies to stop selling high-SPF sunscreens – above 50+ – which account for one in seven products on the market. As a result of misleading and confusing marketing claims, consumers frequently misuse sunscreens and spend more time in the sun than they should, putting themselves at greater risk, according to the EWG.

In addition, until recently, sunscreens provided little protection from the sun’s ultraviolet A rays. Sunburns are caused mostly by short but intense ultraviolet B rays. Longer UVA rays, which penetrate the body more deeply, inflict more damage and may contribute to or cause cancer. 

The FDA’s current definition of “broad-spectrum” still results in inadequate UVA protection, according to the EWG.

In 2011, the FDA issued long-awaited sunscreen labeling standards promised since 1978. Under the new rules, companies are now prohibited from making misleading advertising claims such as “sunblock,” “waterproof,” and “sweat-proof.” The FDA also set the first-ever standards for sunscreens that claim to provide broad-spectrum protection.

However, the agency now allows most sunscreens on the American market to make claims that they help lower the risk of skin cancer and sun-related skin aging.

The FDA still hasn’t issued final rules on excessively high SPF claims, potentially harmful chemical ingredients, and sunscreen sprays that may be dangerous when inhaled.

The EWG’s analysis of 750 beach and sport sunscreens found that the new FDA rules haven’t led to dramatically better sunscreens than those offered in previous years.

Standards stronger in Europe

While nearly every sunscreen on the market meets the new FDA rule for broad-spectrum protection, that standard is so weak that half of the sunscreens on the American market couldn’t be sold Europe, where the safety and effectiveness rules are more stringent.

European sunscreen makers voluntarily comply with European Union recommendations that a product’s UVA protection and SPF be coordinated so that the UVA protection is at least one-third as strong as the SPF.

EWG’s top four things not to bring to the beach or pool or on vacation

• No sprays. While easy to apply, these popular spray sunscreens may pose serious inhalation risks and may not fully cover skin. About one in four sunscreens in EWG’s database is a spray.

• No super-high SPFs, above 50+. Products with high SPF values provide little additional skin protection and may contribute to consumer misperception and misuse. About one in seven sunscreens has an SPF value greater than 50+.

• No vitamin A or retinyl palmitate. Vitamin A is touted for its anti-aging effects on skin. But retinyl palmitate, a form of vitamin A added to almost one in four SPF-rated sunscreens, makeups, and moisturizers, could speed development of tumors and lesions on sun-exposed skin, according to a government study.

• No oxybenzone. Commonly used in sunscreens, oxybenzone penetrates the skin, gets into the bloodstream, and acts like estrogen in the body. It can trigger allergic reactions. Data are preliminary, but studies have found links between oxybenzone and health problems. Nearly half of all beach and sport sunscreens in EWG’s 2013 guide contain oxybenzone.

I hope your days in the sun are safe as well as fun.

Copyright 2013, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Food, midlife challenges, income tax lessons, and rejuvenation are the topics for this week’s Best of Boomer Blogs

John Agno of So Baby Boomer is this week’s host for the Best of Boomer Blogs #303.

The boomer blog roundup is a collection of like-minded blogs cooperating to share their best stories of interest to the Baby Boomer Generation.

As April showers hit many parts of the country, baby boomer consumers are writing about food dyes in Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, midlife challenges for women, how trauma affects us, income tax lessons, and why taking the easy path may give people a chance to rejuvenate so they can be ready for the next challenge.

In addition to my blog, other members of the Best of Boomer Blogs are: The Midlife Crisis Queen, Sightings Over 60, Arabian Tales and Other Amazing Adventures, So Baby Boomer, Blue Blinds Media, and Tao Flashes.

Be sure to check back next week to see what baby boomer bloggers are thinking and writing about.

Copyright 2013, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

EPA proposes cleaner gas and car standards, aimed at slashing pollution and improving health

It’s troublesome that the auto, oil, and gas industries have been allowed to make products that for so many years have caused millions of illness and deaths from emissions.

But the good news is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday it’s proposing standards for cars and gas that will significantly reduce harmful pollution and prevent thousands of premature deaths and illnesses, while also improving the efficiency of the nation’s cars and trucks.

When adopted, the standards will help avoid up to 2,400 premature deaths a year and 23,000 cases of respiratory ailments in children, the EPA said.

The proposal will slash emissions of harmful pollutants that can cause premature death and respiratory illnesses, including reducing smog-forming volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides by 80 percent, establish a 70 percent tighter particulate matter standard, and reduce fuel vapor emissions to near zero, said EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe. 

The proposal will also reduce vehicle emissions of toxic air pollutants, such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene, by up to 40 percent.

The proposed standards support efforts by states to reduce harmful levels of smog and soot, he said.

By 2030, the EPA estimates that the proposed cleaner fuels and cars program will annually prevent up to 2,400 premature deaths, 23,000 cases of respiratory ailments in children, 3,200 hospital admissions and asthma-related emergency room visits, and 1.8 million lost school days, work days, and days when activities would be restricted due to air pollution.

Total health-related benefits in 2030 will be between $8 and $23 billion annually, Perciasepe said. 

The program would also reduce exposure to pollution near roads. More than 50 million people live, work, or go to school close to high-traffic roads, and the average American spends more than one hour traveling on roads each day.

To develop the proposal, the EPA met with representatives from auto, oil, and gas industries as well as environmental, consumer, and public health organizations. Based on feedback and a rulemaking process, EPA’s proposal is estimated to provide up to $7 in health benefits for every dollar spent to meet the standards.

The proposed sulfur standards will cost refineries less than 1 cent per gallon of gasoline on average when the standards are in place, according to the EPA. The proposed vehicle standards will have an average cost of about $130 per vehicle in 2025. The proposal also includes flexibilities for small businesses, including hardship provisions and additional lead time for compliance.

The proposed standards will reduce gasoline sulfur levels by more than 60 percent – down to 10 parts per million in 2017. Reducing sulfur in gas enables vehicle emission control technologies to perform more efficiently.  That means that vehicles built before the proposed standards will run cleaner on the new low-sulfur gas, Perciasepe said.

The proposed standards will work with California’s clean cars and fuels program and enable automakers to sell the same vehicles in all 50 states. The proposal is designed to be carried out over the same timeframe as the next phase of the EPA’s national program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks beginning in model year 2017.

After the proposal is published in the Federal Register, the public can comment on it, and the EPA will hold public hearings.

Copyright 2013, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

PepsiCo promises to take brominated vegetable oil out of Gatorade

PepsiCo announced this week it will remove brominated vegetable oil, a flame retardant, from its Gatorade drinks in response to customer concerns.

BVO keeps flavor oils in suspension, giving a cloudy appearance to citrus-flavored soft drinks such as Mountain Dew, Fanta Orange, and Gatorade. Safety questions have been hanging over BVO since 1970, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration removed BVO from its "Generally Recognized as Safe" list of food ingredients, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. In 1970, the FDA permitted its use only an "interim" basis pending additional study – one of only four interim-allowed additives.

Health concerns start with the finding that eating BVO leaves residues in body fat and the fat in brain, liver, and other organs, according to a report on BVO on the center’s website. The report also states:

Animal studies indicate that BVO is transferred from mother's milk to the nursing infant and also can cause heart lesions, fatty changes in the liver, and impaired growth and behavioral development. Those studies suggest that BVO might be harmful to people who drink large amounts of soft drinks that contain BVO. And, doctors have identified bromine toxicity in two people who drank extremely large amounts of such sodas. Sensitive, modern studies are urgently needed to better understand the risk, especially at the lower levels typically consumed by large numbers of children.

Michael F. Jacobson, executive director for the center, said in a statement:

Brominated vegetable oil is a poorly tested and possibly dangerous food additive, and there's no reason to use it in Gatorade or other drinks. After all, safe substitutes are used in Europe and elsewhere. It's crazy that the Food and Drug Administration has let BVO linger in the food supply on an "interim" basis for 42 years…

I applaud PepsiCo for doing the responsible thing and voluntarily getting it out of Gatorade without waiting for government officials to require it to do so. That said, Gatorade without BVO is nutritionally no better than with it. A typical 20-ounce bottle has 130 calories, all from its 34 grams of refined sugars, which promote obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

While it's good news that PepsiCo will remove BVO from Gatorade, it's disappointing that it's been allowed in food for 42 years. This is a definite failure by the FDA to protect consumers from harmful food additives.

Copyright 2013, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Chemical industry spending staggering amounts to continue to use toxic chemicals in food and consumer products

After posting an article yesterday about the Breast Cancer Foundation’s recommendations for reducing toxic chemical use to prevent cancer, it was discouraging to read a Common Cause report that says chemical interests are spending massive amounts to block efforts to strengthen the 36-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act.

More than $375 million has been spent since 2005 to elect and influence industry friendly political leaders to fight updating the act, according to the report.

“The dimensions of chemical industry spending documented in this study, 'Toxic Spending,' are staggering,” James Browning, Common Cause’s regional director for state operations and author of the report, said in a statement. “By following the money, we see how and why the industry has been so successful in blocking attempts to strengthen the Toxic Substances Control Act.”

In the current campaign, the industry has put $23 million into Super PACs, supporting its favored candidates or opposing its adversaries, according to the study. Chemical interests have spent an additional $2.8 million on their own political advertising.

Browning said the report probably understates the industry’s spending totals on political advertising due to weak federal disclosure requirements. It recommends strengthening disclosure requirements on industry political spending.

Andy Igrejas, campaign director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said in a statement that the report shows how the chemical industry continues to fight common sense limits on toxic chemicals:

Companies like Dow, DuPont, and ExxonMobil have constructed an elaborate political machine to shield their products from independent scrutiny, whether it's by the public or government scientists.

They are to blame for the lack of an effective chemical safety system in the country. They are also therefore to blame for that harm that chemicals have done to the millions of American families suffering any of the chronic diseases or conditions that have been linked to chemical exposure.

Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families is a coalition of organizations and individuals that is concerned about toxic chemicals in the home, workplace, and consumer products.

I recommend consumers join with the Breast Cancer Fund, Safer Chemicals, Healthier Families, the Washington Toxics Coalition, and other organizations to fight the efforts by the chemical industry to continue to use toxic chemicals in our food and consumer products.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Breast Cancer Fund offers tips for cancer prevention

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

I agree with the Breast Cancer Fund that it’s time to move beyond breast cancer “awareness” to prevention.

Early this month, the BCF launched a breast cancer prevention campaign. It urges women to:

• Chose safe cosmetics.

• Eat and live better by eating fresh organic food, hormone-free meat and dairy, and non-toxic seafood.

• Protect their family from toxic chemicals in plastics, cookware, toys, baby bottles, and child cups.

• Create a healthy home by choosing or making less toxic cleaning products.

• Make informed health care choices about treatments such as radiation exposures and prescription drugs.

• Protect themselves and the environment by evaluating sunscreens, avoiding dry cleaning, stopping the use of antibacterial products, and quitting smoking.

See the BDF’s “Which Chemicals Are Linked to Breast Cancer?” for more information.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Scientists, farmers seek action to stop antibiotic overuse in animal and food production

More than 150 research physicians and scientists – including a former head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – and 50 meat, poultry, and dairy producers are calling on the FDA and Congress to end the overuse use of antibiotics in animal agriculture.

Each year, bacterial infections acquired in hospitals kill more than 100,000 Americans, and 70 percent of those infections are resistant to the drugs usually used to treat them, U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter, (D-N.Y.), a microbiologist, said in a statement issued by the Keep Antibiotics Working Coalition calling for government action.

Scientists say human diseases increasing

In a statement, the scientists said routine administration of antibiotics to farm and ranch animals is leading to human diseases that increasingly are resistant to treatment, which risks human lives and drives up medical costs. They cited a growing body of evidence linking antibiotic resistance in Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections to animal agriculture.

“There’s no question that routinely administering non-therapeutic doses of antibiotics to food animals contributes to antibiotic resistance,” said Donald Kennedy, Ph.D., former FDA commissioner.

Farmers say antibiotics unnecessary

In their statement, farmers and ranchers stated that non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in raising farm animals is unnecessary, and threatens human health and the safety of the nation’s food supply.

“Hundreds of producers, including those who signed this statement, produce safe, healthy meat without continually dosing their animals with drugs they don’t need,” said Russ Kremer, a Missouri hog farmer.

Before changing the way he raised pigs, Kremer developed an infection in his blood that occurred after a boar gored his leg. The boar had been raised on a steady diet of feed that included penicillin to promote growth, and was likely the source of the resistant strain of strep, he said.

The scientific evidence is clear that the overuse of human drugs in food animal production is linked to human diseases that can’t be treated by antibiotics, said Margaret Mellon, Ph.D., senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a member the coalition. A strong response is needed to this national crisis, Mellon said.

Among the other members of the coalition are the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Natural Resources Defense Fund, the Lymphoma Foundation of America, STOP Foodborne Illness, and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

For more information, see:

The scientists’ statement

The farmers’ statement

A factsheet

Scientific reports

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Tests show arsenic found in wide variety of rice products – What should you do?

Due to allergies, I eat a lot of rice – rice milk, rice cereal, rice crackers, rice pancakes, and rice noodles.

However, I’ll need to look at how much rice I eat because tests by Consumer Reports found rice products contain arsenic, many at high levels.

Arsenic in rice

The testing organization found significant levels of inorganic arsenic, which is a carcinogen, in almost every product category, along with organic arsenic, which is less toxic but still of concern, according to the article “Arsenic in Your Food: Our Findings Show a Real Need for Federal Standards for This Toxin.”

Using a 5-ppb standard in its study, Consumer Reports found that a single serving of some rices could give an average adult almost one and a half times the inorganic arsenic he or she would get from a whole day’s consumption of water, about 1 liter.

Consumer Reports also discovered that some infant rice cereals had levels of inorganic arsenic at least five times more than has been found in other cereals such as oatmeal.

In addition, the testing organization looked at government data on the health and nutrition of a nationally representative sample of the U.S. population. It found people who eat rice have higher arsenic levels.

Guide for cutting rice consumption

Due to its findings, Consumer Reports suggests limiting the consumption of rice products. Among the recommendations in its chart, Limit Your Exposure, are: adults should eat 2½ servings a week of hot cereal; ½ serving a day of rice drink; 2 servings a week of rice; and 1 serving a day of rice crackers.

The testing organization also recommends cooking 1 cup of rice in 6 cups of water instead of 2 cups, then discarding the water.

Arsenic standards and other action needed

As a result of the rice report, Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, recommends:

• A standard should be set for arsenic in rice.

• The industry should step up efforts to reduce arsenic levels in rice, including developing rice that takes up less arsenic and using rice with the lowest possible arsenic levels in products for children.

• Agricultural practices that can lead to more arsenic in rice should be prohibited including the use of: pesticides containing arsenic; manure that contains arsenic as a fertilizer; and animal feed with arsenic-containing drugs and animal byproducts.

For additional information, including the levels of arsenic found in various rice products, see www.ConsumerReports.org/cro/arsenicinfood or get the November issue of Consumer Reports at newsstands or local libraries.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Stanford University’s recent, widely reported study on organic food is limited

Several people have asked me about the Stanford University study findings released earlier this month that said there isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based on your health.

Much of the media coverage, including stories in the New York Times, Reuters, and USA Today, took its lead from Stanford’s press release.

However, the website Remapping Debate points out that the paper itself, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, included the significant finding that eating organic foods reduces exposure to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Study limitations

Also important, Remapping Debate said, is what the study left out: key issues relating to the safety of organic versus non-organic foods weren’t examined.

The report’s purpose was to study the published literature on the health, nutritional, and safety characteristics of organic and conventional foods.”

Remapping Debate spoke with Crystal Smith-Spangler, M.D., an internist and research instructor at the Stanford University School of Medicine, one of the lead authors of the study.

While the study looked for evidence of direct impacts on consumers of organic and non-organic food, it didn’t appear to consider the environmental impact of non-organic farming, Remapping Debate said in a statement. How does the heavy use of agrochemicals that remain in soil and might leech into groundwater affect human health? What about the health and safety impacts of pesticides on farm workers?
 
Smith-Spangler told Remapping Data that the study didn’t address these questions. Also beyond the scope of the study were the risks of non-organic farms serving as laboratories for the breeding of more and more dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Less contaminants in organic food

On the level of pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the study did say that levels are significantly higher in the non-organic products that people eat, but took the position that such levels aren’t grounds for concern.

As for antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the study said that cooking food would kill all bacteria, although it didn’t address the question of eating foods cooked at temperatures insufficient to kill bacteria or whether super-bacteria is killed by cooking food.

On pesticide limits, the study said that the levels found are within the safety limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. However, Smith-Spangler acknowledged that there is a debate about the pesticide safety limits set by the federal government, but didn’t see that point as relevant to her report.

“It’s beyond the scope of our paper to discuss the federal limits,” she said. “A study that would examine the question, ‘Is the amount of pesticides in our food safe?’ would include a lot more data on dose response and maybe some animal data. And there are lots of experts out there who can weigh in on that issue.”

Although many health and safety issues weren’t addressed by the study, Smith-Spangler said in her interview with Remapping Debate that her team’s findings were developed to provide evidence consumers could base their decisions on.

“Our goal was to present the evidence and try to help people understand the evidence,” Smith-Spangler said. “But our goal was not to tell people what or what not to do.”

My opinion on organic food

The people I talked to about the study certainly were made skeptical about organic food. The findings that pesticide residues are 30 percent higher in non-organic products should have been the emphasis of the Stanford University’s press release.

For the researchers to decide that this amount of pesticide exposure doesn’t make any difference to health, in my opinion, was beyond the scope of their study.

I’m gong to continue eating organic food that I buy from local co-ops and farmers’ markets. My dad, Minor H. Slingsby, was an apple farmer who died of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is linked to pesticide exposure.

I suggest that you buy as much local, organic meat, fruits, and vegetables as you can.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Scotts Miracle-Gro to pay $12.5 million in fines and penalties for violating federal pesticide laws

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., a producer of pesticides for commercial and consumer uses, was sentenced yesterday in federal court to pay a $4 million fine and perform community service for 11 criminal violations of the federal pesticide laws.

Scotts pleaded guilty in February to:

• Illegally applying insecticides to its wild bird food products that are toxic to birds.

• Falsifying pesticide registration documents.

• Distributing pesticides with misleading and unapproved labels.

• Distributing unregistered pesticides.

This is the largest criminal penalty ever levied under federal pesticide laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said in a statement.

In addition, in a civil agreement with the EPA, Scotts agreed to pay more than $6 million in penalties and spend $2 million on environmental projects to resolve civil pesticide violations. The violations include distributing or selling unregistered, canceled, or misbranded pesticides, including products with inadequate warnings or cautions. This is the largest civil settlement under federal pesticide laws.

In the plea agreement, Scotts admitted that:

• It applied the pesticides Actellic 5E and Storcide II to its bird food products even though the EPA had prohibited this use. Scotts said it had applied the pesticide to protect its bird foods from insect infestation during storage.

• It didn’t follow EPA directives when using these pesticides and ignored the warning label on Storicide II containers, which states, “Storcide II is extremely toxic to fish and toxic to birds and other wildlife.”

Scotts sold illegally treated bird food for two years after it began marketing its bird food line and for six months after employees warned Scotts management of the dangers of these pesticides, the EPA said. By the time it voluntarily recalled these products in March 2008, Scotts had sold more than 70 million units of bird food illegally treated with pesticide that is toxic to birds.

Scotts also pleaded guilty to:

• Submitting false documents to the EPA and to state agencies in an effort to deceive them into believing that pesticides were registered with the EPA when they weren’t.

• Selling the unregistered pesticides illegally.

• Marketing pesticides with labels containing false and misleading claims not approved by the EPA.

In addition to the $4 million criminal fine, Scotts will contribute $500,000 to organizations that protect bird habitat, including $100,000 each to the Ohio Audubon’s Important Bird Area Program, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ Urban Forestry Program, the Columbus Metro-Parks Bird Habitat Enhancement Program, the Cornell University Ornithology Laboratory, and The Nature Conservancy of Ohio. The money will support the protection of birds and habitats through conservation, research, and education.

At the time the criminal violations were discovered, the EPA also began a civil investigation that uncovered civil violations that occurred for five years. Scotts’ civil violations included the nationwide distribution or sale of unregistered, canceled, or misbranded pesticides, including products with inadequate warnings or cautions. As a result, the EPA issued more than 40 “Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Orders” to Scotts to address more than 100 pesticide products.

In addition to the $6 million civil penalty, Scotts will complete environmental projects, valued at $2 million, to acquire, restore, and protect 300 acres of land to prevent runoff of agricultural chemicals into nearby waterways. 

Click here for more information about the civil settlement and recalled products.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist