The Survive and Thrive Boomer Guide

How’s your Earth Day going?

By Rita R. Robison

Are you celebrating the earth today with a special project? Enjoying the spring weather, if you’re fortunate enough to have some sunshine? Doing yard work or a home repair project? Relaxing after a busy week and weekend?

As soon as I finish this post, I’ll be pulling weeds. It’s a good Earth Day activity because using pesticides is harmful to people and the planet.

I also may go to Target to get a free canvas bag, if they have any left.

Best wishes on Earth Day. I hope you have a great day.

If you want to join an organization to help improve the earth, see "Ways to Help the Planet on Earth Day."

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Free shipping was my best consumer experience this week, while loss of my strawberry patch is upsetting

By Rita R. Robison

I was able to get free shipping from a firm that hasn’t offered any coupons or deals. That cheered me up. However, when the weather turned nice, my weeds bloomed.

My best consumer experience: Free shipping from New York firm

Since I have allergies, I order my shampoo and body soap, laundry detergent, and dishwasher detergent from N.E.E.D.S., a company in New York. That’s heavy stuff. Often, my shipping bills are high.

On my last order, I was able to get free shipping. The customer service representative also pointed out that the sale catalog I’d received had a $5 coupon. I dug through the recycling and found it – the last thing in the bottom of the barrel.

My worst consumer experience: Loss of my strawberry patch to weeds

I don’t use pesticides in my yard. Pesticides are harmful children, adults, and pets. I don't think consumers should use them.

So I pull the weeds in my yard by hand. This spring, when it finally warmed up, the weeds seemed worse than usual.

Last year, I had a nice strawberry patch.

Here’s a close up of some of the strawberries.

I picked these strawberries for a tasty treat.

This year, my strawberry patch has completely disappeared. In its place is a weed patch.

Maybe the cold weather killed the plants.

I have lots of weeding to do. Are the weeds worse this year, or did I not keep up with them enough in the fall?

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Recall of the Week: Worthington gas cylinders due to fire hazard

By Rita R. Robison

Worthington Cylinders Wisconsin is recalling more than 29 million Map Pro, Propylene, and MAPP Gas Cylinders in the United States and more than 1.3 million in Canada.

The seal on the cylinders can leak after torches or other fuel consuming equipment are disconnected from them, posing a fire hazard. No injuries have been reported.

The cylinders contain propylene gas and are used for soldering, brazing, cutting, and welding. They contain 14.1 oz Map-Pro, 14.1 oz Propylene, or 16 oz MAPP (Methyl Acetylene Propadiene Stabilized). The cylinders are about 3 inches in diameter and 11 inches tall and are either yellow or black in color. They were sold alone and in kits that include a torch and a cylinder. The cylinders and torch kits have a variety of labels, including:

Ace, ASCO, Benchmark, BernzOmatic, Craftsman, EMC, EXPRESS, Firepower, GENTEC, Goss, Hotery, Jones Stephens Corp, Lenox, Mag-Torch, Magna, Mastercraft and Turner, Master Mechanic, MAPP, NAPA BernzOmatic, Prest-O-Lite, RONA, Rothenberger, Super Ego, SureFire, TurboTorch, Uniweld, Worthington MAPP GAS, Worthington MAP/Pro, and Worthington Propylene.

Manufactured in the U.S., the gas cylinders were sold at various plumbing/HVAC distributors, Home Depot, Lowes, and Ace Hardware stores nationwide and in Canada from October 2004 through January 2012 for about $7 to $13 for cylinders and $45 to $75 for the torch kits.

If you have one of these gas cylinders, these remedies are suggested, Worthington and the U.S. Consumer Product Commission said in a statement:

Unused cylinders: If the cylinder has never been connected to a torch or other device, don’t use the cylinder. Return the cylinder to the store where it was purchased for exchange or full refund.

Partially used cylinder currently connected to torch or other device: Don’t disconnect the torch or other device. Take it outdoors and ignite the torch and burn off entire contents of the cylinder. Disconnect the torch from empty cylinder and dispose of empty cylinder per cylinder label instructions or return it to store where it was purchased for exchange or a full refund. Never leave a lit torch and cylinder unattended. Use torch only in a well-ventilated area.

Partially used cylinder NOT connected to a torch or other device now: Take the cylinder outdoors. Leak test the top of the cylinder with soapy water. If bubbles develop, attach the torch. Ignite the torch and burn off the entire contents of the cylinder. Remove the torch from the empty cylinder and dispose of it per cylinder label instructions or return it to the store where it was purchased for exchange or a full refund. If no bubbles develop, don’t use cylinder. Return it to the store where it was purchased for exchange or a full refund.

For additional information, contact Worthington Cylinders Wisconsin at 866-511-8967 between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, e-mail the manufacturer at MapCylinderRecall@WorthingtonIndustries.com, or go to www.MAPCylinderRecall.com

For details on other recalls, see www.recalls.gov.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

EPA to conduct safety reviews on 83 highly toxic chemicals

By Rita R. Robison

While Congress continues to fail to update toxic chemical laws and regulations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will conduct safety reviews of 83 chemicals often found in consumer goods and manufacturing.

The agency is giving top priority to seven chemicals considered the most serious risks to human health and the environment for assessment in 2012. They are:

• Antimony and antimony compounds
• HHCB (1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8,-hexamethylcyclopenta[g]-2-benzopyran)
• Long-chain chlorinated paraffins
• Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins
• Methylene chloride
• N-Methylpyrrolidone
• Trichloroethylene

“The list of chemicals EPA has targeted reads like a rogue’s gallery of carcinogens, neurotoxic substances and chemicals that could cause serious organ damage,” Jane Houlihan, senior vice president for Research at the Environmental Working Group, said in a statement. “Congress hasn’t come up with a legislative fix to help shield the public from toxic substances. But the Obama EPA under Administrator Lisa Jackson continues to do what it’s supposed to do: protect people and the environment.”

In conducting risk assessments on the seven chemicals, EPA will use information available through scientific literature, and the agency is also seeking unpublished studies.

This spring, the EPA plans to identify chemicals that it will conduct risk assessment on in 2013 and 2014.

The EPA will provide draft risk assessments for public review and comments as they’re completed. If an assessment indicates significant risk, the EPA will evaluate and carry out risk reduction actions. If an assessment indicates no significant risk, the EPA will conclude its current work on that chemical.

Additional chemicals will be added to the work plan as more data are developed and more chemicals screened.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Levels of cadmium reduced in jewelry for kids, adults by some retailers

By Rita R. Robison

To protect yourself and your children and grandchildren from the dangers of cadmium in jewelry, shop for jewelry at more than a dozen major jewelry retailers, including Saks Inc., Target, The Gap, Old Navy, Banana Republic, and Forever 21, that have stopped selling jewelry containing more than 0.03 percent or 300 parts per million of cadmium.

In September, an Alameda County Superior Court in California approved a legal agreement between the Center for Environmental Health and the retailers. The agreement sets strict limits on cadmium in jewelry, stricter than those suggested by the federal government.

“We welcome this strong action, which will protect our children and families from the health risks of an unnecessary hazard in jewelry,” said Michael Green, executive director of the center, said in a statement. “Importantly, the companies are going beyond California law in agreeing to instruct their suppliers to provide them with reformulated jewelry on a nationwide basis.”

In February 2010, the center initiated the legal action after finding high levels of cadmium in jewelry. Earlier in 2010, the center reached its first agreement limiting cadmium in jewelry with Tween Brands, a division of Dress Barn. That settlement also called for no more than 0.03 percent cadmium in jewelry and was effective on Dec. 31.

While the settlements apply only to the jewelry sold in California stores, the retailers agreed to adopt the approach nationwide, the center said. It would be financially and logistically difficult to separate their products for a California-only market.

The settlements took effect just weeks after the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said it was satisfied with an alternative voluntary approach that the industry helped craft for jewelry marketed to children using the government’s scientific research, according to The Washington Post article “Cadmium-Laced Jewelry Removed From Stores.” There is no federally endorsed standard for adult jewelry.

The standard that the commission helped craft is limited to jewelry marketed to children12 and younger because that’s the age group that is most likely to suck on jewelry or swallow it.

The center said the approach backed by the commission doesn’t cast a wide enough net or embrace the toughest standards.

The Washington Post article also reported the commission-endorsed standard also would adopt a different testing method:

It also would test to determine that total cadmium content in a piece of jewelry doesn’t exceed 0.03 percent. But jewelry that fails that test could still make its way onto store shelves if it passes a separate “solubility” test.

This far more expensive test aims to determine if cadmium would leach into the body when swallowed. For a small metal part, the test entails dropping the piece into acid heated to about body temperature and shaking it for 24 hours – conditions meant to replicate the digestive process.

The industry said this second test is necessary because it’s more reliable and gives better of results. Instead of testing for how much cadmium is in the jewelry, it tests for how much cadmium would actually be absorbed into the body, which is what matters most from a safety perspective, said Brent Cleaveland, executive director of the Fashion Jewelry and Accessories Trade Association and head of the panel that crafted the voluntary standard.

If the cadmium doesn’t leach out, then it poses no health risks and therefore couldn’t be regulated by the commission because it can’t be defined as a hazardous substance.

But the center said that total content testing is less costly and more health protective because it:

• Is more consistent and doesn’t vary as much as a product ages, thus protecting children and adults for the life of the product.
• Can be included in specifications that manufacturers require their materials suppliers to meet. Non-compliant materials can be identified before they’re used in the manufacture of a product, resulting in a more efficient manufacturing process and consistently health-protective products.
• Is already required by federal children’s products law for lead for toys and children’s jewelry. Test results for cadmium can usually be obtained from the same test for no additional expense.
• Is cheaper and less time-consuming than leach tests for products not already tested for lead under federal law.

Cadmium is a heavy metal that can cause cancer, genetic damage, and kidney damage, according to the center. A study published in March 2011 found that children who mouth on or swallow cadmium-tainted jewelry can be exposed to as much as 100 times the maximum exposure limit.

Also, a 2006 study concluded that exposure in children "should be limited as much as possible" to prevent direct health problems and problems later in their lives. People can be exposed to cadmium if they touch, suck on, or accidentally swallow metal pieces, and studies show the toxin can stay in our bodies for more than two decades.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Johnson & Johnson slow to remove toxic chemicals from baby shampoo in U.S.

By Rita R. Robison

More than two years after health and parents’ groups asked Johnson & Johnson to reformulate its well-known baby shampoo to remove a chemical that releases formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, the company is still using the formaldehyde-releasing ingredient in Johnson’s Baby Shampoo in the United States, Canada, and China, according to an analysis by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

However, the company is making formaldehyde-free versions of the shampoo in several other countries.

For its new report, Baby’s Tub Is Still Toxic, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics purchased and reviewed labels of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo sold in 13 countries to see if the products contained quaternium-15, a chemical preservative that kills bacteria by releasing formaldehyde.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics analysis shows that Johnson’s Baby Shampoo sold in the U.S., Australia, Canada, China, and Indonesia contains quaternium-15, while the formulas sold in Denmark, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, and the U.K. contain non-formaldehyde preservatives.

After Johnson & Johnson reviewed the group’s report recently, the company released a statement saying it’s no longer introducing new products with formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, and it has reduced its use of the chemical by 60 percent in the U.S. and 33 percent globally over the past few years.

"Preventing toxic chemical exposures before they happen is the keystone of corporate responsibility,” Peter Wilk, M.D., executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, said in a statement. “We call on Johnson & Johnson to remove carcinogenic formaldehyde from its products. It’s time to protect all children, regardless of their nationality."

Since May 2009, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, in conjunction with other organizations, has been writing to Johnson & Johnson and meeting with the company to get the two carcinogens removed from Johnson’s Baby Shampoo.

In response to consumer demand, the company launched a new “natural” version of baby shampoo that doesn’t contain chemicals associated with formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane. However, the original Johnson’s Baby Shampoo, which is priced at about half the cost of the new “natural” shampoo, hasn’t been reformulated in the U.S. market.

On Oct. 31, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics – along with the American Nurses Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and more than 20 other parents’ and health groups – sent another letter to Johnson & Johnson asking the company to remove formaldehyde-releasing chemicals from all its children’s products in all markets worldwide and replace them with safer alternatives. The letter asked for the company to make a commitment by Nov, 15.

“While it is encouraging to see that Johnson & Johnson has made progress in formulating a safer ‘natural’ version of its iconic baby shampoo, now is the time for the company to rise to the occasion and make the safer products the world market is demanding for all its customers.” said Lisa Archer, director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at the Breast Cancer Fund.

Copyright 2011, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Recall of the Week: Pourable gel fuels made by nine companies due to flash fire and burn hazards

By Rita R. Robison

All pourable gel fuels made or sold by nine companies are being recalled due to the risks of flash fire and burns when consumers add pourable gel to an already burning fire pot.

Consumers should immediately stop using the pourable gel fuel, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and nine manufacturers and distributors advise in a statement.

The recall involves about 2 million containers of pourable gel fuels packaged in one-quart plastic bottles and one-gallon plastic jugs. Sold since 2008 for $5 to $20, the scented and non-scented gel fuels were sold by these companies:

• Bird Brain Inc.
• Bond Manufacturing
• Sunjel Company
• Fuel Barons Inc.
• Lamplight Farms Inc.
• Luminosities Inc.
• Pacific Décor Ltd.
• Real Flame
• Smart Solar Inc.

Consumers can contact the firms for instructions on obtaining a refund and returning unused bottles and jugs.

The pourable gel fuel can ignite unexpectedly and splatter onto people and objects nearby when it’s poured into a firepot that’s still burning.

The commission is aware of 65 incidents resulting in two deaths and 34 victims who were hospitalized with second and third degree burns of the face, chest, hands, arms, or legs. Of the 65 incidents, 28 of them, including 37 burn injuries and two fatalities, occurred with fuel gel products made by Napa Home & Garden, which conducted a recall, in cooperation with commission, of its products in June 2011.

Also in June, the commission issued a statement alerting consumers to the hazards of pourable gel fuels. All pourable gel fuel, regardless of manufacturer, poses flash fire hazards.

Consumers shouldn’t attempt to use or fix pourable gel fuel bottles with homemade remedies or replace the fuel with other flammable materials.

Copyright 2011, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Did toxic cleaning chemicals kill one, sicken 10 others at Georgia McDonalds?

By Rita R. Robison

Toxic fumes in the bathroom at a Pooler, Ga., McDonalds may have been responsible for the death of an 80-year-old woman and sending 10 others to the hospital, according to investigators.

No cause has been confirmed, but emergency responders have theorized that a toxic mix of cleaning chemicals might be to blame, the website Newstype.com said.

For years, I’ve been concerned about the harsh chemicals used to clean public restrooms. When you look in many of the cleaning closets, you see large vats of chemicals in a row at eye-level with tubes for dispensing them.

Recently, I wrote about the importance of consumers doing research about toxic chemicals and learning as much about their use in consumer products so you can eliminate as many of them as you can from your home.

The Washington Toxics Coalition two helpful web pages on cleaners:

Cleaning Products – Why Be Concerned?

Recipes for Safer Cleaning

Take a look at this information to reduce the chemical exposures to you and your children and grandchildren.

Copyright 2011, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

EPA’s new chemical reporting rule lacking, environmental group says

By Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Environmental Working Group thinks the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s revised Chemical Data Reporting rule falls short in protecting consumers.

Senior scientist David Andrews issued the following statement about the proposed rule:

The fact that EPA does not annually track what chemicals are produced or imported in the United States is a serious failure of modern chemical policy. Basic chemical production and use information is necessary to assess risk to human health and the environment, and EPA has taken some steps in collecting more information.

However, the high reporting threshold and infrequent data collection leave EPA and the public with inadequate information to safeguard our children and the environment. Chemical companies provide quarterly reports on production and sales figures to shareholders. Why shouldn't the public and EPA receive similar reports every year about commonly used chemicals, some of which could pose a serious health risk?

See the EWG’s “Chemical Industry Has Timely Information for Investors Not the Public” for more information.

Copyright 2011, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

FDA misses the mark on new sunscreen requirements

By Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

My last post described the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s proposal to require the testing of sunscreens and to standardize how information about sunscreen protection is presented to consumers.

While the new labeling will be helpful to consumers, the FDA isn’t addressing possible health hazards caused by sunscreen ingredients. Consumer groups – the Environmental Working Group, Consumers Reports, and the Organic Consumers Association – have expressed concerns about the ingredients in sunscreen.

FDA response to the safety issues raised by consumer groups

I asked the FDA about the recommendations of these consumer groups.

FDA spokeswoman Shelly Burgess said the agency considers sunscreens to be safe.

“This includes nanoparticles which do not penetrate beyond the outer layer of the skin,” Burgess said in an e-mail. “FDA is working to help design studies to look further at the safety of retinyl palmitate. At this time there's no data to indicate that retinyl palmitate in sunscreens poses a concern. If we determine that any of the active ingredients, including nanoparticles, do not meet required safety standards, the agency will notify the public and work to remove that ingredient from the market promptly.”

I asked Burgess to respond to comments made in a Consumer Reports article about the possible harm to consumers of Oxybenzone and other endocrine disruptors and the possibility that nanoscale zinc oxide and titanium oxide are linked to potential reproductive and development effects? 

“Zinc oxide and oxybenzone are included in the 1999 final monograph for sunscreen ingredients which means that they are generally recognized as safe and effective,” Burgess said. 

But she added:

However, the FDA is constantly evaluating new information relating to the safety and effectiveness of all drugs as new data emerge. In addition, the agency may call for additional studies when new research is required to gain a more comprehensive view of potential risks and may adapt its recommendations based on new information when that is warranted. For example, oxybenzone has been sent to the National Toxicology Program by FDA for further evaluation of its safety profile.

I also asked Burgess about retinyl palmitate.

She said here's what FDA knows about the research:

The National Toxicology Program conducted a study that tested products that did not contain sunscreens. The results of the NTP study showed an increase in tumors regardless of whether the animals were exposed to retinyl palmitate so it is not clear what the effects of retinyl palmitate were. That's why we can't reach a final conclusion on the safety of Retinyl Palmitate based on that study.

FDA is working to help design studies to look further at the safety of retinyl palmitate. At this time, the data do not tell us that we need to be concerned about retinyl palmitate.

I asked Burgess about sunscreen with nano particles and why they aren’t labeled so consumers who wish to do so can avoid them.

She replied: 

We are not aware of data that suggest that any sunscreen active ingredient is unsafe. FDA has created a cross-agency Nanotechnology Task Force to further evaluate issues involving nanomaterials, including sunscreen active ingredients processed as nanoparticles. FDA will be developing a draft guidance that will identify those FDA-regulated products that may involve application of nanotechnology or use of nanomaterials. 

FDA considers sunscreens safe

I also asked Burgess why the FDS isn’t warning consumers about these chemicals or banning them.

She said: “FDA will always take the necessary action to ensure consumers have access only to safe cosmetic and sunscreen products.”

In addition, I wanted to know why the FDA is working only on new labeling and not on ingredients that may be harmful to consumers. Shouldn't the FDA ban the dangerous ingredients in sunscreen instead of merely requiring new labels? 

The response from Burgess:

If any data [in the development of testing and labeling requirements] had demonstrated that a sunscreen product put consumers at serious risk, FDA would have taken measures to remove that product from the market. FDA is not aware of any such data. The pace of developing requirements for OTC sunscreen products has been largely dictated by the availability of adequate data to support those requirements. 

In light of the warnings from consumer groups from about sunscreen, I haven’t worn much over the years. However, several members of my family have had skin cancer. Since there’s conflicting information about the safety of sunscreen ingredients, I asked Burgess what the FDA recommends consumers do about using it.

She said: “Spending time in the sun increases the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging. To reduce this risk, consumers should regularly use sun protection measures including”:

• Use sunscreens with broad spectrum SPF values of 15 or higher regularly and as directed.

• Limit time in the sun, especially between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the sun’s rays are most intense.

• Wear clothing to cover skin exposed to the sun; for example, long-sleeved shirts, pants, sunglasses, and broad-brimmed hats.

• Reapply sunscreen at least every two hours, more often if you’re sweating or jumping in and out of the water.

I think the FDA is unnecessarily dragging its feet on adequately regulating sunscreen, to the detriment of consumers.

Copyright 2011, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist