For centuries, perfumes have been making an elegant mark on the world. Once used to cover up personal olfactory shortcomings, today these products are used for less urgent and more positive purposes. A new study of popular perfumes, however, says that these products are hardly heaven scent. Instead, too many contain harmful chemicals in unfortunate amounts.
A new report from Greenpeace has found that many of the world’s best-selling perfumes contain hazardous levels of certain dangerous chemicals. The organization had the Dutch chemistry lab TNO Environment and Geosciences analyze 36 randomly selected perfumes for the presence of two known toxic hazards: phthalates and synthetic musks, and discovered that both types of chemical were present in the vast majority of samples.
Thirty-four of the tested perfumes were found to contain diethyl phthalate (DEP). The highest levels were found in Calvin Klein’s Eternity for Women, which contained DEP levels of 2.2% by weight. Other heavy hitters included Melvita’s Iris Blue (1.1% by weight) and Jean-Paul Gaultier’s Le Male
(just under 1% by weight).
Synthetic musks were found in 21 of the tested samples. The highest total quantities of these synthetic musks were found in the Body Shop’s White Musk (9.4% of total volume by weight), Gaultier’s Le Male (6.4% by weight), and Cartier’s Le Baiser Du Dragon (4.5% by weight).
Both phthalates and synthetic musks are hazardous to human health. Phthalates are solvents added to perfume formulas because they have an ability to easily evaporate at room temperature. This makes them ideal carriers for perfume fragrances. With phthalates added to its formula, a perfume becomes more "smellable" as evaporating phthalate molecules carry the scent with them into the air. Unfortunately, this ability to enter the air means that phthalates can also easily enter the lungs and the body, where they cause all kinds of havoc. Emerging evidence has linked exposure to phthalates to reproductive and developmental disorders, cancer, organ damage, childhood asthma, and allergies.
**click title for full text**
7.21.2005
EU chemicals law REACH inspires US bill
EurActiv.com, 19 July 2005 - Senator Frank R. Lautenberg has introduced a bill to regulate chemicals in the US after a government report criticised current legislation for failing to protect Americans from toxic substances.
Background:
Since its introduction in October 2003, the EU's REACH proposal has been the stage for an unprecedented lobbying battle pitting environmental campaigners against industry.
The US administration has so far been critical of REACH, as was revealed in a 2004 US senate report detailing the tactics used by the Bush administration and the US chemical industry to amend the draft EU law. The report mentions a cable sent by then Secretary of State Colin Powell directing US diplomatic posts to "raise the EU chemicals policy" as "a costly, burdensome, and complex regulatory system".
Issues:
US Senator Frank R. Lautenberg introduced draft legislation aiming at better protecting children, mothers and workers against potentially hazardous chemicals.
Introduced on 13 July, the 'Child, Worker and Consumer Safe Chemicals Act' is largely inspired by the hotly debated EU proposal for the registration, evaluation, and authorisation of chemicals (REACH) now at final stage of adoption before the European Parliament.
The draft US bill would force chemical manufacturers to provide health and safety information on chemicals used in consumer products like baby bottles and food wrapping instead of presuming a substance is safe until proven dangerous.
The principle, know as the reversal of the burden of proof, is the cornerstone of REACH.
Senator Lautenberg's proposal follows the publication in June of a US federal report detailing the failures of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in protecting Americans from hazardous chemicals.
The report, by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), recommended that the US congress consider providing the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with additional authority to assess chemical risks.
According to Lautenberg, procedures under the TSCA are so daunting that, in 29 years, only five toxic substances have been regulated by the EPA. Currently, the EPA has to demonstrate a chemical poses an "unreasonable risk" to restrict or ban it.
Positions:
"Most Americans believe their government is making sure that chemicals used in the market place are safe. Unfortunately, that simply isn't true," said Senator Lautenberg. "Study after study has shown we have dozens, if not hundreds, of synthetic chemicals in our bodies, yet we have very little information about how they impact our health."
The bill is sponsored by Democrat political heavyweights including 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.
In a separate development, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) on 14 July published analyses of the blood from the umbilical cord of ten newborn babies. Performed by an independent laboratory, the tests revealed the presence of 287 industrial chemicals in the blood samples tested, leading the EWG to conclude that "industrial pollution begins in the womb". However, the correct interpretation of blood tests - a practice know as biomonitoring - and their use in policy-making is still subject to controversy (see related LinksDossier).
Background:
Since its introduction in October 2003, the EU's REACH proposal has been the stage for an unprecedented lobbying battle pitting environmental campaigners against industry.
The US administration has so far been critical of REACH, as was revealed in a 2004 US senate report detailing the tactics used by the Bush administration and the US chemical industry to amend the draft EU law. The report mentions a cable sent by then Secretary of State Colin Powell directing US diplomatic posts to "raise the EU chemicals policy" as "a costly, burdensome, and complex regulatory system".
Issues:
US Senator Frank R. Lautenberg introduced draft legislation aiming at better protecting children, mothers and workers against potentially hazardous chemicals.
Introduced on 13 July, the 'Child, Worker and Consumer Safe Chemicals Act' is largely inspired by the hotly debated EU proposal for the registration, evaluation, and authorisation of chemicals (REACH) now at final stage of adoption before the European Parliament.
The draft US bill would force chemical manufacturers to provide health and safety information on chemicals used in consumer products like baby bottles and food wrapping instead of presuming a substance is safe until proven dangerous.
The principle, know as the reversal of the burden of proof, is the cornerstone of REACH.
Senator Lautenberg's proposal follows the publication in June of a US federal report detailing the failures of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in protecting Americans from hazardous chemicals.
The report, by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), recommended that the US congress consider providing the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with additional authority to assess chemical risks.
According to Lautenberg, procedures under the TSCA are so daunting that, in 29 years, only five toxic substances have been regulated by the EPA. Currently, the EPA has to demonstrate a chemical poses an "unreasonable risk" to restrict or ban it.
Positions:
"Most Americans believe their government is making sure that chemicals used in the market place are safe. Unfortunately, that simply isn't true," said Senator Lautenberg. "Study after study has shown we have dozens, if not hundreds, of synthetic chemicals in our bodies, yet we have very little information about how they impact our health."
The bill is sponsored by Democrat political heavyweights including 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.
In a separate development, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) on 14 July published analyses of the blood from the umbilical cord of ten newborn babies. Performed by an independent laboratory, the tests revealed the presence of 287 industrial chemicals in the blood samples tested, leading the EWG to conclude that "industrial pollution begins in the womb". However, the correct interpretation of blood tests - a practice know as biomonitoring - and their use in policy-making is still subject to controversy (see related LinksDossier).
7.12.2005
Green energy will never meet needs, says Exxon
The Guardian, 7 July 2005 -
ExxonMobil has dismissed solar and wind energy as "inconsequential" and urges politicians to concentrate on sources that would continue to provide 99% of future energy needs.
Lee Raymond, the chairman and chief executive, also argues that areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska should be opened to exploratory drilling.
His comments - in Exxon's house magazine, the Lamp - could be indicative of White House thinking. He says improvements in US air and water quality are being buried beneath "ideological agendas or inflamed rhetoric that often pervades discussions about energy and the environment".
Mr Raymond has infuriated green groups and will worry G8 leaders encouraging George Bush to do more to fight global warming. Exxon is seen as a significant influence on presidential energy policies.
He said: "There are many alternative forms of energy that people talk about that may be interesting. But they are not consequential on the scale that will be needed and they may never have a significant impact on the energy balance.
"To the extent that people focus too much on that - for example on solar or wind, even though they are not economic - what they are doing is diverting attention from the real issues," he said.
He argues that even if alternative energy had double-digit growth rates they would only supply 1% of the world's energy needs in 25 years' time. "I am more interested in staying focused on the 99%," he said.
Mr Raymond said he was not saying that US energy supply was at risk if exploration did not take place in Alaska. "I don't think we have a basis to say that. However, willful and deliberate ignorance about the country's energy base is also not a wise approach."
The US Geological Survey suggested there may be the equivalent of several billion barrels of oil below this area, part of which is an important breeding ground for caribou.
Critics said such a relatively small amount of hydrocarbons was reason enough for oil firms to be kept out.
Mr Raymond said: "That is a flawed argument because there are not many exploration projects anywhere in the world that we would pursue if they were predicated on such a standard."
Nick Rau, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "His refusal to accept the need for renewables is consistent with an inability to accept climate change is happening."Copyright
2005 Guardian Newspapers Limited The Guardian (London)
ExxonMobil has dismissed solar and wind energy as "inconsequential" and urges politicians to concentrate on sources that would continue to provide 99% of future energy needs.
Lee Raymond, the chairman and chief executive, also argues that areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska should be opened to exploratory drilling.
His comments - in Exxon's house magazine, the Lamp - could be indicative of White House thinking. He says improvements in US air and water quality are being buried beneath "ideological agendas or inflamed rhetoric that often pervades discussions about energy and the environment".
Mr Raymond has infuriated green groups and will worry G8 leaders encouraging George Bush to do more to fight global warming. Exxon is seen as a significant influence on presidential energy policies.
He said: "There are many alternative forms of energy that people talk about that may be interesting. But they are not consequential on the scale that will be needed and they may never have a significant impact on the energy balance.
"To the extent that people focus too much on that - for example on solar or wind, even though they are not economic - what they are doing is diverting attention from the real issues," he said.
He argues that even if alternative energy had double-digit growth rates they would only supply 1% of the world's energy needs in 25 years' time. "I am more interested in staying focused on the 99%," he said.
Mr Raymond said he was not saying that US energy supply was at risk if exploration did not take place in Alaska. "I don't think we have a basis to say that. However, willful and deliberate ignorance about the country's energy base is also not a wise approach."
The US Geological Survey suggested there may be the equivalent of several billion barrels of oil below this area, part of which is an important breeding ground for caribou.
Critics said such a relatively small amount of hydrocarbons was reason enough for oil firms to be kept out.
Mr Raymond said: "That is a flawed argument because there are not many exploration projects anywhere in the world that we would pursue if they were predicated on such a standard."
Nick Rau, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "His refusal to accept the need for renewables is consistent with an inability to accept climate change is happening."Copyright
2005 Guardian Newspapers Limited The Guardian (London)
7.11.2005
Biodiesel Bad?
A Newly Electric Green – Sustainable Energy, Resources and Design
New research from Cornell and UC Berkeley agriculture and engineering professors concludes that, when all of the elements required to produce biomass-based liquid fuels (such as ethanol and biodiesel) are added together, the energy requirements for production far exceed the energy produced.
...corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; [...] soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced [...]
In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix.
Although there are those who would dispute these calculations (update: and there are good reasons to believe that this is an overall poor piece of research) let's take them as given for the moment.
What's notable about all of the production elements listed as "requiring" fossil fuels is that pretty much all of them are amenable to changes that would greatly reduce or eliminate fossil fuel use. Pesticide use can be cut with organic techniques (or even carefully-controlled bioengineering); algae-hydrogen fertilizers require no fossil fuel inputs; pumps and other electrical farm machinery can be solar-powered; and the tractors and transport can be biodiesel-fueled. And that's if there's no shift to more radical farming systems.
Then there are the improvements to the energy potential of the biomass itself. A variety of techniques are being developed to improve the efficiency of biofuel production, from engineered enzymes to biomimicry of the natural consumption of carbohydrates to up biofuel production to 75% of the dry plant weight.
The Cornell and UCB researchers have clearly lost sight of the wide array of changes now underway when it comes to worldchanging technologies. It may be true that, today, biofuel production is a net loser in terms of energy costs -- but that doesn't mean that it will be true tomorrow.
New research from Cornell and UC Berkeley agriculture and engineering professors concludes that, when all of the elements required to produce biomass-based liquid fuels (such as ethanol and biodiesel) are added together, the energy requirements for production far exceed the energy produced.
...corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; [...] soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced [...]
In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix.
Although there are those who would dispute these calculations (update: and there are good reasons to believe that this is an overall poor piece of research) let's take them as given for the moment.
What's notable about all of the production elements listed as "requiring" fossil fuels is that pretty much all of them are amenable to changes that would greatly reduce or eliminate fossil fuel use. Pesticide use can be cut with organic techniques (or even carefully-controlled bioengineering); algae-hydrogen fertilizers require no fossil fuel inputs; pumps and other electrical farm machinery can be solar-powered; and the tractors and transport can be biodiesel-fueled. And that's if there's no shift to more radical farming systems.
Then there are the improvements to the energy potential of the biomass itself. A variety of techniques are being developed to improve the efficiency of biofuel production, from engineered enzymes to biomimicry of the natural consumption of carbohydrates to up biofuel production to 75% of the dry plant weight.
The Cornell and UCB researchers have clearly lost sight of the wide array of changes now underway when it comes to worldchanging technologies. It may be true that, today, biofuel production is a net loser in terms of energy costs -- but that doesn't mean that it will be true tomorrow.