We've taken great pains in this space to warn you often about the many dirty foods you should avoid buying at your local grocery store or farmers market at all costs. No surprise, the most recent issue of Consumer Reports has fingered one of those risky foods: Leafy greens.

A surprising 39 percent out of more than 200 samples from 16 producers of packaged greens -- yep, those prewashed packages you count on to save time at the dinner table -- purchased in the Northeastern U.S. exceeded an unacceptable level of total coliforms, one indicator of poor fecal contamination used by industry experts. A second marker for contamination, enterococcus, was discovered in 23 percent of the samples tested.

Although bacteria counts varied greatly among products, even in the same brand, there were some uncomfortable similarities among samples with higher levels of contaminants:

1. There was no difference in cleanliness among organic and non-organic products, nor how they were sold at the grocery store (in plastic bags or containers).

2. More samples of spinach were tainted and were anywhere from 1-5 days away from their expiration dates.

3. At least one brand of packaged salad among the companies represented by more than four samples -- including national, regional and store brands -- tested positive for enterococcus or coliforms.

These results certainly explain why the Consumers Union supports the Food Safety Modernization Act that would allow the FDA to develop and enforce stronger produce standards.

Consumer Reports March 2010

Civil Eats February 2, 2010

Perfluorooctanoic acid, better known as PFOA, is one of the more "indefinitely persistent" toxic chemicals around. It's found at very low levels, not only in our environment, but in the blood streams of virtually all Americans and countless animals (even our pets).

While the EPA still avoids explaining just how people could be exposed to PFOA to such a ridiculous degree, traces of this chemical have been found in microwave popcorn bags, house dust, water, carpets and very popularly, non-stick cookware. Even worse, previous reports have linked PFOA exposure to such dire problems as female infertility and lower birth weights and head sizes in newborns.

This latest study, reviewing health statistics on some 4,000 Americans, found patients with the highest concentrations of PFOA and other compounds in their bodies (the top 25 percent) were more twice as prone to have thyroid disease. Although the presence of PFOA and other chemicals may simply be a marker for an unknown factor linked to thyroid disease, scientists believe these compounds may disrupt the binding of thyroid hormones in the blood or alter how they are metabolized in the liver.

Although thyroid problems are experienced more often by women, researchers also uncovered a connection between higher concentrations of another chemical -- perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) -- and thyroid disease among men.

Receive Daily Health Updates from CNCA Subscribe to Our Blog

Environmental Health Perspectives January 20, 2010

ScienceDaily January 21, 2010

Science News January 22, 2010

Shortly after the release of a stinging study linking the presence of Bisphenol A (BPA) to an elevated risk of heart disease among Americans, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has allotted $30 million to study the health effects of this common, and quite possibly, very harmful chemical used in the production of baby bottles, water bottles and plastic food containers.

In fact, this latest study merely confirmed the findings of earlier research released two years ago by the same team of British scientists who discovered a connection between elevated urinary BPA concentrations and adverse health problems in adults related to obesity, diabetes, liver function and insulin.

Although urinary concentrations of BPA among Americans for the latest study had dropped by nearly a third compared to the previous report, those levels were still linked to a higher prevalence of heart disease among some 3,000 adults (ages 18-74). To put the numbers into perspective, a 60-year-old male whose BPA levels were in the top third has a 10 percent risk of having heart disease.

Despite the dose of reality delivered across the pond from UK researchers, the FDA still supports -- for now -- the use of BPA in bottles, deputy commissioner Dr. Joshua Sharfstein says, "because the benefit of nutrition outweighs the potential risks of BPA." Still, big business has already paid attention to this take-home message long before the feds: Ninety percent of the baby bottles now produced for the American market contain no BPA.

PLOS One January 13, 2010 Free Full Text Study

ScienceDaily January 13, 2010

WebMD January 12, 2010

healthfinder.gov January 15, 2010

Amazing, but true, your adorable, precocious medium-sized dog whose presence in your life is a boon to your health, and, only occasionally a burden, also generates a carbon footprint larger than an SUV.

Taking into account the land needed to grow the food to feed a dog, a New Zealander couple who wrote the book Time to Eat The Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living calculated a medium-sized Fido has a carbon footprint of slightly more than 2 acres. By comparison, a Toyota Land Cruiser that gets an estimated 18 MPG in highway driving and is driven an unrealistic 6,200 miles annually generates a footprint about half that size or 1.01 acres.

Cat owners aren't in the clear either, as the average feline's carbon footprint is about a third of an acre, slightly less than what it takes to drive a Volkswagen Golf annually. And, the land required to feed all the felines living in just the top 10 cat-owning countries in the world amounts to 400,000 square kilometers, or 1.5 times the size of New Zealand. (All of the calculations made in the aforementioned book were independently calculated and verified by the Stockholm Environment Institute.)

Assuming getting rid of your pets is not an option for everyone reading this post, here are some things you can do to lessen their impact on the environment:

* Train your cat to use the litter box and don't flush their remains down the toilet or let them "do their business" outdoors.

* When walking your dog, stay away from wildlife areas, protecting more fragile ecosystems.

* Because meat production accounts for much of a pet's "eco-footprint," be a little more mindful about your furry family member's diet.

Physorg.Com December 21, 2009

New Scientist October 23, 2009

Without question, this latest report from the Washington Post underscores why the EPA has been lobbying for major reforms in the Toxic Substances Control Act passed into law some 35 years ago.

The number of potentially toxic chemicals under the EPA's jurisdiction has grown over the years to an estimated 84,000. We're using the adjective "estimated" here because nearly 20 percent of the chemicals under the EPA's tissue paper-like jurisdiction have been kept secret by law from almost all federal regulators and the public, thanks to a federal policy crafted in 1976 to protect big business from pilfering trade secrets from each other, and the public who would like to know what toxic substance is poisoning our water.

Although very few folks really know how many of the "estimated" 17,000 chemicals being kept under wraps by the EPA are truly harmless, the percentages reported by the Government Accountability Office don't look encouraging.

For one, of the 700 chemicals introduced every year on average in America, 95 percent of their manufacturers asked for some level of secrecy. More importantly, a March 2009 review of federally mandated substantial risk reports found that more than half of the 65 filed were connected to chemicals whose origin and composition are kept secret by the EPA. Even worse, 151 of these secret chemicals are produced in quantities exceeding 1 million tons every year, and 10 of them are used to make products targeted for kids.

To the good, more than 530 chemicals were declassified by an Obama administration appointee last summer during his first week as an assistant administrator. But the effect may be incremental at best: Many of those once "secret" chemicals had already appeared in trade journals and on Web sites.

Washington Post January 4, 2010

Washington Post: Short Stack December 9, 2009

Just as supplements have been plagued with inconsistent quality and toxic substances, so have cosmetics and jewelry marketed for kids that have been contaminated with lead, according to studies conducted in Ireland and Canada.

In one set of tests, Irish researchers detected lead levels in children's cosmetics purchased in discount stores exceeded recommended safe limits by a factor of 500, and more testing discovered lead concentrations as high as 10,000 mg in some cosmetics.

If that doesn't worry you enough, the news is even worse in Canada, as more than half of the children's jewelry tested by Health Canada's product safety laboratory last year (39 out of 67 pieces) was made of pure lead. Amazingly, 20 pieces contained levels of lead ranging from 80-95 percent, comparable to amounts found in common car batteries.

Although the CDC appears to be keeping close tabs on toxic amounts of lead found in children's jewelry, the same can't necessarily be said for lipsticks. Although a recent FDA study found lead in 20 brands of red lipstick produced by 10 different manufacturers at levels four times greater than those reported in independent tests, the agency hasn't released the list of products tested to the public, nor has it developed any safety standard governing lead levels in lipstick.

If you've been looking for a less toxic lipstick, check out this list of safer, lead-free options from The Daily Green.

Independent.ie December 24, 2009

Kelowna.com December 22, 2009

The Daily Green September 1, 2009

Arguably, Al Gore's greatest contribution to America has been his commitment to bring awareness to the potential environmental threat of global warming.

Nearly three years later, are Americans any wiser right now about their carbon footprint (the amount of carbon dioxide produced by a business, organization or human being over a given time)? Most Americans still don't think much about footprints, other than the muddy ones they track through their homes.

This interesting article from OPEN Forum, however, explains how folks can have a greater impact on the environment -- more than owning a hybrid car or replacing incandescent light bulbs with energy-saving bulbs in their homes -- just by rethinking how and where they get their food as well as disposing of it through sustainable food systems.

But that's the huge quandary: How does America create the space, particularly in urban areas, for sustainable food production? Perhaps, the blueprints being formulated by one entrepreneur hoping to revitalize Detroit (considered the American poster child for shrinking postindustrial cities) to create the world's largest urban farm offer a possible solution.

While you're mulling over the idea of an apple orchard growing next to your home, determine your own carbon footprint with the help of this awesome calculator sponsored by The Nature Conservancy.

Assignment Detroit/CNNMoney.com December 29, 2009

OPEN Forum December 18, 2009

If you were concerned about old-school antibiotics losing their ability to fight infections, no doubt, you'll be alarmed to discover that ordinary disinfectants may be making one specific bacterium impervious to a common antibiotic in addition to the chemicals used to get rid of them.

When Irish researchers exposed Pseudomonas aeruginosa to greater amounts of disinfectants in the lab, thanks to a DNA mutation, the bacterium adapted to survive exposure not only to these chemicals but the often prescribed ciproflaxcin.

Even worse, when the DNA-altered bacterium was exposed to very tiny amounts of disinfectant, it was more likely to survive. And, researchers worry that environmental factors may promote resistance to antibiotics too.

The huge problem: P. aeruginosa is considered an "opportunistic" bacterium, meaning it may ignite a great range of infections among patients with weak immune systems, such as those with diabetes and cystic fibrosis.

Microbiology, Vol. 156, No. 1, pp. 30-38, January 2010

LiveScience December 28, 2009

EurekAlert December 27, 2009

Image source: Dr. Lucille George, CDC

In addition to dual lists unveiled last fall by the Environmental Working Group and the Center for Science in the Public Interest of the dirtiest and cleanest whole foods you'll find any day of the week in your neighborhood grocery store, be sure to take a few minutes to review this great addendum developed by the editors of Prevention of six more health-harming foods to avoid when you're shopping.

Apart from apples and potatoes, the Prevention list sets its sights in a different direction -- processed foods -- no doubt a serious and justified reaction to all the recent food safety problems in the news.

What follows is the remainder of the list, including links to recent reports about the debatable safety of each member of the Prevention list.

1. Farmed salmon

2. Conventional processed milk containing artificial hormones

3. Canned tomatoes

4. Corn-fed beef

5. Microwave popcorn

Organic Consumers Association December 10, 2009

Shine November 24, 2009

Hard to imagine natural substances like hemp and flax being used in the production of cars and bicycles, but that's exactly what some European manufacturers are up to these days, as described in recent treehugger and Newsvine blog posts.

Flax is billed as the secret ingredient used by retired racing champion Johan Museeuw to make high-end bikes. In fact, some ultra-high performance bicycles are made of flax blends as high as 80 percent.

To further its goals of sustainable development, PSA Peugeot Citroen is building cars with components made of flax (interior door panels) and hemp (side mirror mountings and radiator caps).

Of course, saving the planet in either case doesn't come cheap. The American distributor sells Museeuw's bike frames for as much as $5,000 apiece. And, no telling how expensive Peugeot's first foray into electric cars, the iOn, will be for Europeans...

Newsvine.com November 2, 2009

treehugger August 26, 2009

As you know, it's virtually impossible to elude constant warnings about all the dangers associated with smoking, from very explicit labeling on cigarette packaging to public service announcements aired 24/7 on broadcast media. But it hasn't stopped folks from looking for "safer" alternatives to smoking anyway, like the e-cigarette, a product that contains, not only nicotine, but an toxic assortment of goodies, like a compound used to produce antifreeze.

You can add the hookah, a waterpipe that has been used in the Middle East and Asia for centuries and has grown in popularity among young American adults over the past decade, as equally hazardous to one's health.

Scientists at Virginia Commonwealth University and American University of Beirut launched the study to compare which delivery system -- cigarettes or hookah pipes -- exposed 31 patients between ages 18-50 to more toxic substances over two 45-minute sessions, while measuring nicotine and carbon monoxide levels in their blood.

Although the levels of nicotine at their peak didn't vary, patients were exposed to far more carbon monoxide when smoking a hookah. Compared to cigarettes, the amount of carbon monoxide found in the blood of patients at the peak waterpipe COHb level (the amount bound to red blood cells) was three times greater. Patients inhaled some 48 times more smoke when using a hookah too.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 518-523, December 2009

ABC News December 7, 2009

EurekAlert December 2, 2009

The simplest solutions are often the safest, best and most effective ones, and this latest one may rid the air you breathe in your home and office of health-harming pollutants. In fact, a number of plant species may get rid of some volatile organic compounds (VOCs) hiding in plain sight, according to a recent study.

To show how some plants can naturally scrub pollutants out of our air, a process known as phytoremediation, scientists from the University of Georgia and Korea studied the "cleaning power" of 28 common indoor ornamental plants that were exposed to benzene, toluene, octane, alpha-pinene and trichloroethylene (better known as TCE).

Out of all the species tested, four plants -- Asparagus fern (Asparagus densiflorus), English ivy (Hedera helix), purple waffle plant (Hemigraphis alternata) and variegated wax plant (Hoya carnosa) -- were given the highest marks for removing all five VOCs. And, a fifth species -- the purple heart plant -- received superior grades for removing four VOCs.

These results go hand-in-hand with another recent study identifying three more common house plants -- golden pothos, spider plant and snake plant -- that reduced ozone levels in simulated indoor environments.

HortScience, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 1377-1381, August 1, 2009

ScienceDaily November 5, 2009

ScienceDaily September 9, 2009

Considering a growing awareness of all the chemicals like the health-harming herbicide atrazine hiding in your drinking water, you may be relieved, or a little alarmed, to learn the FDA has finally taken a tiny step in the right direction toward cleaner water. But it requires your attention and cooperation, however.

Why? Late last month, the FDA issued an advisory on its Web site (see link below) about the safe disposal of outdated medicines in your home by flushing them down your toilet. And, like most folks, you may have been dumping all of your unused medicines down the water closet for a long time without thinking about the consequences.

The list of "safe" medicines you can flush down the toilet is severely limited to 26 medicines, according to the FDA. Some of them may ring a bell in the pop culture side of your brain because they have been linked to highly publicized cases of drug abuse. Among the most recognizable:

* Demerol

* Dliaudid

* OxyContin

* Percocet

This FDA advisory comes on the heels of a Ball State University study that detected trace amounts of acetaminophen, lithium, caffeine, dimethylxanthine (a caffeine byproduct) and continine (a nicotine byproduct) in freshwater ecosystems supplying central Indiana with 85 percent of its surface water.

That's just the tip of iceberg, according to this disturbing study done last year by the Associated Press about traces of an overwhelming array of drugs found in water supplies accessed by at least 41 MILLION Americans.

FDA.gov October 20, 2009

Chicago Tribune October 21, 2009

PhysOrg October 20, 2009

If you wondered why the FDA recently issued $17.5 million in grants to various state and local regulatory agencies, chalk it up to the sorry state of food safety in America, underscored in a recent Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) report on the 10 riskiest and pretty popular foods regulated by the agency.

Overall, these "top 10" harmful foods were responsible for more than 1,500 separate outbreaks, sickening nearly 50,000 Americans from 1990-2006. The range of problems associated with these foods was wide, from the minor (stomach cramps and diarrhea) to the gravely serious (kidney failure and death), with Salmonella being the leading cause of outbreaks in 33 percent of the cases connected to these 10 foods.

The top 5 offenders, according to CSPI (see the link below for the full and surprising list):

1. Leafy greens: 363 outbreaks and 13,568 incidents of illness.

2. Eggs: 352 outbreaks and 11,163 incidents.

3. Tuna: 268 outbreaks and 2,341 incidents.

4. Oysters: 132 outbreaks and 3,409 incidents.

5. Potatoes: 108 outbreaks and 3,659 incidents.

The CDC estimates 25 percent of all Americans get sick and 5,000 die every year due to foodborne illnesses.

CSPI Newsroom October 6, 2009

Washington Post October 6, 2009

CNNMoney.com October 6, 2009

Citing an "understandably anxious and confused" public, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently announced an urgent push for major reforms for the long outmoded 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that governs how the agency regulates toxic chemicals. "Over the years, not only has the TSCA fallen behind the industry it's supposed to regulate, it's been proven an inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects," Jackson says.

It's about time. During TSCA's sorry, 33-year history, the FDA has issued either strong regulations or banned only five chemicals out of some 80,000. Among the reforms being considered:

1. Giving greater authority to the EPA to take action when chemicals don't meet safety standards.

2. Mandating more timely assessments of new and existing priority chemicals.

3. Reviewing chemicals against risk-specific safety standards based on sound science that safeguard the environment and human health.

4. Requiring manufacturers to provide the agency with enough information to make informed assessments about the safety or non-safety of chemicals.

5. Changing the mindset of assessments, so that chemicals aren't automatically assumed to be "innocent until proven guilty," says an Environmental Working Group spokesperson.

A big surprise: The American Chemistry Council endorses the move by the EPA to revamp TSCA, considered by many environmental health experts to be obsolete.

Toxic "surprises" are just another thing to consider when you're weighing the pros and cons of a product to improve your health. Read more about protecting yourself and your family from our toxic world here.

EPA.gov September 29, 2009

San Francisco Chronicle September 30, 2009

USA Today September 29, 2009