Nanotechnology has consumers talking: join the conversation

Our story on the growing use of nano-sized materials in consumer products in the July issue of Consumer Reports clearly got  people thinking about these ultra-tiny materials. Since we published the piece, there's been a lot of media attention focused on sunscreens in particular, with manufacturers and other organizations voicing various opinions about the relative safety of different sunscreen ingredients  -- some nano-sized and some not.

But sunscreens aren’t the only nano-formulated products that have caused a buzz. There's growing consumer interest in these new materials and concern over their effect on the body and on the environment. And consumers are justifiably questioning what processes and regulations are needed to ensure that nano particles are managed safely throughout the chain of commerce.

To expand the dialogue and learn more about consumer perspectives on nanotechnology, Consumers Union is collaborating with the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies on a two-day online event, Consumers Talk Nano, on October 23rd and 24th. The aim is to enable consumers to communicate online with expert panelists and with each other about this important topic. Register to participate in the dialogue or visit the project's web site to find more resources.

To learn more about nanomaterials, read the FAQ on nanoparticles in sunscreens that follows.

Accidental deaths, a silent epidemic

Here’s a scary fact: Every five minutes, a person dies from an accident. The National Safety Council calls accidental deaths “a silent epidemic,” rising at an alarming rate -- more than 20 percent over 10 years -- reaching 113,000 fatalities in 2005, the latest data available.

According to a recent safety council study, accidental deaths are the fifth leading cause of death but the number of accidental fatalities is rising at a faster rate than the top four causes of death: heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic lower respiratory disease. Accidental deaths reached an all-time high of 116,385 in 1969. At the current rate of increase, annual fatalities could surpass that record in just a few years, the safety council says.

Driving the increase is the aging population, which translates into more falls and more medication, leading to accidental overdoses, the council says. The safety council also pins some of the blame on new technology that distracts drivers. Motor vehicle crashes continue to be the leading cause of injury-related deaths, although they have dropped significantly from the record high of 56,278 in 1982 to 42,642 in 2006.

The second leading cause of accidental death is poisoning, particularly from overdoses of over-the-counter, prescription and illicit drugs. In fact, poisoning is the fastest-rising cause of accidental death, with a  5 percent increase in 2005 alone. Deaths from falls rank third, with choking and drowning rounding out the top five. These five leading causes account for 83 percent of all accidental deaths. But while drowning was the fifth-leading cause nationally, many states ranked fire as the fifth-leading cause of accidental death.

There is some good news from the safety council’s report. The death rate from workplace injuries has dropped by 17 percent since 1992. On the other hand, the death rate from injuries incurred at home and in community settings has increased by 30 percent for that same time period.

Accidents also accounted for more than 24 million nonfatal injuries in 2005. The economic cost of all fatal and nonfatal injuries amounted to $625.5 billion nationally, or $5,500 per household. “Our research shows that when it comes to safety, most Americans are more concerned about being the victim of a random act of violence than they are about being seriously injured in an accident,” said NSC President and CEO Alan McMillan. “The reality is that while we are at greater risk of experiencing an accidental injury, we have greater control over managing those risks.”
   
It goes without saying—be careful.

More information
For a state-by-state accident report visit the National Safety Council site.

More disturbing news about contaminated imports

The New York Times and the Washington Post this week unveiled yet another disturbing chapter in the ongoing saga of contaminated medicinal ingredients imported from China. 

According to the papers' investigations, the recent toothpaste contamination in the U.S. and the tainted cough syrup that killed at least 100 people in Panama are the latest in a long line of often deadly incidents involving contaminated glycerin, a common ingredient in a host of products. Countless people, mostly children, died when they ingested contaminated medicines in Argentina, Haiti, India, and elsewhere. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration tried to identify the source of such incidents abroad over the past decade, but the trail turned cold when they reached the second or third broker to handle the tainted glycerin. Unable to identify and eliminate the source, government officials watched and waited for a tide of contaminated products to wash up on our shores.

Fortunately, it doesn't appear that the contaminated glycerin made it into U.S. products. That doesn't minimize the need for a system that monitors product safety and traces products through the chain of commerce back to the source, holding officials at each point accountable for product quality. Well developed and effectively applied, that process would protect consumers from more than contaminated products at the drug store; it would also go a long way toward keeping lead-tainted children's toys and jewelry (like the recently recalled Thomas & Friends toys) off store shelves. Like the FDA officials who tried to follow the trail of contaminated glycerin, CPSC staff and jewelry manufacturers have been unable to identify the factories in China that keep pumping out lead-tainted products and to impose financial and legal consequences.   

We wonder why manufacturers and our own regulatory agencies don't insist on a system that enables them to identify and avoid these tainted troughs and deal only with factories that have a proven track record. How aware are they of the source of their products? If manufacturers can't have confidence in or control over the quality of products and ingredients being made for them, how can American consumers? 

Manufacturers do have quality assurance systems in place, but those essentially voluntary programs don't appear to be effective in an environment like China, where manufacturers seem to go in and out of business at a rapid rate, and facility managers and executives turn over frequently. Government programs are equally inadequate. Firms in some countries face almost none of the scrutiny that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gives to U.S. facilities. According to the Washington Post, the FDA conducted only 200 inspections of Indian and Chinese plants versus 1,200 in U.S. facilities, even though by some estimates as many as 20 percent of finished over-the-counter drugs and 40 percent of active ingredients come from those countries. Our colleagues who work on international food and drug policies say that current trade agreements don't allow our government to block imports from a particular country solely on the grounds of a bad track record. 

We wonder how the voluntary systems, billed in the '90's as a more effective alternative to "command and control" government regulation, could allow so many links in the chain of commerce to break at once. Limits on FDA budgets contricting oversight have no doubt played a role. We'd like to see a return to more control and greater confidence that our children won't die from a spoonful of cough syrup.

Previously:

• Toothpaste trouble: what you need to know now
• Tainted animal feed: Why the government's approach isn't working

Toothpaste trouble: what you need to know now

The latest news about contaminated and counterfeit toothpaste may have you wondering if your dentist was playing straight when he told you to use the stuff (he was). Since we assume (or at least hope) you're going to keep brushing, here's what you need to know:

• Counterfeit toothpaste labeled as "Colgate" has been found in discount stores in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. According to the Food and Drug Administration, the toothpaste does not appear to contain fluoride, and may contain the poisonous chemical diethylene glycol (DEG).  Also known as "diglycol," DEG is used in antifreeze and as a solvent. According to the FDA, the counterfeit toothpaste can be easily recognized because it is labeled as "Manufactured in South Africa." In addition, the counterfeit packages examined so far have several misspellings including: "isclinically" "SOUTH AFRLCA" "South African Dental Assoxiation." Consumers who suspect they may have purchased a counterfeit product, can call Colgate-Palmolive’s toll-free number at 800-468-6502.
• MS USA Trading, Inc. of North Bergen, NJ, is recalling all lots of 5 ounce tubes of "Colgate," due to the potential for DEG contamination. The product comes in a 5 ounce (100ml) tube; "made in South Africa" is printed on the box. The recall includes the following brands: Regular, Gel, Triple and Herbal. Consumers who have purchased 5 ounce of "Colgate Toothpaste" in Regular, Gel, Triple and Herbal are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 201-869-0010.
• The FDA has found DEG in certain toothpastes imported from China.  According to the FDA, no poisonings from Chinese toothpaste have been reported in the U.S. However, the agency recommends that consumers discard any toothpaste labeled as made in China.

The FDA has set up a web page that includes updates on this issue. For information about choosing the right toothpaste, go to ConsumerReports.org.

A "perc" you can do without

In the better-late-than-never department, we want to take a moment to applaud California for its decision earlier this year to phase out the use of a cancer-causing chemical that’s commonly used in dry-cleaning.   

On January 25, the California Air Resources Board voted to gradually reduce and eventually ban the use of perchloroethylene, or perc, as a solvent used in dry cleaning. Beginning in 2008, no new perc-using machines may be installed in California; By July 2010, dry cleaners must remove all perc machines housed in apartment buildings and other residential facilities. By 2023, perc will no longer be allowed in any California dry-cleaning establishment.   

The 16-year phase out may seem like a long time — but believe us, this rule has been a long time coming for a toxic solvent that, besides cancer, has also been linked to liver and kidney damage in animals and nerve damage in humans. In 1995, Consumer Reports found high perc levels in apartments located above dry cleaning establishments in New York City. In 1996 we tested consumer exposure to freshly dry-cleaned clothes and found there was enough perc in them to significantly increase cancer risk for consumers who wear a lot of dry-cleaned clothes. 

Perc is not just a problem for people living near dry cleaners and wearers of clothes that are dry cleaned. In many communities, perc has contaminated drinking water supplies, often after used dry cleaning solvents were illegally dumped or discarded in leaky landfills. Past federal and state studies have found that as much as 25% of drinking water supplies and nearly 40% of surface waters tested in the US are contaminated with Perc. 

California's proposed phase-out would not be possible if not for over a decade of research and testing of alternative professional dry cleaning methods. The federal Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Design for the Environment program played a significant role in the development of water-based and liquid carbon dioxide technologies, offered by a growing number of cleaners. Consumer Reports tested carbon dioxide-based cleaning systems in 2003, and found the results to be better than traditional dry-cleaning. Another green process, using silicone, was almost as good. 

The EPA issued a rule last summer requiring dry cleaners operating in residential buildings to stop buying any new perc machines and phase out using existing ones by the end of 2020.  That’s a good start. But we’d like to see the EPA limit perc’s use once and for all — for every state in the country. In the meantime, consumers can help by seeking out facilities that use perc-free dry cleaning methods. 

This EPA guide gives locations and phone numbers of cleaners who use the carbon dioxide method. You can also find cleaners who offer silicone-solvent cleaning here.

You can find more information about green cleaning options at Consumer Reports' GreenerChoices.org.

Poison Control Centers: A vital, fragile resource

This week is National Poison Prevention Week, and we’d like to give thanks to the nation’s Poison Control Centers. 

Those of us who have called the 1-800-222-1222 hotline when our children (or even our pets) have swallowed something worrisome are already indebted to the medical professionals who staff these centers.   

If you’re lucky enough not to have needed to make that call, consider these numbers: 

1. In 2006, the 61 U.S. poison centers handled more than 2.5 million reports. 
2. Poisoning is the second most common form of unintentional death in the U.S. In any given year, there will be between 2 and 4 million poison exposures, 60 percent involving children under 6 in their own home. 
3. More than 70 percent of the cases handled by the poison centers were managed safely at home, resulting in dramatic cost savings — estimated at nearly a billion dollars in 2005 — over visits to the emergency room. 

But the willingness of the American public to keep funding the centers is uncertain. Richard Weisman, the American Association of Poison Control Centers' legislative affairs director and director of the Florida Poison Center in Miami, notes that the centers are funded by a patchwork of federal, state, local, and private sources. This network is particularly fragile in times of financial cutbacks. In 2003, Congress authorized an annual appropriation of $30.1 million for the centers. But in actuality they only received less than $24 million in funding for the 2007 fiscal year, and the Bush administration is proposing a further drop of 58 percent for the 2008 fiscal year. 

Such a cut, said Weisman, “would be catastrophic,” and could result in “almost complete elimination of education and prevention efforts. Many of centers would have to reduce their hours of operation and reduce the number of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to answer the phone.” The result could be lots of busy signals and unanswered emergency calls. “The bottom line will be significant,” with an increase in deaths, predominantly children. 

And if it’s your call that goes unanswered?