On Monday, USA Today exposed the alarmingly unhealthy air quality near many of our country’s schools. Of the 95 locations in 30 states tested by scientists at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland, at least seven, the article concluded, exhibited “pollution at levels that could make people sick or significantly increase their risk of cancer if they were exposed to the chemicals for long periods.” It also rightly reminded us, “Even small amounts of toxic chemicals can do irreparable harm to children, who breathe more air per pound than adults do, and whose bodies process chemicals differently.”

If you think your child is safe because his or her classroom is not located near a steel plant like the one in Midland, Pennsylvania, that showed some of the most threatening results, consider this: Some of the nation’s affluent suburbs tested positive for benzene, a toxic chemical often found in automobile exhaust. In other words, no area is safe from air pollution.

All of this information is enough to make any protective parent want to go out and buy oxygen masks. After all, there’s not much we can do to protect our children from the air at school or anywhere else for that matter, right? Wrong.

We should all be asking our educators an important question: Where are the concerns for indoor air pollution, which schools can actually control?

As I mention in my book Green Goes with Everything, due to items we innocently introduce into our homes, and, incidentally our schools (think paint, cleaning products, desks, and carpets), the air inside is two to five times worse than outside, according to the EPA. And we spend nearly 90 percent of our time indoors! So, while our kids are sitting at their desks attempting to get an education, they are breathing in toxins released not by a steel factory but by things that might be sprayed on their desks or hung in front of the windows.

Last week I vowed to offer President-elect and Mrs. Obama insight into how to truly “green” the White House for optimum health. This week I was excited to be invited to report on the greening of Arianna Huffington’s house (more on that in the days to come, but you should know that Arianna really cares about the health issues in her home and has already taken many steps to protect her family). So, this topic is top of mind for me, and as I share my recommendations (and yours) for the Obamas and Arianna with the world, I can promise that air quality is going to be one of the most important subjects I address.

In the meantime, we should demand that our schools make the necessary–and surprisingly easy–changes to ensure that all children, and let’s not forget the teachers, breathe easier.

The amazing recovery of the American bald eagle may soon be in peril in some places, according to a study released this month by the BioDiversity Research Institute in Gorham, Maine. According to the study, bald eagle chicks in the Catskills Park region of New York — considered a mercury hot-spot — are showing elevated blood mercury levels close to those associated with reproductive problems.

But what does that have to do with your dinner tonight? Well, give me a second…

In 1962, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring alerted us to the very real dangers of poisons in our environment and their link to reproductive problems in birds — often the first living creatures to manifest toxicity. Our problem is no longer the dreaded DDT. Today, birds are getting sick because of mercury. Here is how it works:

The mercury that is causing problems for eagles in New York comes mainly from coal-fired power plants that currently provide about half of our country’s electricity. Emissions from these plants release airborne mercury, which eventually settles in bodies of water and, with the help of bacteria, is transformed into the very toxic methyl mercury. At this point, it enters the food chain when it’s consumed by worms and other small organisms and then eaten by small fish. Larger fish eat the small fish and you know the rest. And mercury is not just affecting creatures that eat fish. The BioDiversity Research Institute is studying the links between mercury soil contamination and declining songbird numbers in the same region. Clearly, birds are not the only creatures being impacted. We are too.

President-elect Obama plans to make some fantastic changes as he moves us away from ‘dirty’ energy, but the EPA estimates that only about half of the mercury currently polluting the U. S. comes from American sources. The rest blows over mostly from Asia.

In 2004, the Sierra Club reported that 47 states put mercury advisories into effect for at least some of their waters. Because of this, and, some would argue, despite it, the FDA and EPA have maintained their recommendation that women of childbearing age who may become pregnant, as well as small children and mothers who are breastfeeding, simply avoid eating shark, swordfish, king mackerel and tilefish. The FDA and EPA say it is “safe” for pregnant women and children to eat 12 ounces of other types of fish, like canned tuna, each week.

Perhaps, like me, your trust in the EPA has, well, floundered over the past years. Is it really safe to eat that much fish each week? We know that no level of mercury is safe for children under six and that methyl mercury is a developmental toxin that causes brain damage and many other health problems. But fear not. You can still go out for sushi.

Begin to protect your family by consulting the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch site. They have put together a credit-card sized guide that lists best and worst seafood choices by region. You can also help raise awareness by giving these guides to family and friends and by asking for healthier, more sustainable seafood choices at your favorite markets and restaurants. Also, don’t automatically trust that your local health food store is vetting your omegas for you. Check the Environmental Defense Fund’s Website for their ranking on the best and worst fish-oil supplements.

Next, be an educated recycler! Send your old electronics, compact fluorescent light bulbs and mercury-containing thermometers to a recycling center or find out when your city has a special garbage collection day so that these items can be properly sent to their grave.

Avoid “silver” fillings. In 2008, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported findings from two clinical trials that showed that dental amalgam tooth fillings (containing 50 percent elemental mercury) did not adversely affect the study participants’ brain development or memory in the five to seven years that the children were observed.

However, we know that amalgam fillings do break down over time — sometimes, according to one British study, in as little as 52 to 68 months. Amalgams also release mercury vapor, which can adversely affect the central nervous system. Once removed, amalgam fillings are classified as hazardous materials and require special handling and disposal methods. Do you really want these in your mouth? Instead, ask for Bisphenol- free composite fillings.

Last, thimerosal, the organomercury compound used as a preservative in vaccines, tattoo inks, and some medicines, is still around. Concerns about the toxicity of thimerosal have forced drug companies to take steps to remove it by switching from multi-dose vaccine vials to single-dose vials that do not require a preservative. But the majority of influenza vaccines distributed in the U. S. currently contain thimerosal as a preservative. Be sure to ask before you pull up your sleeve.

Earlier this week I posted an open letter to President-elect and Mrs. Obama offering to help truly “green” the White House–not just an audit of energy and water efficiency but also a focus on optimum First Family health. Now I’d like you to join me in crafting a comprehensive plan on how to do it. 



It was your thoughtful responses and recommendations that gave me the idea to make this a joint effort. I love iconlady’s idea of setting aside some Pennsylvania Avenue lawn for organic gardens, having Malia and Sasha help raise fresh organic fruits and vegetables, and leveraging the media coverage to inspire schools and neighborhoods to do the same. And how about pcuvie’s idea of creating some vegetarian State Dinners and evaluating the current use of solar power? That’s a good one too. You all reminded me that through our ideas and actions we are always stronger together than we are alone, and that the best way for me to be of service to the First Family, and our country, is to represent all of us as a unified voice for greener, cleaner living.

So, consider this our greening petition or call to action. Add your ideas here on how to optimize the health of the First Family, and consequently set the stage for healthier living across the country. Maybe you have some great ideas you’ve tried at home or perhaps some suggestions you’ve read about but didn’t get around to implementing. Think old, big, white house built in the late 1700s, and reconstructed in the 1800s and a large staff ready and willing to make all necessary changes, setting the perfect example for the World. I will include your recommendations in the proposal I plan to present to the White House.

I hope you are as excited about this as I am. I know that together we can make a big difference.

Sincerely,
Sloan Barnett

Dear President-elect and Mrs. Obama:

I know that the greening of the White House is at the top of your agenda and that you plan to meet in the near future with the chief usher to evaluate its efficiency. But today “green” has a new broader definition that extends beyond maximizing a household’s energy and water performance–it’s about the health of our families. As you move into your new residence, this is your chance to create the safest environment for you and your family and to set an example for the rest of the country to do the same.

In your acceptance speech you called for a new spirit of patriotism and responsibility, where, as you so eloquently put it, “each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.” Like most Americans,

I took those words to heart. So, as you enter the White House I’m stepping forward to look after you and your family the best way I know how: by offering to help you to truly green the White House.

Why look to me for green guidance, you ask? Because I wrote the book on it. I’m the author of the New York Times bestseller Green Goes with Everything: Simpler Steps to a Healthier Life and Cleaner Planet. I’m also, like you, a parent of a child with asthma, and have done years of research to make certain that my home is the safest, greenest, cleanest place possible for my child.

So, while you address other more imminently critical issues of “green”–as in the Wall Street and auto industry bailouts–I would like to help you by taking a close look at all the consumer products, food and furnishings that will be moving into the White House. I can, at a minimum, ensure that your household cleaning products don’t contain toxins that could exacerbate–or perhaps even be a cause of–Malia’s asthma, and, at a maximum, make sure that your new hypoallergenic puppy isn’t rolling around on carpets that are off-gassing petrochemicals. And of course we could have a peek in the bathroom because even if you don’t have time to evaluate the ingredients in your shampoo, I’m sure the last thing you want to do before negotiating peace in the Middle East is wash your hair with synthetic chemicals. That’s no way to stay on top of your game.

I know that you have more than enough daunting tasks ahead of you right now. But greening you home is much easier than it sounds, and the best time to turn over a new green leaf is when you move into a residence. So, consider me at your service. Give me a call and I’ll drop over anytime for a free greening consultation. If you don’t have the time right now, just point your chief usher to this blog for the next two weeks where I will be offering guidelines to clean–and green–up Washington, and America, from the White House on up. All this, without putting a dent in your budget or sacrificing performance and convenience. After all, as evidenced by your very exciting win, change starts at home.

Sincerely, Sloan Barnett

Watch Sloan Barnett take her own “Body Burden” test!  She talks about the toxins our bodies with with Ken Cook, founder of the Environmental Working Group, and Dr. John Spengler, Akira Yamagouchi Professor of Environmental Health and Human Habitation at the Harvard Schoold of Public Health.

Toxins Flowing Through Your Body

Who could have missed the cow with the dollar bills hanging out of his mouth on the cover of the business section last weekend? Cute? Yes. But the message was a serious downer. It turns out the economy is making us all second-guess every purchase we make—including what we eat. Nielsen Company, a market research firm, reported that organic food sales rose only 4 percent in the four week period ending October 4^th, compared to 20 percent a year in recent years.  What’s keeping shoppers from purchasing organic food?  Cost.  No question. And who can blame them? But let’s understand why and what we can do about it. Organic food usually will cost at least 50 percent more than conventionally grown food and sometimes much more than that.  There are several reasons, some of them pretty surprising.

First, organic food is more expensive to produce.  Without cheap fertilizers and pesticides, farmers have to do a lot more manual labor, and people are much more expensive than petrochemicals.  Additionally, organic farming operations aren’t big enough to achieve economies of scale. 

Secondly, demand has outstripped supply—there simply are not enough people growing and producing organic ingredients.  And if you recall from your economics class, when supply is greater than demand, prices are higher. 

And finally, there is the cost of farm subsidies.  Every year the U.S. government pays many conventional farmers—including many giant mid-western agricultural corporations—billions of dollars in subsidies.  One effect of these subsidies is that the price of many products in your supermarket, especially meat, is lower than it would be without these subsidies.  So when you look at the cost of, say, a pot roast, you’ll need to add in the tax dollars you paid April 15 to get a clue about the real price of that piece of conventionally raised meat.

But I won’t let you give up on the health of your family. You do not need to give up on organic—just curtail your organic spending and focus on the area where you get the biggest bang for your buck.  Stick with these strategies and you will soon see your organic dollar stretching farther while you keep your family healthier.

- Buy Smart: The Environmental Working Group found that you can reduce your pesticide intake by 90 percent if you ate only organic versions of the following produce: peaches, apples, sweet bell peppers, celery, nectarines, strawberries, cherries, pears, imported grapes, spinach, lettuce, and potatoes. 

- Shop Around:  Pricing for organic foods is sometimes…well, let’s just call it whimsical.  So may different retail outlets are selling organic products these days that there are bargains available if you just take the time to look for them.

- Buy Local:  Many supermarkets feature locally grown vegetables, fruits, and meat in season and there are more and more farmers’ markets every year.  Foods in season tend to be cheaper, because they’re abundant then (it’s that supply and demand thing again).

- Join a Co-op: In many cities, there are full-service natural foods supermarkets that also function as co-ops.  That means when you join you get an automatic discount on everything you buy (sometimes on specific days of the week).

- Grow Your Own: Is there a corner in your yard, or some section of your apartment balcony, that gets sun most of the day?  Well, farm it!  Seriously, you’d be amazed at how much you can grow in a tiny space.  In a box roughly two feet square, you can grow enough mixed salad greens to keep you going for months!

This week, an esteemed panel of scientists released a report countering the F.D.A.’s assessment of the safety of Bisphenol A (BPA), and stated that the study was flawed. I’m not sure about you, but I am once again feeling let down by the governmental bodies that are supposedly controlling the safety of chemicals in the products that my family is exposed to everyday. Among the many problems with the F.D.A’s study, the panel of scientists found that the F.D.A. failed to look at the cumulative exposures of BPA and reported that the margins of safety as defined by the F.D.A as “adequate” were, in fact, inadequate.

Just last April, Canada banned the use of BPA in baby bottles. So why is our government still allowing BPA to be used? Let me suggest that our government adopt the “Precautionary Principle”. This is not something that I made up. Back in 1998, the Science and Environmental Health Network convened a summit of doctors, scientists, and officials to decide what to do when there was uncertainty or disagreement in the scientific community about the safety of some new product or development. When done debating, they adopted the principle, and here it is:

When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

Makes sense, right? In fact, in 2000, the European Commission–the governing body for all the nations of the European Union–adopted this principle. Our own government has not. So until our government adopts this principle, I suggest that you do.

Here are a few tips to avoid BPA. 


• Avoid polycarbonate plastic baby bottles (they’re the ones with a 7 inside the recycling triangle on the bottom and are about 95 percent of the market)


• If you insist on using plastic, use polyethylene or polypropylene (1,2,4, or 5 on the bottom). They are yet to be implicated in the BPA leaching problem.


• My preference is to simply use tried and true glass baby bottles. 


• As for baby formula, powdered formula carries a lower BPA risk than liquid.


• And for us adults, again, please STOP using bottled water. Buy a water pitcher and use a stainless steel water bottle.

People ask me all the time about the links between the tens of thousands of chemicals in our world and the skyrocketing rates of asthma, autism, cancer, and allergies. Although scientists have begun to study the cause and effect of many of these diseases, we still don’t know with absolute certainty the reality behind these increases. But here’s what we do know:

* The rate of childhood asthma has skyrocketed, and the death rate among children from asthma has doubled.

* The incidence of acute lymphocytic leukemia in children has increased more than 27 percent between 1973 and 1990.


* The incidence of childhood brain cancer increased almost 40 percent between 1973 and 1994.


* The incidence of the male genital defect hypospadias doubled, and the rate of testicular cancer among young men (age twenty to thirty-nine) rose by nearly 70 percent between 1973 and 1994.


* Autism, dyslexia, attention deficit disorder, and hyperactivity disorder in children have risen at alarming rates.

Why is this happening? The causes are complex and not fully understood, but the nation’s leading child health researchers say its no coincidence that these changes have occurred during the same decades that tens of thousands of new chemicals have come onto the market–chemicals used daily in homes, schools, and everywhere else…

One leading researcher and pediatrician states flatly: ‘We are conducting a vast toxicological experiment, in which our children, and our children’s children, are the experimental subjects.’

But this week, a major announcement brought us hope–we may have answers somewhere in the future. Researchers are embarking on a 21 year study in children to find explanations for the rising rates of childhood illnesses. The study, being conducted by the National Institute of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Education, plans to include many possible factors including chemical exposures, genetics, geography, nutrition and pollution.

But some believe that the cost of this study, $2.7 billion to be exact, is exorbitant and could divert funding from other important research initiatives. The naysayers have a point–$2.7 billion is an enormous amount of money especially when we consider our current economy. But how can we ever put a price on the health of our children? This is an extremely comprehensive long-term study spearheaded by the best in the field. Our kids are spending too many sunny days away from the playground. Isn’t it time for them to leave the EpiPens, the inhalers, and the chemotherapy at the hospital and live in a world where we think about prevention way before treatment.

This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched a startling study announcing that the number of children with food allergies has increased 18% in the last decade. In 2007, 3 million children had food allergies with about 9,500 of these cases resulting in hospitalization. And this increase is not because there is greater awareness–doctors actually believe that the increase is “real” which means that there must be something about the way we live that is causing this increase.

But what really stopped me in my tracks was that children with food allergies are two to four times as likely to have related conditions such as asthma or other allergies. And guess whose very own children have nut allergies AND asthma….

“My two oldest children are both allergic to nuts. So are a rapidly growing number of kids. I never knew anyone with a peanut allergy when I was growing up. And yet, for children under five, the rate of peanut allergies doubled between 1997 and 2002. And the median age at which the first reaction to a nut allergy occurs is getting younger; the most recent research says it’s appearing at fourteen months. Despite many studies, no one knows why this is happening. Here’s what I know. My third child, who was raised in a non-toxic home, eating only organic formula and food, recently tested allergy free. Look, I can’t be certain that our new lifestyle is the reason this baby is allergy free, but it sure does make you think.”

 So the real mystery here is why? There are many theories out there about why food allergies are on the rise in children. “Food allergies can be genetic; however, I believe that the increased prevalence of genetically-modified food may have significantly contributed to the growing rate of food allergies in children,” says Dr. Alan Greene, a pediatrician at Stanford University and author of Raising Baby Green. “It is possible that the addition of genes in our food can cause new
allergens to emerge, causing allergic reactions in susceptible individuals, especially children. Exposures to other chemicals could also be contributing, as well as not getting enough of certain
healthy foods. In fact, mounting evidence suggests a mother’s habits while pregnant can affect whether or not her children will develop allergies.”

A growing number of experts agree with these existing theories. But until we figure it out, what is there to do? Not much except to feed your children the cleanest nutrition possible, keep your child away from the culprits, and never leave home without your EpiPen.