We're all aware that certain seemingly innocent-sounding words on product labels hide some not-so-innocent ingredients (phthalates, parabens ...). What we may not all have realized is just how many pernicious little tricksters are hiding behind the word "fragrance" on cleaners, candles and cosmetics. We're not talking a dozen or so pseudonyms; we're talking about 3,163 ingredients. That fresh, fragrant feeling you were searching for? It very well could be stink-bombed by toxic additives.

The International Fragrance Association has compiled and posted this gargantuan list in an effort to help consumers who are struggling with chemical sensitivities to fragrance additives. The list includes both natural and artificial fragrances masquerading as fragrance.

The fragrance industry has struggled to strike a balance between detailing its ingredients and divulging proprietary blends and secrets. “The publication of the Fragrance Industry list of ingredients is a move towards greater transparency while still protecting proprietary details of specific fragrance formulae,” explained the IFRA's Jean-Pierre Houri. “This initiative shows the responsibility and accountability of the fragrance industry and our commitment to communicate our extensive safety program.” The ingredients listing initiative was led by the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), The Soap & Detergent Association (SDA) and the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association (CCSPA).

The best way to protect yourself continues to be the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep cosmetics database. Before plunking down your hard-earned cash on pricey cosmetics, candles or household cleaners that turn out to be toxic, take a few minutes to learn how Skin Deep can flag chemicals best avoided.

(Photo credit:ubik2010, SXC)

The frog was not talking about his garden when he sang "it's not easy being green" he was talking about his soul. Cultivating a green soul is not always easy but it is more worth the doing than just about anything I know.

When it becomes our goal to nurture nature we begin to cultivate a relationship that supports our entire ecosystem.

Remember, if it is poisoning the frogs, birds and insects, then it is probably poisoning us and our kids. So this year take a vow to ditch the pesticides and herbicides and grow a lawn and garden that the frog would be happy to sing his heart out in. Here are some helpful tips:

1. Let's begin by considering our home, garden and environs as part of our immediate family and treat them with the love and respect that they deserve.
2. Keep it simple, let some of the marginal areas of our small or large acre go native or wild. This makes less work for us and helps restore depleted habitats for pollinators and small wildlife. There is no shame in, as Jane Austen puts it, "a prettyish kind of little wilderness on one side of your lawn." You gotta love the style of those nature loving Victorians.
3. Growing grasses, flowers and vegetables that are suitable for our zone helps to maximize gratification from our landscape. Having our soil tested then amending it properly and organically is key.
4. Always choosing to go green with our dollar by sticking to organic and green gardening sites, seeds and supplies for our landscape, is easier now than ever.
5. Making Green Hour activities part of our family's daily routine helps us to build a healthy relationship with our environment. Remembering to dream green by visualizing our lives, our gardens and our planet greenly helps to reinforce their health via "ye olde power of positive thinking."

Happy green planning and I'll see you over the fence this spring with lots of green gardening tips!

(Photo credit:ms.lume on flickr)

As much as we love suggesting sustainable stuff to buy—recycled candles, green iPhone apps, Omega-3 supplements—we get even more of a charge from suggesting things not to buy. All too often, I think we forget the old standard that serves us all so well: reduce, reuse, recycle. We simply don't need more stuff—especially if it's toxic. Consumerism's as rough on the earth as it is on our wallets and the economy.

That's why we love Eco Child Play's list of top 10 toxic products you don't need. We picked our own top three of the most ubiquitous toxic products that are still making into America's grocery carts and reusable shopping bags.

1. Air fresheners Let's get real: you'd rather cover up a bad smell than clean up the cause? Naturally clean smells naturally fresh. Conventional air fresheners are getting greener, but we're not all the way there yet. Your choices could still be exposing you to phthalates and other toxic chemicals. Why not scrub the air clean naturally with houseplants, instead?
2. Household cleaners Conventional cleaning products may as well be labelled as toxic soup, for all the chemicals they contain that are harmful to your health. Vinegar and baking soda will get the job done naturally.
3. Canned food And speaking of toxic soup—yours probably is. Canned soup contained some of the highest levels of BPA in recent tests for the toxic substance. Manufacturers can't seem to control BPA levels in even so-called "BPA-free" products. It's probably wise to can the canned food.

Review the rest of the top 10 "no-buys" at Eco Child's Play.

(Photo credit:tijmen, SXC)

From The Dept. of We Told You So: So-called "bamboo" fabric is actually man-made rayon, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is clamping down on greenwashing retailers trying to sell it as an eco-friendly alternative. The FTC has warned 78 retailers (including big guys Target, Wal-Mart, Amazon.com and Bed Bath and Beyond) to stop labeling and advertising rayon fabric as "bamboo."

"The truth is, most 'bamboo' textile products, if not all, really are rayon, which typically is made using environmentally toxic chemicals in a process that emits hazardous pollutants into the air," explains an FTC business alert. "While different plants, including bamboo, can be used as a source material to create rayon, there’s no trace of the original plant in the finished rayon product.“ Concludes David C. Vladeck, director of the agency’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, “Rayon is rayon, even if bamboo has been used somewhere along the line in the manufacturing process.”

If "bamboo" fabric isn't really "bamboo" at all, where did the so-called "bamboo-ness" come from? Chemically manufactured bamboo fiber is actually a regenerated cellulose fiber, similar to rayon or modal. Its manufacture relies on hydrolysis alkalization with multi-phase bleaching, which is potentially hazardous both to human health and the environment and definitely neither sustainable nor environmentally supportable. Many bamboo fabric companies attempt to offset this appalling situation by obtaining an ISO 14001 certification, showing the factory has put in place some environmental guidelines to green its practices.

But even if there were actual bamboo content in "bamboo" rayon (and make no mistake—there's not), let us pop one final bubble. Bamboo's popularly heralded natural antibacterial, anti-fungal and deodorizing properties? A myth. Even writers at the LA Times Blogs have been sucked into these pretty claims. In fact, bamboo's anti-bacterial claim was recently repudiated by research conducted by Colorado State University chemists. As it turns out, anti-bacterial qualities are not unique to bamboo fabric at all. It was just more of the ol' bamboozle, all along.

(Photo credit:andres_ol, SXC)

Poor little guy—he must've cried for a week after Mom took his toy train away because it was covered in lead-tainted paint. These kids today ... All their toys are filled with dangerous stuff. Good thing I don't have to worr—what? My brand new purse from H&M has lead in it? Not just the big metal buckle but the whole darn thing?!

Seemingly nobody gets immunity when it comes to unsafe levels of lead in consumer goods. Case in point: fashion retailers H&M and New York & Co. have settled a lawsuit brought by consumer watchdog group the Center for Environmental Health over toxic levels of lead alleged to be lurking in their handbags, wallets and other accessories. The CEH claims that some items contained as much as 13 to a jaw-dropping 115 times more than the legally acceptable limit of lead for toys in children (300 parts per million; there's no legal limit set for accessories such as purses). The fact that higher levels have been found in handbags and wallets that women handle all day long every day hasn't alarmed anyone else until now?

Lead is listed as a carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies. Lead exposure has been linked to higher rates of infertility in women plus an increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure and more. Scientists are increasingly concerned that there may be no safe level of lead exposure, especially for pregnant women and young children.

We're glad the CEH was looking out for us—but unless you live in California, don't get too comfortable yet. The recent settlement was handled in California courts and doesn't apply anywhere outside the state. Although H&M has made noises about company-wide measures to address the problem, New York & Co. has remained mum. And as you might expect, those two retailers aren't the only ones that have been found to have problems. The Center for Environmental Health has sounded alarms about high levels in items from other retailers, including Target, Macy's, Wal-Mart and others.

Make sure you're not carrying a contaminated handbag or wallet by reviewing the list of companies the CEH has notified about high levels of lead.

(Photo credit:urbanlane, SXC)

Why can't we work someplace this cool? We're not really sure why workers in offices designed by Because We Can designs would want to leave at the end of a work day. Steampunk cubicles ... Giant octopus tentacle cushion seating ... Client goals like "make our office an over-the-top, amazing and fun place to be so we can attract and keep top talent" ... All done with an eye on sustainability. We're so there!

This Oakland, California, interior design and custom furniture outfit is driven by the eco-friendly creative energy of husband-and-wife team Jeffrey McGrew and Jillian Northrup. They call Because We Can a design-build studio, "a mash-up of designers, artists, architects, fabricators and builders that handle the design and production of interiors, buildings, furniture and products." The company creates not only unique workplace environments but also one-of-a-kind pieces for the home.

No matter how high the team soars with its imaginative designs, sustainable materials and building practices remain the foundation. "Building something always means something else is destroyed," claims the design duo on their web site. "We're in it for the long haul, so we focus on using sustainable, recycled, and/or local materials and labor. We don't want to work with toxic materials or in a bad environment and our clients shouldn't have to live with such things either. We also try to make our projects in the most efficient way possible and make them to be as effective as possible, so that they will last a long time and be gentle to our world."

Feast your eyes on Because We Can's interiors, furniture and art and display work. Because we wish we could, too.

(Photo credit:Because We Can)

Did you know that houseplants can remove toxic pollutants from the air in your home? It's not that they merely scrub away bad smells or mask stale air. Numerous studies have shown that plants actually remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other pollutants inside your house. The effects are so potent that researchers at the University of Georgia have been able to pin down the top five "specialist" plants that reduce common household VOCs to tackle indoor air quality issues.

1. Purple waffle plant (Hemigraphis alternataa)
2. English ivy (Hedera Helix)
3. Variegated wax plant (Hoya cornosa)
4. Asparagus fern (Asparagus densiflorus)
5. Purple heart plant (Tradescantia pallida)

Other experts recommend specific plants for certain rooms in your house.

• The living room Areca palm cleans air well during the daylight hours.
• The bedroom The snake plant, or mother-in-law's tongue, produces lots of oxygen in the evening.
• The fume-y room The money plant is quite efficient at removing indoor pollutants such as formaldehyde, xylene and benzene.

The number and type of plants you choose depends on the type of VOCs present in your home. Learn more in this video from Clean Air Gardening.

(Photo credit:Wikipedia.org)

Does your needle peg the red zone when you're conscientiously checking a product's ingredient list only to run smack dab into ingredients masked by such descriptors as "inert ingredients," "proprietary," "unique" or "special"? Just how "special" does a chemical have to be to dodge product labeling requirements, anyway? In yet another step forward for consumers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking to nudge manufacturers into greater disclosure of inert ingredients. Current law requires only that manufacturers disclose specifics on inert ingredients, including toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde, bisphenol A (BPA), toluene and benzene, to the EPA. Public disclosure, the EPA believes, may help discourage them from using toxic ingredients in the first place.

“Consumers deserve to know the identities of ingredients in pesticide formulations, including inert ingredients,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. “Disclosing inert ingredients in pesticide products, especially those considered to be hazardous, will empower consumers and pesticide users to make more informed choices.”

The transparent approach is a new direction for the EPA, which has stonewalled requests for complete ingredient listings for 11 years. The policy of requiring reporting only to the EPA was implemented more than 30 years ago in order to protect trade secrets. But critics—including the Obama administration—say the secrecy has grown out of control, making it impossible for regulators to control potential dangers or for consumers to know which toxic substances they might be exposed to. "Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, manufacturers must report to the federal government new chemicals they intend to market," notes a report in The Washington Post. "But the law exempts from public disclosure any information that could harm their bottom line. Government officials, scientists and environmental groups say that manufacturers have exploited weaknesses in the law to claim secrecy for an ever-increasing number of chemicals. In the past several years, 95 percent of the notices for new chemicals sent to the government requested some secrecy, according to the Government Accountability Office. About 700 chemicals are introduced annually."

Read more about the breath of transparency and action blasting through today's EPA (it's a long list—hooray!):

• EPA effectiveness on the upswing?
• EPA maps the year in enforcement
• EPA breathes science into air quality standards
• EPA takes a stand on greenhouse gases
• EPA pesticide screening finally set to go
• EPA calls greenhouse gases harmful
• EPA tests permeable pavement
• EPA thinks twice about recycled tire playground surfaces
• EPA lists top 50 clean energy chuggers

(Photo credit:AMANITO, flickr)

Should we give our schools an excused absence for being sick? The Coalition for Healthier Schools has released a new report this week that spotlights how polluted air inside and outside schools escalate health care costs, increase absenteeism and reduce test scores. One-fifth of Americans spend their days inside U.S. school buildings, yet no federal laws and too few state laws protect children and staff from the environmental hazards in or near those buildings. Missing in action: federal laws establishing indoor air quality or ventilation standards, guidelines for the use of pesticides in and outside of classrooms, and standards for locating new schools near industrial facilities that emit toxins or on landfills. “Children’s health and a clean environment are federal agency concerns that were not ever left to the states," said Claire Barnett, executive director of the  Healthy Schools Network. "We commend EPA for prioritizing its complex work on school environments; Congress should support EPA as well.”

Questionable conditions inside and around our schools are sickening both schoolchildren and everyone who works there. “Children, along with the whole school population—custodial and maintenance workers, food service workers, secretaries, security officers, bus drivers, teachers, paraeducators and administrators—are exposed every school day to a wide array of hazards, such as poor indoor air quality (IAQ), chemical exposures and toxic and dangerous construction and renovation work," said Rick Engler, executive director of the New Jersey Work Environment Council.

The Sick Schools 2009 report concluded:

1. The EPA needs resources to meet congressionally mandated deadlines for federal guidelines on school siting (June 2009), other environmental issues (December 2009) and to provide grants to states.
2. There is a robust scientific literature in children and healthy school environments. Benefits and savings from healthier occupants far outweigh savings from energy efficiencies.
3. The EPA has long‐standing voluntary programs on school environments.
4. States have little capacity to address children’s environmental health at school.
5. Despite published, accepted science, there is no systematic national state by state survey of the conditions of schools that takes into account environmental factors that impact children.

Help our schools get well by taking action—the Healthy Schools Network has a page of ideas and resources for things you can do to help. Read more about issues that affect our kids at school:

• 16 bites toward healthier school lunches
• Back to school without PVC
• Walking to school uphill, both ways
• School zone air quality: Curb those idle ways
• School lunch: real food or disgustus gloop?
• Greener cleaners for schools

(Photo credit:dave mcmt, flickr)

I don't get this season's top toy, the Zhu Zhu Hamster. Why not just buy your kid a real hamster? Oh, right. Real fur balls "poop, stink and die," so says--go figure--the makers of the fake hamsters. True, but real hamsters don't emit potentially hazardous levels of antimony, like Zhu Zhu Hamsters allegedly do.

The toy testers at GoodGuide, a particularly green product safety testing group, claim one of the Zhu Zhu Pet Hamsters, the adorably named Mr. Squiggles-Light Brown, is unsafe for children due to "higher than recommended levels of antimony." Prolonged exposure to antimony, a textile fire retardant, can cause lung and heart complications, diarrhea and stomach ulcers.   

What does the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission make of Mr. Squiggles? As reported by Reuters today, the CPSC said it "is looking into the Zhu Zhu pet toy and will complete its review swiftly." Still, Mr. Squiggles hasn't been recalled and continues flying off shelves at Target, Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us.

Some say GoodGuide is slinging mud for publicity. Doubtful. Their toy safety ratings aren't fluff. They're based on reports from HealthyToys.org; the City of San Francisco; the Center for Health, Environment & Justice; and Healthy Child Healthy World. And all of these entities base their safety ratings either on existing U.S. or E.U. toy safety standards. Not the National Enquirer.   

Cepia LLC, Zhu Zhu Pets' parent company, is crying foul. In a press release refuting GoodGuide's claim, executives assured, "Mr. Squiggles is absolutely safe and has passed the most rigorous testing in the toy industry for consumer health and safety." Where's the proof? In an official EN71 testing report, which Cepia posted on its web site for public review.

Mr. Squiggles, the only Zhu Zhu pet to come under fire so far, isn't the only reportedly toxic toy you should nix from the shopping list this holiday. Take it from GoodGuide. They've got the goods on "the health, environmental and social impacts" of thousands of toy makers worldwide. Plus, their web site is anything but a clunky government mess, like the CPSC's.

This safe and sustainable toy list should get you started, or you could do the earth one better and buy nothing. WWJB (What Would Jesus Buy), I wonder? Probably not Mr. Squiggles, even if his name is so darn cute.

(Photo credit:MommyNiri.com)