Most of us probably remember or have used moth balls. Small, smelly white things, they are used to help prevent insect and pest infestation in stored clothing. Carpet beetles, moths, and mice, among other things, hate the smell of moth balls. I do, too, actually, and for good reason. The key ingredient of mothballs is naphthalene or para-dichlorobenzene, which, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is dangerous stuff. “Inhaling para-dichlorobenzene can lead to vomiting, diarrhea, respiratory distress and other illnesses. Swallowing it can damage the nervous system and, in extreme cases, can cause coma or death.” Oh, and it effects your red blood cells. Here’s the EPA’s product fact sheet on the stuff. Babies and children are especially vulnerable as deaths of preemies and infants have been reported after exposure. Nice.

As usual, the European Union is WAY ahead of the United States when it comes to this dangerous chemical. It banned the pesticide in 2008. The reasoning, of course, is that when you open up clothing stored in moth balls, you are inhaling the pesticide. If you can smell it, you are inhaling it. That’s probably why pediatric doctors in Australia and New Zealand are also trying to get the substance banned.

I totally understand why. I opened up my Space Bags three days ago and almost fell over from the smell. I put both bags outside hoping the smell would dissipate. Today, the smell is still just as strong as it was when I first broke the airtight seal. All those beautiful clothes have been rendered unwearable. I’m not sure what I am going to do. Thankfully, I only used moth balls on the 3T stuff, and decided pretty soon after that moth balls were dangerous and stupid so my 4Ts will be as moth ball-free as the 2T, 18 month, and infant stuff was.

So what’s the take-away? Why should you care? It bears a reminder that just because something is sold at the store doesn’t mean it’s healthy or safe to use, especially around children. Here I thought I was doing something smart, and I was doing something extremely stupid by adding a chemical to clothing that would have gone on my kid’s skin. It’s also a reminder to be especially careful when taking out heirloom or stored clothing that may have been stored with the chemical. Moth balls are bad news. Protect your kids, and protect yourself.

And what about all those gorgeous clothes sitting in my backyard? Yesterday I dumped them into a mesh bag. I’ll check them again next week, however I anticipate I’ll be making a trip to the stores soon. I’m thinking it will be fall (at the earliest) before we’ll be able to use them!

I’ll give you the quick and dirty summary. Researchers think that triclosan interferes with estrogen sulfotransferase, an enzyme that is linked to the metabolism of estrogen. Estrogen that’s supposed to move through the placenta and help the baby grow. Estrogen that plays a “crucial” role in brain development and the regulation of genes, and helps regulate the amount of oxygen that gets through to the developing fetus.

From the report: “We suspect that makes this substance dangerous in pregnancy if enough of the triclosan gets through to the placenta to affect the enzyme,” said James, a professor and chairwoman of medicinal chemistry in the UF College of Pharmacy. “We know for sure it is a very potent inhibitor. What we don’t know is the kinds of levels you would have to be exposed to to see a negative effect. We know it is a problem, but we don’t know how much of a problem. We need to move forward and do additional studies.”

And the Food and Drug Administration’s response? You know, the FDA that in April said it would be taking another look at triclosan. (Even as other countries and entire continents ban the chemical. The European Union, for example, put a complete ban on Triclosan — anything that might come in contact with food — that goes into effect as of 2011.) Crickets, baby. Crickets. Not a word. Even after earlier this year the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said it was suing the FDA.

For more than a year I have reported on almost every single triclosan-related event. Every new study. Every annoying fact and figure. And we’re still in a holding pattern. Yeah, I know there are far more important things going on now, but it’s TIME that we step up and contact our FDA and tell them how we feel. How do I feel? It’s time to join the rest of the world and make it impossible for triclosan to cross a placenta. We need our government to protect us. Now! Not sure why? Read one of my first blog posts to learn more.

Want to get involved? You can contact the FDA directly. Check out this link for phone and email info. You should also contact your local congressperson. Here’s a link where you input your state and Zip code. We are the only ones who can affect change. Remember, the chemical lobby spends MILLIONS every year to keep things the way they are. But WE are the ones who vote people in or out of office. We do have power. We do.

I just read an article in the September issue of Oprah Magazine, by editor-in-chief Susan Casey. Ms. Casey wrote about she recently witnessed the devastation caused by the BP oil leak (uh, how about super gush – too big for my mind to truly grasp). A seaplane pilot, wishing to remain anonymous, gave her an aerial tour of the area. Ms. Casey said the pilot was warned not to bring journalists over the area by BP, but he was so disgusted by the mess that he agreed to bring her over the area so we can all get a better picture of what is happening in the Gulf.

The flight plan had to be cleared by the Coat Guard and BP. She reports that three weeks after her visit the US has made it a criminal offense for journalists to be within 65 feet of any clean-up area. The Deepwater Horizon drilling rig spilled out oil the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez spill every four days.

Ms. Casey reports that BP used a dispersant called Corexit 9527 and 9500 to well, disperse, the huge amounts of oil spilled into the rich ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico. Oprah’s magazine reports that dispersants push the oil deeper into the underwaters of the ocean and scientists have confirmed that large black oil plumes are collecting underneath the surface where we can’t see it as well. Marian Wang, of ProPublica and Mother Jones, reports that Corexit 9527 is linked to red-blood cell rupture, respiratory and blood disorders and kidney and liver damage in the rescue workers of the Valdez clean-up. According to Elaine Shannon, Environmental Editor of the Huffington Post, Nalco, the manufacturer of these products, does not have to reveal the ingredients of these toxic concoctions that are being dumped into our planet’s oceans.

Well, okay, here’s the thing…..the UK has banned the use of Nalco’s Corexit for use in oil spills in its waters. The USA’s EPA still has Corexit on its dispersant list, but according to Greenwire, a professional D.C.-based company reporting on environmental issues, there are other dispersants on the USA EPA list that have been shown to be less toxic and twice as effective. The EPA has approved the Corexit products to be used near the origin of the spill, but not to be used in large quantities. Oprah Magazine reports that BP has used this chemical with abandon in the Gulf or Mexico, spraying it from planes and piping it into the ocean. The Nalco company is interlocked with Exxon and BP business structures.

The Gulf of Mexico is part of our basic food chain. It is home to sperm whales, dolphins, bluefin tuna, billfish, whale sharks, sea turtles,shrimp, snappers, groupers, brown pelicans, and migrating songbirds, waterbirds, ducks and geese. Hundreds of birds and sea turtles, on the endangered species list, have already died. What are the effects of spraying and pumping into this vast ecosystem? How many living creatures will it kill? How many species will be pushed to the brink of extinction? How will this work its way into our food and water supplies?

Well, all I can say is that after my husband was diagnosed with prostate cancer, we took stock of all the BPA chemical we were getting from the food packaged in cans and plastic, and also found on cash register receipts, courtesy of our manufacturers. BPA has been shown to, among other fancy side-effects, disrupt prostate function in rats, increase breast cancer rates with perinatal exposure, and cause neuroblastoma cells to grow.

As a natural as possible mom myself, I wonder how far does buying organic and purchasing water in glass bottles really go? I wonder how the people who run our private corporations can possibly allow these chemicals to continue to be in their products? How can the corporate boards continue to allow production and delivery of products to people that they know are harmful to large amounts of people?

As I look at the pictures of the seabirds and turtles, and think about the intelligent dolphins and whales being suffocated in the ocean, I think about the 30,000 miles I put on my car every year (I do NOT have an SUV) and the amount of oil it takes to heat my house. Amid the work and paying the mortgage and utility bills, all I can think of to do is donate to the Gulf of Mexico environmental cause, research alternative energy cars for my next purchase, research solar energy for my house, and step up my efforts to re-use, recycle and compost. Let me know if you have any other ideas!

I had to read it twice. Since when is triclosan, an antibacterial that’s been linked to a host of environmental and health problems, turning up in toothpaste? I was even more aghast when I saw that the Academy of General Dentistry today released a press announcement saying that it supports the use of triclosan in toothpaste. That a recent study found that toothpaste with triclosan is better than regular toothpaste at killing bacteria found in the mouth. That must be a mistake, right? Give me a break. What about last week’s news out of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that recent studies raise “valid concerns” about the safety of triclosan? (Scariest part of all this: triclosan is in so many products that it is found in our urine. Three out of four of us are peeing triclosan on a daily basis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)

I wrote a whole missive about triclosan back in September. About how the EPA classifies it as a pesticide! About how it’s creating antibiotic resistant bacteria. About how it never breaks down — even after going through a sewage treatment plant. (And after re-reading that post I realized that yes, I did know that it was in toothpaste. I guess it just never registered.) Wow. Sigh. Wow. That really sucks. How can manufacturers do that to us? We’re putting a pesticide, a dangerous-to-the-earth chemical in our mouths. It makes me sad.

I went to CVS last night. Believe it or not I needed toothpaste. I looked around. I read the back of tubes and boxes. I didn’t see anything mainstream that didn’t have any chemicals. (The kids use Toms of Maine. I usually do, too, but I didn’t have time to go to Trader Joe’s last night.) So I bought a lesser-of-all-evils brand — Colgate actually has an option that only scores a 3 out of 10 on the EWG’s Skin Deep database. I’ll buy my usual brand the next time I get to TJs or Whole Foods. And in the meantime: Shame on you, traditional manufacturers. Isn’t it about time you started doing more for our environment? And our bodies?

What’s in your toothpaste? Do you know? How about your contact lens solution, your moisturizer? Your lipstick? Maybe it’s time you found out? And as for the Academy of General Dentistry: I’ve got an email out to the organization. I want to hear their reasoning behind their silly suggestion.

“Here, use my inhaler.” We had just come out of our ballet class, and we watched as the woman who usually sits at the front desk tried to get her young teen daughter to take a puff of albuterol. The studio’s owner looked worried as she asked the woman if her daughter was sick. Did she have asthma, she asked. The woman explained that her daughter never had asthma. “But she says her chest feels tight.” Nosy person that I am, I had to say it. “Maybe it’s the fumes from the cleaning supplies.”

Our adult ballet class is the last class of the night. The woman who works the front desk cleans the studio while her daughter sits in the small, narrow lobby doing homework and eating her dinner. There had been several Halloween classes/parties on Monday, so there was lots of cleaning to be done — chocolate fingerprints, sticky doorknobs, errant cookie crumbs (some courtesy of my daughter, actually). The woman behind the desk was trying to do a good thing by cleaning so vigorously, but as research shows us, by using traditional chemicals-based cleansers she may have inadvertently made her own daughter wheeze. Heck, I was only in the lobby for a few minutes and by the time I left I was feeling lightheaded, too. (Okay, maybe my lightheadedness was also because of the spins we had done in class, but the headache was definitely about the fumes.)

A 2007 study found that even once-a-week use of spray cleaners may cause asthma in adults. “The risk of developing asthma increased with frequency of cleaning and number of different sprays used, but on average was about thirty to fifty percent higher in people regularly exposed to cleaning sprays than in others. The researchers found that cleaning sprays, especially air fresheners, furniture cleaners and glass-cleaners, had a particularly strong effect,” according to the 2007 American Thoracic Society study. Asthma is just the tip of the iceberg, though. There are so many other conditions and ailments that scientists are just starting to link to traditional household cleaners such as cancer, birth defects, and even obesity.

Earlier this fall more than 150 scientists and doctors turned out for a three-day conference sponsored by the Children’s Environmental Health Sciences Core Center, based at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin. Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., the Professor of Pediatrics and Chair, Department of Preventive Medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine presented an intro to children and the environment. One take-away: Chronic childhood diseases linked to toxic chemical exposure cost the U.S. more than $55 billion each year. The larger costs may still be unknown, though, since many of the chemicals in our homes have not been tested to see if they have any long-term developmental effects, said Dr. Landrigan.

That’s why I was really excited to hear about something Seventh Generation, activist Erin Brockovich, and industry group Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families is doing to help banish existing chemical legislation and bring in new tougher standards and testing. Called the “Kids Safe Chemicals Act,” it will also do one more thing: Require the companies to make the results of that stricter testing public. This means you can make a more informed decision about whether or not you want to use a specific product on the same surfaces that you cook, bathe, and sleep on. If this sounds like something you’d like to get involved in, check out the Million Baby Crawl Web site, where you can learn more about the movement and create your own virtual crawler who will descend on Washington and demand toxic chemical policy reform. You can also start reading labels; The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services maintains a database where you can browse by category, search by product name, and compare chemical contents and see the effects they might have on your home.

Have you made a switch to more environmentally- and human-friendly products? What’s your favorite? Do they clean as well as the traditional options? Would love to hear your feedback. In addition, there’s still plenty of time to enter my Seventh Generation goody basket give away.

**WIN IT**

As a reminder, to enter, leave me a comment telling me which Seventh Generation product is your favorite.

For additional entries:

1. Tweet this giveaway
2. Mention this giveaway on Facebook or any other social media site
3. Blog about this giveaway

Leave a separate comment for each thing you do.

Comments will close at midnight, November 20. Winner will be randomly selected and notified via e-mail on November 25. Winner will have 72 hours to claim their prize. Contest open to US addresses only, please.