A few months later, Herberman was standing before the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, explaining
why he’d sent up this warning flare. After all, pinning down whether mobile phones—or the many antenna towers that relay their calls via radiofrequency (RF) signals—actually cause cancer or other health problems has been a notoriously tricky scientific endeavor. Studies investigating their risks have often been ambiguous and confusing, partly because cell phone technologies are still relatively new, and partly because many cancers take years to develop. Phones’ long-term impact on children, whose brains absorb more RF radiation than those of adults, also remains unclear.

For Herberman, some early study results are troublingenough to warrant caution: “Despite the lack of consistency in outcomes in all the cell phone publications, there are several well-designed studies that suggest that long-term (ten years or more) use of wireless phone devices is associated with a significant increase in risk for glioblastoma (glioma), a very aggressive and fatal brain tumor, and acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor of the auditory nerve that is responsible for our hearing,” he testified.

Yet despite worries about their long-term effects, mobile phones are popular because they offer clear-cut short-term health and safety benefits: They can be a lifesaver in emergency situations, and help parents keep tabs on their kids’ whereabouts from a distance. According to the Wireless Association trade group, there are close to 270 million subscribers in the United States—that’s out of about 300 million Americans.

Cell phone companies have been all too eager to stress their products’ harmlessness. Cell phones emit “non-ionizing radiation,” similar to the kind produced by microwave ovens and cordless phones. (X-rays, on the other hand, are a form of ionizing radiation.) These items may heat up when used, but this form of electromagnetic radiation has long been considered unable to change the DNA of an organism—and DNA breakdown is a possible precursor to cancer.

But cell phones’ explosion in the marketplace, and users’ tendency to wear them close to the body and hold them repeatedly to the same ear, have led scientists to take a second look. The results of international studies have been mixed. Probably the most thorough research so far is the thirteen-country Interphone study overseen by the World Health Organization, which received some funding from the cell phone industry. In some cases, as in the Nordic countries and Britain, cell phone subscribers who used the devices for ten years or more reported higher rates of glioma brain tumors on the side of the head on which they most often used their phones. But scientists relied on people’s recollection of which ear they used for phone conversations and how often they talked on the phone, and human recollection is not always reliable.

On the other end of the spectrum, Germany found no link at all between cell phone use and cancer. Both Israel and Japan, which have large populations of heavy cell phone users, urged more research. The Israeli study suggested there may be an association between heavy mobile phone use and the risk of salivary gland tumors but called for further study. Japanese researchers also said they needed a larger sample size to confirm any link between cell phone use and cancerous tumors.

In 2008 Swedish oncologist Dr. Lennart Hardell, who was one of the first to study the health risks of cordless and mobile phones, tried to clarify these mixed results by doing a detailed analysis of the Interphone data, as well as data from several other contemporary studies. Because some studies included data on people who used cell phones infrequently, or who had not used them for many years, Hardell suspected that their cancer risk findings
were too low. When Hardell focused on only the studies that evaluated decade-long exposure, he noticed that all of them showed an increased risk of glioma on the side of the head used for telephone calls.

Other concerns have been raised about how cell phones affect the ambient environment in neighborhoods where antenna towers—also known as base stations—are located. To offer the most affordable and complete coverage, cell phone carriers are placing these base stations nearly everywhere: in schools, churches, apartment complexes and businesses, subjecting nearby residents to whole-body radiofrequency exposure. In some cases, people living or working near these structures have complained of health problems like insomnia, headaches, and dizziness;
studies have attempted to link antenna towers with everything from memory problems to heightened body temperatures, but with little consensus.

Ultimately, it’s even harder for researchers to assess the health risks of cell towers than of the phones themselves. For one thing, holding a cell phone close to the body has more impact than standing near a cell tower. Additionally, because symptoms like headaches are so general and hard to pin to one cause, it’s difficult to prove correlation. So far, authorities like the World Health Organization have concluded that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.”

Nevertheless, concerned people like environmental consultant Cindy Sage, owner of the Montecito-based firm Sage Associates, think that further federally funded studies are needed. “Although scientific studies as yet have not been able to confirm a cause-and-effect relationship, these complaints are widespread and the cause of significant public concern in some countries where wireless technologies are fairly mature and widely distributed,” Sage wrote in a report presented to the BioInitiative Working Group, an independent group of international scientists, researchers, and public health policy professionals in the area of electromagnetic fields. “For example, the roll-out of the new third-generation wireless phones and related community-wide antenna RF emissions in the Netherlands caused almost immediate public complaints of illness.” (Sage is equally leery of the phones themselves: “I have one for emergencies, but I don’t use it,” she says. “I think this is an experiment on the human race I don’t want to participate in.”)

The ambiguities surrounding the health effects of base stations bring the debate to a local level. Take the High Street area of Point Richmond, where a T-Mobile antenna installation has been the focus of litigation, neighborhood infighting, and reports of medical problems.

At first glance, the rooftop base station is easy to miss despite its size and breadth of coverage. The antennas
are enclosed in an inoffensive orange box, which up close has no lid and measures six feet tall and seven and a half feet wide. Inside the enclosure are six thick pipes—the antennas—with smaller, more intricate boxes attached to them. According to Rod De La Rosa, senior manager of external affairs at T-Mobile, a typical installation can handle a hundred voice and data users simultaneously. “Our increasingly mobile society requires an increasing number of mobile services,” he says. “People rely on their mobile phones for much more than just talking—they listen to music, send and receive emails and text messages, swap photos, and even contact emergency services.”

But despite the subtlety of the orange box, some neighbors say its effects have been all too apparent. Freelance writer Robin Carpenter and her husband Andrew Olmsted own a three-story Victorian house on High Street. In 2007, a few months after the base station was installed on an apartment complex fifty feet from their bedroom window, the two say they began to feel ill. “I had nosebleeds and skin rashes,” says Carpenter. “The visual disturbances and blinding headaches were the worst. I wasn’t sleeping and was feeling depressed.”

Eventually Carpenter and Olmsted say the toll on their health became too much. They relocated to west Marin, paying rent there and the mortgage on their Richmond house. In west Marin, where, she says, “there is no cell phone reception,” Carpenter started sleeping through the night again. The nosebleeds, rashes, and other symptoms subsided. Then she returned to Point Richmond to check on the house. “When we came back, within a week, the headaches were coming back,” she says.

Another High Street resident who asked not to be named for fear it would interfere with pending litigation
said that within two weeks of the installation she started having headaches, muscle aches, and nosebleeds. She had to rearrange her furniture and move her home office away from the antennas. She wants to move but has run into difficulty selling her home. “The subject of moving has been a discussion for a year,” she says. “But we are financially trapped. Also, we have had real estate agents [make] it clear that the cell tower is a big issue and must be disclosed and would have a negative impact on the sale price of the house.”

The base station garnered plenty of neighborhood opposition before it was installed at 260 Water Street, says the building’s manager Anthony Tripp. Tripp, along with his wife Sandy, lives in the apartment directly beneath the antennas. “I couldn’t find one person [who favored the installation], other than our landlord and his wife,” Tripp says. “There wasn’t anyone. The general reaction was quite negative. It [the base station] magically appeared there without anyone’s foreknowledge.” Tripp says he and his wife have not experienced any health symptoms related to the antennas, but they are concerned about possible long-term effects and the lack of community input regarding
its presence.

Disgruntled neighbors circulated rumors, including one that the apartment building’s owners, Gerald and Janice Feagley, were receiving $25,000 a month for renting installation space to T-Mobile. (The couple’s attorney, Kathleen McKinley, says that figure is more like $2,000 a month.) On June 2, 2008, Carpenter and Olmsted, along with ten other named residents and their organization, Richmond Residents for Responsible Antenna Placement and Planning (www.rap4richmond.org), filed a lawsuit against T-Mobile, the city of Richmond, and the Feagleys. The plaintiffs accused the city of failing to provide public notice and conduct public environmental reviews of the antennas, violating residents’ due process rights. They also claimed that T-Mobile’s tower “generates far more power—and poses a correspondingly greater threat to public health and safety—than most other cell towers.”

But federal law makes it hard for neighbors to protest. The monumental Telecommunications Act of 1996, passed during the Clinton administration to promote competition in the industry, prohibits residents from blocking the installation of cell phone antennas on public or owner-approved land, including schools, churches, and apartment complexes, for health reasons. Legally, residents can block the installations if they can prove electromagnetic fields exceed limits imposed by the Federal Communications Commission or the structures violate local zoning ordinances, but they cannot fight the cell phone service providers for fear their products
will give them cancer.

T-Mobile says it is very cautious about adhering to federal limits. “Typically we have an independent third party engineer check our equipment against prevailing standards with the FCC,” says De La Rosa. “Typically our exposure is less than one percent of the maximum exposure allowed by the FCC.” Kathleen McKinley, the Feagleys’ attorney, says the Water Street installation meets federal exposure and health standards. Those who feel the government’s guidelines are too relaxed “need to take the issue up with the federal government rather than attack private individuals that haven’t done anything illegal,” she says.

The local court system agreed with her: on September 10, 2008, the residents’ lawsuit was dismissed by Judge Barbara Zuniga of the Contra Costa County court system on the grounds that she had no jurisdiction over a federal issue like the Telecommunications Act. She declined to hear the case again in November after Carpenter’s
attorney filed a motion for reconsideration.

The failed lawsuit has left the neighborhood swirling with bad feelings. The Tripps say people have moved out of a nearby apartment complex as well as refused to move into the neighborhood because of the installation. Still, the Tripps are offended at the vitriol directed at the Feagleys. “The other people were too aggressive,” Sandy Tripp says of their most vocal neighbors. “They were spreading nasty rumors. They weren’t going about it the right way.”
For their part, Carpenter and Olmsted feel they were personally attacked for speaking out against the antenna installation. “‘You are the ones that devalue the property by speaking up!’” she recalled neighbors saying. “It’s an interesting mindset.”

Now the couple is mulling the next move in light of dwindling alternatives and resources. They are trying to negotiate with their mortgage lender to see if they can freeze their house payments—or even receive help with legal bills—until the dispute over the antenna is resolved. The other option is a short sell. “We will probably end up losing our home and not have property in Richmond,” Carpenter tearfully says. “But we are fighting this battle for Richmond. We feel this is important. If we lose our house, we know we helped others keep theirs safe.”

The couple, along with Richmond city councilmembers and engineers, has also drafted a 27-page ordinance they hope will become a model for cities and towns across the country. In it, the group asks that future
antennas be placed on sites at least 1,000 feet from “residential uses, schools, daycare centers, hospitals, and mixed-use areas.” It stipulates how the equipment is to be installed and calls for regular radiofrequency readings by an independent contractor paid for by the wireless service provider. (If approved, the ordinance could be finalized this spring.)

One more consolation prize: for their work with RAP, Carpenter and Olmsted received a citation for public service from Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin on January 27. “We’ve been getting calls from around the country,” about antenna issues, Carpenter says. “We try to be a good resource so people don’t have to spend as much time as we did trying to figure this out.”

Given the confusing studies and the fact that cell phones are a part of modern life, what is a concerned person to do? One could stop using cell phones—but almost no one interviewed for this article was willing to do it. After all, cell phones can be awfully handy if you’re ever sick, hurt, or lost. One local mom, Melinda Reilly of Orinda, reacted cautiously to Dr. Herberman’s warning about children’s cancer risk. “I got myself, my husband, and daughter ear buds,” she said. She’s relieved that her seventeen-year-old daughter uses the phone largely for text messaging, which according to Herberman, is the safer way to go.

But others say cell phones are a small risk in an otherwise risky world. Elaine Lindelef, a partner at a computer-consulting firm in Mendocino County, says she is not worried about her family’s cell phone use. “If you walk down a busy street every day and breathe in the fumes of all the cars, that is more of a carcinogenic exposure than talking on the phone,” she figures.

McKinley, the Feagleys’ lawyer, expressed a similar sentiment about the towers themselves: “People are exposed to all sorts of chemicals short-term and long-term. Living near 580 and the bridge and exposure to automobile exhaust is probably more damaging to them than living near a cell antenna.” As T-Mobile’s De La Rosa points out, even if worried people just keep a cell phone on hand for emergencies, it still validates the need for antennas everywhere. “People expect coverage where they live, work, and play, and to be able to provide that level of coverage, these antenna facilities are necessary,” he says.

For those looking to reduce their electromagnetic radiation risk, Herberman recommends not carrying the cell phone on the body, unless its keypad is positioned towards you so the phone’s electromagnetic fields “move away from you rather than through you.” He also recommends using speakerphone or a wireless headset to avoid placing the phone on your ear. If you must put the phone to your head, make sure to switch ears regularly and keep the conversation as short as possible. And try to avoid using the phone when there is bad reception such as in a moving train or car, Herberman urges. While it’s still too early to know for sure how cell phones might impact human health, anyone who’s worried may want to consider this a bug in their ear.

It Pays To Eat Organic

Organically grown food used to be a rare luxury for middle-class families like that of Ladan Sobhani, a 33-year-old Berkeley mother of two who works as a consultant for nonprofits. While Sobhani herself was an early adopter of foods grown without pesticides, she’s found that since her first daughter was born four years ago, the percentage of her shopping list that is organic has shot up to about ninety percent. “I was always conscious that eating organic was better for the environment,” she explains. “But when I had kids it became more important to me that organic was good for my kids’ health, especially since they are so much more vulnerable.”

Environmental advocates support Sobhani’s preference for pesticide-free foods. When pesticides aren’t used in food production, farm workers and nearby residents are spared exposure to chemicals that could hinder fetal development and cause developmental delays in children, according to the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, DC research organization. Yet whether eating organic products is healthier for children than eating their non-organic counterparts is still uncertain, says Dr. Jatinder Bhatia, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ nutrition committee. He says there is “no evidence at this current time” that organic products are healthier for kids than conventionally grown foods.

Efren Ávalos, an organic farmer in San Benito County, takes no chances. Before he began growing his own produce, Ávalos picked strawberries for a large company in Monterey County, and he experienced headaches and nausea every time a nearby celery field was sprayed with pesticides by helicopter. “When I worked for the company, I was not allowed to bring my kids to the fields because of the spraying,” he says. “Now I have my son and daughter with me.”

Eating organic produce, especially locally grown products, is a good way for a family to reduce its carbon footprint, says Timonie Hood, an environmental protection specialist at the US Environmental Protection Agency. In the past few years, the array of organic food choices, including several kinds aimed at kids, has widened as prices have fallen in the marketplace. Even mainstream stores like Safeway, Target, and Wal-Mart have embraced organics, rolling out affordable lines. Safeway’s O Organics, which boasts more than 300 foods, is so popular that the Pleasanton-based company plans to sell it internationally across retail and service food channels.

A quick comparison of the price tags of O Organics against better-known, non-organic brands such as Kellogg’s and Gerber reveal just how mainstream organic food has become. Organic baby food is just a touch more expensive: this summer, the Pak ‘n Save-branded Safeway store in Emeryville has been selling the O Organics four-ounce jars of baby food for 79 cents. It also carries six-ounce jars of organic Earth’s Best baby food for $1.28. The Gerber jars sell for 65 cents for the four-ounce and 85 cents for the six-ounce. For older children, Safeway’s organic cereals—as diverse in flavors as better-known brands—actually beat other prices. O Organics frosted flakes (fifteen ounces), for example, cost $3.39 whereas the Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes (fourteen ounces) cost $4.49. Even the EnviroKidz frosted flakes at Whole Foods in Berkeley are cheaper—$3.69. Yogurt, another kid favorite, is only slightly more expensive than the non-organic brand. A six-ounce cup of O Organics yogurt was recently selling four for $5. A Yoplait of the same size cost five for $5, or ten for $7. Those savings add up for buyers paying with food stamps or a food voucher, a community that the Emeryville Pak ‘n Save serves. Safeway spokeswoman Teena Massingill said the O Organics line has had no trouble finding its way into the shopping carts of all shoppers, affluent and penny-pinching alike. She says the company expects sales of O Organics to explode from $310 million last year to $410 million this year. “Many people have found organic foods to be cost-prohibitive,” she says. “O Organics is priced so that people who have never considered organic foods will try them and realize that organic doesn’t mean sacrificing quality or taste.” National sales of organic food shot up by as much as 94 percent in 2006, the last time such numbers are available, according to the Organic Trade Association (OTA). In 2005, organic food sales at mass market grocery stores, which do not include stores like Whole Foods and Wild Oats, made up approximately 35 percent of the organic market. By 2006, that figure rose by nearly two percent in one year. Even big box stores like Target and Wal-Mart saw respectable gains in market share, from five percent in 2005 to 5.3 percent a year later, according to the trade association. “When you look at the consumer surveys, in general, people see organic products as fitting in with their efforts to live a more healthful life,” said OTA spokeswoman Holly Givens.

What’s Up With Lead in Toys?

One of the most frightening news stories for parents in 2007 was the Thomas the Tank Engine recall. The $20 wooden trains, favorites of pre-schoolers, turned out to be loaded with lead paint, which even at low levels can cause permanent brain damage.

Berkeley mom Sobhani was bewildered by the news, but she did not join the many families who returned the trains. Instead, she simply kept them away from her one-year-old who was prone to putting things in her mouth. “I actually feel kind of guilty that I never scrapped the whole train collection and tried to find an alternative,” she says. “But it was hard to take them away from my four-year-old.”

The scare has had a silver lining. The public outcry over Thomas prompted more information about recalled items and heightened scrutiny of toys imported into the United States. California Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) has threatened to draft legislation banning lead in children’s products if the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission, the agency in charge of regulating the chemicals in consumer products, does not take up the task. Ma previously authored successful legislation banning another toxic chemical in baby and toddler toys: phthalates. It is now illegal to manufacture, sell, and distribute toys, such as baby teethers, that contain the chemicals, which are known to cause reproductive defects and the early onset of puberty. In a prepared statement describing her proposed legislation that would ban lead in toys, Ma declared, “California continues to lead the nation in protecting children from dangerous chemicals and in safeguarding our environment. & AB 1108 sends a clear message to the Consumer Product Safety Commission that if the Bush Administration won’t act, states will.”

The Consumer Product Safety Commission currently prohibits the sale of paint, including that manufactured for toys and furniture, with a lead toxicity of more than 0.06 percent, far below the levels permissible in the ‘70s, when consumers became aware of lead’s harmful properties and the chemical was phased out of products like gasoline. But watchdog groups say the agency is too under-funded and understaffed to adequately enforce the law. “That’s why we have to be engaged as citizens,” says Joan Blades, a Berkeley mother of two and founder of parent-activist group MomsRising (www.MomsRising.org), which is advocating giving the CPSC more law enforcement power. “[CPSC] is now half the size it was in 1980, and George Bush has taken away funding,” she says.

The Poop on Diapers

One of the most agonizing decisions for an environmentally-minded parent is choosing a diapering method. On average, a child will soil 5,000 diapers, each of which has the potential to end up in an air-tight landfill. While disposable diapers have a terrible reputation as non-biodegradable landfill-cloggers, the EPA’s Timonie Hood says that they actually don’t have a very heavy effect on the environment; they make up less than one percent of solid waste. She says that lifecycle studies have shown that both cloth and disposable diapers require a lot of resources, most obviously water (disposables require it for manufacture, and cloth requires it for cleaning). The EPA does not make an official recommendation on diapering. “I wouldn’t say that one is definitely better than the other,” Hood says, but adds quickly, “Speaking for myself, I think it is great to reuse whenever you can.”

For parents concerned about their child’s Huggies piling up in the landfill, there have never been more diapering choices than there are now. Cloth diapers need not become another stinky pile in the hamper for an already harried parent to deal with in the evenings. There are diaper services, like ABC Diaper Service (www.ABCDiaper.com) in the East Bay, that will drop off, pick up, and launder dirty diapers. High-efficiency Energy Star washers allow parents to wash cloth diapers at home on the cheap. And as for those prickly pins our parents had to contend with, they’ve been replaced by comfortable and trendy snap-on plastic wraps sold on Web sites such as Baby Bunz (www.BabyBunz.com) and Little Sprouts Diapers (www.LittleSproutsDiapers.com). ABC Diaper Service also sells the wraps.

Companies like Seventh Generation and Whole Foods sell disposable diapers manufactured without chlorine, which, when treated with water and organic matter, forms compounds called trihalomethanes. (THMs are linked to cancer, miscarriages and birth defects, according to the Environmental Working Group). However, ABC Diaper Service washes its diapers in bleach, demonstrating that the cloth vs. disposable diaper debate is not black and white—or chlorine-free.

The product that has garnered the most buzz thanks to endorsers like Julia Roberts is the hybrid gDiaper (www.gdiapers.com). The gDiaper works like this: You stuff what looks like an oversized maxi pad into a cloth and plastic diaper wrap. When your child soils it, you tear it open and flush the cotton down the toilet. The good news is your child’s excrement goes where it should—into the sewer. On the flipside, gDiapers are not widely available, and environmental scientists have yet to study their impact on sewage systems.

Something all eco-conscious parents can agree on is that it’s best to cut down on the number of diapers used. Sobhani, who is originally from Iran where the word for diaper is literally kohne, or “rag,” has been taking her daughter Ahva to the potty since she was four months old. Ahva, now twenty months old, regularly straddles a BabyBjörn potty ($10) to relieve herself. Even more impressive, she has not soiled a diaper for the past month. In contrast, most US children are in diapers for between 36 and 44 months, according to statistics compiled by the National Association of Diaper Services, which promotes cloth diaper use.

Some point out that training a baby to use the toilet takes being on call 24–7 to interpret when a frown means “gotta go.” Sobhani, who works, also has her mother and a nanny ready to take Ahva to the bathroom. Sobhani is not as stringent in her beliefs as diaper-free experts such as the renowned Laurie Boucke, who believes that you’ll have reached the Promised Land only if you eliminate diapers altogether. Sobhani has one goal: to reduce the number of diapers she uses. She has been able to cut down disposable diaper use for naptime and at nighttime. “A lot of information out there about potty training is all or nothing,” Sobhani says. “You have to put your kid in underwear and deal with accidents. For me it was about making it easier… A lot of people say, ‘I can’t do this because I am a working mother.’ If you have five extra minutes to take your infant and sit her on the potty and have that bonding time, then you’re on your way to teaching your kid to be aware of the fact that the toilet is where they need to eliminate.” She recommends enticing a baby or toddler with a book in the event she won’t sit still on the potty.

Educating Children to be Stewards of the Environment

Parents are their child’s first teachers, and these first moments can be about conservation and stewardship. “Teaching your kids to be aware [is] hugely important,” says MomsRising’s Blades. “The love of the earth is something that comes very naturally to them. It’s not a hard thing to teach.” Teaching children the three R’s—reduce, reuse, and recycle—is an invaluable lesson that can be reinforced by everyday behaviors like dressing children in hand-me-downs and showing them how to recycle appropriate items.

Bill Walker, a father of three who heads the Oakland office of the Environmental Working Group, has seen the benefits of modeling friendly environmental practices such as toting a refillable metal bottle instead of throwaway plastic ones and explaining to children why it is better to eat organic food. “My kids are better environmentalists than I am,” he says. “When they see me buy a plastic bottle of water, they call me on it. They’ll say, ‘Dad! Dad! Dad! You bought plastic!’”

Another tip he offers parents is to give children allowances with the proviso that they set aside an amount to spend, a percentage to save, with the rest for charity. Because he has spoken so much about the importance of protecting the earth, his two oldest children, ages nine and seven, give to environmental causes. Walker’s oldest daughter, Sasha, uses her to money to help organic farmers. She attended a week-long agricultural camp (www.SlideRanch.org). Her brother Rafie loves raptors and has donated money to protect birds. It is very easy to track down environmental causes on the Internet, Walker says, adding that nearly every environmental organization has a section for kids on its Web site.

It is never too late for parents to educate themselves and adopt good behavior for their kids to copy. Blades points to numerous online forums, including MomsRising, that draw attention to environmental concerns such as recalled toxic toys. Katy Farber, who runs a blog called Non-Toxic Kids (www.Non-ToxicKids.net), recommends signing up at the CPSC website (www.CPSC.gov) to receive regular notices of recalled toys. Countless sites such as craigslist let people responsibly dispose of old furniture and kids’ clothes and buy second-hand baby items.

Blades says it is easy to shoot off an e-mail to your state legislators by signing a MomsRising online petition. The organization keeps tabs on the legislation, drafts the letters and then delivers the signatures to the appropriate officials. For a busy parent, political activism has never been easier. “I recommend online participation,” Blades says, who has seen exactly how powerful it can be—she helped found MoveOn.org.

Parents can also flex their political muscles using their wallets. The Environmental Working Group’s Walker says simply switching to foods with the least pesticides—replacing apples, which have a high pesticide load, with mangoes, for example—eliminates about ninety percent of pesticides in a family’s diet. The EWG conveniently ranks foods (www.FoodNews.org/index.php) according to pesticide level. The organization also evaluates cosmetic products like baby shampoo and kids’ toothpaste: www.CosmeticsDatabase.org/special/parentsguide.

Walker warns that just because a product is labeled “natural” doesn’t make it better for the environment—or children. “The government doesn’t enforce standards on these products,” Walker says. “Right now there is an unregulated marketplace where companies can make whatever claims they want.”

If an organic or chemical-free product is more expensive than the conventional brand, would Walker make the switch? Walker’s answer is a resounding yes. “The decision I’ve made with my child is that’s worth the money,” he says.

Elisa Batista, who cofounded parenting Web site Mothertalkers.com, can be reached at elisa@mothertalkers.com

• 1 Sky Blog
• Best Green Blogs
• Cool Mom Picks
• Eco Child’s Play
• Enviroblog
• Green Mommy Guide
• Groovy Mom
• Hey Mr. Green
• Moms Rising
• Mother Talkers
• Non-Toxic Kids
• Owl Haven
• Safe Mama

For more information on toxic chemicals and recalled toys:

• Environmental Working Group
• Grist
• Healthy Child, Healthy World