When Assemblyman Mark Leno was challenging Sen. Carole Migden's bid for a second term this year, one aspect of their campaigns was what one might term chemical warfare.

No, they weren't lobbying canisters of poison gas at each other, although the contest did get a bit nasty at times. They were, however, both carrying bills that would, if enacted, ban the use of certain chemicals in consumer products – clearly appealing to the naturalist, chemical-phobic sensibilities of voters in ever-trendy San Francisco and Marin County.

Leno, who won the Democratic primary duel, wants to prohibit two types of chemical fire retardants from being applied to furniture and bedding, having declared at one point that "We're poisoning our nation one sofa at a time."

Migden, meanwhile, proposes that bisphenol A (BPA), an additive used in manufacturing plastic products, be barred from baby bottles and other children's food containers, emulating Canada's ban.

The bills, Leno's Assembly Bill 706 and Migden's Senate Bill 1713, are emblematic of the Legislature's penchant for regulatory decrees on consumer products, based on what? Conclusive scientific evidence of looming harm, pressure from folks who dislike something for some reason, or merely a headline-grabbing crusade?

Some call them "nanny bills." Whatever the name, they are proliferating, as Monday's passage of a measure to ban "trans fats" from restaurant foods (but not, oddly enough, from foods prepared at home) attests. An Assembly committee analysis of Leno's measure put the syndrome this way:

If Two Similar Studies Completely Disagree, Look at How the Funders Framed the Issue

Wal-Mart and Toys R Us announced this spring that they will stop selling plastic baby bottles, food containers and other products that contain a chemical that can leach into foods and beverages. Even low doses of the chemical (bisphenol A, or BPA) are linked to prostate and mammary-gland changes in laboratory animals that were exposed as fetuses and infants. The big retailers are responding to the fears of parents, and Congress is considering measures to ban the chemical.

But is there enough evidence of harmful health effects on humans? One of the eyebrow-raising statistics about the BPA studies is the stark divergence in results, depending on who funded them. More than 90 percent of the 100-plus government-funded studies performed by independent scientists found health effects from low doses of BPA, while none of the fewer than two dozen chemical-industry-funded studies did.

This striking difference in studies isn't unique to BPA. When a scientist is hired by a firm with a financial interest in the outcome, the likelihood that the result of that study will be favorable to that firm is dramatically increased. This close correlation between the results desired by a study's funders and those reported by the researchers is known in the scientific literature as the "funding effect."

When we drink water, what's the real message in the bottle? Activists, governments and the bottled-water industry have engaged in a giant...

When we drink water, what's the real message in the bottle?

Activists, governments and the bottled-water industry have engaged in a giant water fight for the past two years, extensively reported by the media. By now, many consumers know that the mass marketing of water in single-use bottles has environmental consequences, and that some reusable water bottles may pose health risks.

But at this time of year, when our bodies especially need water, many of us still find ourselves confused about the safest, greenest ways to drink it. Today we'll satisfy the thirst for answers as we address common consumer questions about water bottles.

Q: Are single-use water bottles really so evil?

A: The production, packaging and shipping of bottled water consumes enormous amounts of resources and contributes to global warming.

Waste from the plastic bottles piles up as well, since fewer than 20 percent of single-use water bottles get recycled.

Consumers also have a strong financial incentive to avoid bottled water. In Seattle, bottled water costs an average of 2,700 times as much as tap water, according to a study for the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

This doesn't mean we should vilify bottled-water drinkers ("the new smokers," as British writer Giles Coren calls them). After all, drinking bottled water is healthier than consuming soft drinks, coffee or other beverages. It's also better for the environment than those other beverages, since bottled water takes fewer resources to produce. But the fact remains that tap water is a much greener, cheaper option than bottled water.

"Are you scared?"

The question, by a stranger who noticed my swollen belly, caught me off guard.

I have a son - a month shy of his fifth birthday - and I'm having another - "any day now," my obstetrician told me this week, although the due date's not until July 31. Having done this before, I didn't think of myself as scared.

Anxious? Sure.

Uncomfortable? You don't know the half of it.

But scared? Well, of course, I am!

The miracle of birth is not just that babies develop and survive. The miracle is that mothers do, too.

There's a reason that grandmothers and great-grandmothers - especially in the days before epidurals - likened childbirth to a near-death experience. It's the reason why some of us - myself, included - risk rare-but-possible paralysis from a spinal injection of painkillers at the height of a contraction.

Scared? Are you kidding? Ha.

Toy jewelry from Bead Bazaar's "It's A Girl Thing" line have been recalled due to excessive levels of lead.

Dear Gentle Nurturing,

I have great news. Last month, we told you about two California state Senate bills that would ban toxic chemicals.

SB 1713 would ban BPA, a hormone disruptor, from baby bottles and sippy cups. SB 1313 would ban cancer-causing PFCs (Teflon chemicals) from food products. Both bills are sponsored by Environmental Working Group.

You took action, and it paid off.

Both bills have passed the Senate and all required Assembly committees. Now it's on to the full Assembly, where the fate of these bills will be decided in the coming weeks.

A suit has been filed against five baby bottle makers who use the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in their products.

The suit, which was filed last week in U.S. District Court by four Ohio parents, claims that the companies knew that bisphenol A was correlated to certain health problems.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages.

The five companies named in the lawsuit are: Ohio-based Evenflo; Illinois-based Avent America Inc.; Missouri-based Handicraft Co.; Connecticut-based Playtex Products Inc.; and the Swiss company Gerber Novartis. 

BPA is a chemical that is used in the production of polycarbonate (PC) plastic and many types of resins. It can be found in products we use everyday, such as baby and water bottles, other food and beverage packaging, sports equipment, medical devices, CDs, and household electronics.

Bisphenol A has become controversial because it mimics estrogen and thus could induce hormonal responses.

According to one scientific study, possibly dangerous levels of BPA can leak into the liquid when the baby bottles are heated. The lawsuit associates BPA with conditions such as early puberty and possible autism.

(Editor's note: For more about sunscreens and the Environmental Working Group's findings, see also Sun Essentials -- Updated.)

The simple rule of sunscreen - the higher the SPF and the thicker the slather, the better - has come under doubt.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a Washington-based research group and habitual gadfly to the business world, has found that 4 out of 5 of the nearly 1,000 sunscreen lotions analyzed offer inadequate protection from the sun or contain harmful chemicals. The biggest offenders, the EWG said, are the industry leaders: Coppertone, Banana Boat and Neutrogena.

While 3 out of 3 industry leaders are rather upset with the EWG report, and while some dermatologists criticize it for hyperbole, the report does underscore several long-standing health concerns: 

Sunscreens do not offer blanket protection from the sun and do little to prevent the most deadly form of skin cancer; reliance on them instead of, say, a hat and protective clothing, might be contributing to skin cancer; and the Food and Drug Administration has yet to issue any safety standards, mysteriously sitting on a set of recommendations drafted 30 years ago.

UPDATE: The Environmental Working Group has compiled a "Cosmetic Safety Database" that includes an extensive database on the results of an investigation on sunscreen products.

"Does your sunscreen work? An investigation of nearly 1,000 brand-name sunscreen products finds that 4 out of 5 contain chemicals that may pose health hazards or don't adequately protect skin from the sun's damaging rays. Some of the worst offenders are leading brands like Coppertone, Banana Boat, and Neutrogena.

More than a million cases of skin cancer are diagnosed in the U.S. every year, but FDA still hasn't finalized sunscreen standards first announced 30 years ago. ... Meanwhile, companies are free to claim but not provide broad spectrum protection. Until FDA requires that all sunscreens be safe and effective, Environmental Working Group's comprehensive sunscreen guide—including a list of 143 products that offer very good sun protection—fills in the gaps."

Click to print a handy sunscreen guide from the EWG. (PDF)

With the summer season upon us, here is some very important information on protecting your skin and that of you children and babies from the summer sun.

Remember that even though if it's overcast, the sun's rays are still peeking through enough to damage the skin. 

And once the weather gets warm enough, it is not recommended to cover the stroller or your baby with a heavy blanket to protect them from the sun. Use muslin blankets that breathe and hats with visors and ear coverage and use only the safest of skin protection products.

Organic, non-toxic suncreens with an SPF of 15 is what you should be using and which should be applied frequently. 

Sunscreen and Your Family
by Ruby Gonzalez, Erbaviva.com

Sunscreen is a must have for yourself and your family. Pregnancy affects hormone levels making pregnant women more susceptible to hyper pigmentation as a result of sun exposure. Also new moms should be extremely concerned over proper coverage for their babies and children. There are a lot of misconceptions about SPF factors and sunscreen ingredients.

In theory the SPF is a multiplier that can be applied to the time taken to burn. For example, someone who would burn after 12 minutes in the sun would expect to burn after 2 hours (120 minutes) if protected by a sunscreen with SPF 10.