As toxicologists see it, our chemical world is neither as dangerous as portrayed by the mainstream media and environmental groups, nor as safe as the American Chemistry Council and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) would have us believe.

That’s according to a survey of 937 members of the Society of Toxicology in early 2009. The survey, released Thursday, was administered by Harris Interactive and conducted by the nonprofit Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) and Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University.

“This survey suggests that the public doesn’t get a full and balanced picture of chemical risk,” said Dr. Robert Lichter, the survey director.

While the toxicologists surveyed believed that certain chemicals portrayed as dangerous in media stories actually pose little risk — such as those used in Teflon and the Bisphenol A used in plastic – more than half of them said they believed that pesticides pose a “significant health risk” and that chemicals cause hormonal disruptions in humans.

Distortions occur when the media pay too much attention to individual cases and also to the agenda set by environmental groups, according to the survey findings. More than 90 percent said they felt media coverage of chemical-related issues lacked balance and failed to distinguish good studies from bad studies and also to explain that “the dose makes the poison” (that chemicals that are dangerous in high doses can be safe in small doses).

They also said that WebMD and Wikipedia offered more balanced coverage than more established media outlets.

A majority of toxicologists felt that most government agencies do a better job than the media, environmental groups or trade associations of accurately portraying chemical risks, though they rated the Environmental Protection Agency (40 % ) and Consumer Product Safety Commission (47%) lower.

The findings:

When asked to agree or disagree with statements about chemical safety and regulation:

• 26% believe cosmetics pose a significant health risk
• 33% believe food additives pose a significant health risk
• 55% believe pesticides pose a significant health risk
• 53% believe chemicals cause endocrine disruption
• Only 10% believe organic or “natural” products are inherently safer
• Only 6% believe that any exposure to a harmful chemical is unacceptable
• 69% say chemicals do not need to be regulated according to the precautionary principle
• Only 23% say the U.S. regulatory system is inferior to Europe’s
• 54% say U.S. regulators are not doing a good job explaining chemical risks

Despite recent controversies in the news over the safety of commonly used chemicals, few toxicologists believe they pose a high health risk:

• 3% see Teflon as having a high degree of risk
• 3% see genetically modified organisms as high risk
• 9% see Bisphenol A, a component of many plastics, as high risk
• 11% see phthalates, which make vinyl flexible, as high risk
• 12% see high fructose corn syrup, used in soft drinks, as high risk

The toxicologists overwhelmingly say that environmental activist groups overstate the health risks of chemicals. But they also say industry groups underplay the risks:

• 96% say Greenpeace overstates the health risks of chemicals
• 80% say the Environmental Defense Fund overstates chemical risks
• 79% say the Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Center for Science in the Public Interest overstate the risks
• 57% say the American Chemistry Council understates chemical risks
• 60% say the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) understates chemical risks
• In contrast, majorities say that most U.S. governmental agencies accurately portray risk, with only the EPA (40%) and the CPSC (47%) falling below a majority

The study has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points, according to Harris Interactive, a survey research firm.

We hear every day about dangerous chemicals in household products that are linked to cancer, infertility, autism and other diseases – yet many Americans may not realize just how many of these harmful substances they’ve actually ingested in the course of everyday living.

The answer? About 48. That’s according a study by the Environmental Working  Group and Rachel’s Network, in which five leading minority women environmentalists from different parts of the country volunteered to have their blood tested for toxic substances. The results, say EWG experts, show that regulation of chemicals in the U.S. is weak and “antiquated” and needs a major overhaul.

The tests, performed by four independent labs in the U.S., Canada and the Netherlands, looked for traces of 75 common chemical contaminants that might turn up in people because they are used in household goods, plastics, beauty products and food and water.

It found, in the aggregate, traces of 48 chemicals in the women, notably flame retardants (used to treat some furniture and clothing), synthetic fragrances (from body care products and perfumes), the plastics ingredient Bisphenol A (found in bottles, canned food liners and other products) and the rocket fuel perchlorate (which has been found in some drinking water).

“We are fighting the things we know that are there, the things (pollutants) outside,” said Suzie Canales, founder of Citizens for Environmental Justice in Corpus Christi, which has pushed for a cleaner environment in a city with a concentration of oil refineries. “But it’s a double injustice to find out that the products put on the market are also killing us.”

Canales report showed that her blood contained traces of chemicals from BPA, musks, rocket fuel, lead and mercury. The profiles of the other women tested also turned up several chemicals, at levels above average, that have been linked to harmful health effects; though the toxic mix varied by individual.

The findings made concrete the suspicion that all Americans are being exposed to a daily brew of chemicals that advocates now call our chemical “body burden”.

“I was frustrated to learn about the industrial chemical contamination through this study. I am a mother and I have a 7 year old daughter. I try to live a sustainable life style,” said Jennifer Hill-Kelley, a member of the Oneida Nation who’s worked to clean up environmental pollution outside of Green Bay, Wisc.  “… I don’t have the information about the personal care products or the plastics I use…and I feel that as a consumer I deserve that information to be shared with me.”

Beverly Wright, a New Orleans sociology professor working to fight pollution in the heavily industrialized Lower Mississippi River Valley area, said she was “disturbed” to discover that her tests showed a high level of musks, which are potentially hazardous compounds in synthetic fragrances.

So you need to replace your mattress, and you want to do the green right thing, for your health and for the environment. You may be trying to reduce your overall carbon footprint, or perhaps to choose a product that’s better for your health. Ideally, you can do both.

Unfortunately, there is a plethora of “natural,” “green,” “eco-friendly” mattress solutions out there, some with a hefty price tag. How’s a consumer to know what’s worth springing for – and what’s not?

Conventional mattresses are very likely to contain chemicals, some potentially toxic to humans and/or harmful to the environment. One way to go green is to choose a mattress with fewer chemicals or no chemicals.

My husband and I went the less-toxic, rather than 100 percent chemical-free, route. We bought a new mattress from Keetsa, which offers an alternative to the traditional memory-foam mattress. We had been shopping for a Tempurpedic because we loved the feel of “memory foam” (made of visco-elastic polyurethane). But polyurethane, a petroleum product, releases gasses from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that can cause respiratory harm. They’re also highly flammable, which makes them more likely to be treated with chemical flame retardants.

Friends who were in the same boat recommended Keetsa. We zipped over from the mattress discount warehouse to Keetsa’s San Francisco showroom, lay down on the Tea Leaf Supreme, (pictured below) a mattress they said contained lower-emission memory foam blended with green tea leaves, anti-bacterial silver and organic cotton. We were instantly transported to mattress nirvana.

The price, at $1,759, was a little higher than Tempurpedic, which runs about $1,499 for the lowest-priced model, but we felt good about the reduced VOC emissions (almost zero, according to Joe Alexander, the sales and marketing director, pictured), and the fact that our mattress and its modular box spring were packed in boxes we could fit into our car. Keetsa’s mattresses are made in China in a Keetsa-owned factory, Alexander said, which is is “ISO 900″ rated for quality management and pays a “living wage.”

There are other green mattress options for chemically sensitive people, or those who are committed to 100 percent organic materials. Northern California-based Lifekind, Inc. makes what it says are 100 percent organic, chemical-free mattresses in its Yuba City factory. (Their “organicpedic” natural rubber mattress is pictured above.) The company was started by chronically chemically sensitive Walt Bader, who wanted to make beds in which he could sleep.

Sylvia Seymour, a Lifekind representative, said, “It comes down to what we’re exposing ourselves to for a third of our lives.” Lifekind’s mattresses are made from three ingredients: pure wool (used both as stuffing and quilting material and as a flame-resistant barrier), certified organic cotton, and 100 perent natural rubber, harvested from rubber trees, imported in powder form in tightly sealed metal drums, and reconstituted in the U.S. and formed into the mattress core.

Lifekind sells organic mattresses with metal inner-springs as well. Lifekind’s prices for king-sized mattresses, until Sept. 1, 2008, range from $2,595 for the “Euro” (which is a completely natural-rubber mattress) to $3,695 for the OrganicPedic, a three-layer natural-rubber bed geared toward people with pressure point discomfort. Other companies offering fully natural rubber mattresses with organic wool and cotton include FloBeds ($1,949 to $2,949) and Organic Mattresses, Inc. All three companies make and ship their beds from their own U.S. manufacturing facilities.

Conventional mattresses may have chemicals in the materials they’re made of (typically polyester, polyurethane foams, synthetic latex, Styrofoam and nylon), with additional chemicals introduced in the form of flame retardants, required by the government.

A 2007 national fire-resistance standard for mattresses requires a tougher test than ever before, resisting ignition when exposed to open flames. Mattress manufacturers can make mattresses meet the standard any way they choose. Some use fire-retardant chemicals. Some use chemical-free, naturally fire-resistant fabric barriers. Some use a combination of both.

A mattress made from organic cotton or wool doesn’t necessarily mean it’s free of fire retardants or other chemicals, but, because these materials are more inherently flame-resistant than foam, they require fewer or no added chemicals to meet safety standards. Rubber is naturally flame resistant and wool is being increasingly used as a non-toxic fire-resistant barrier in mattresses. Organic materials – those grown without pesticides – are a greener choice because they are better for the environment.

However, Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst at Environmental Working Group, a health and safety watchdog group, said, “Organic fabrics don’t necessarily offer any health and safety benefits to the consumer.”

The Environmental Working Group is concerned about health and safety hazards, though, and some mattresses do present such dangers to consumers.

The group has published research on PBDEs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, which have long been used in foam furniture as flame-retardants — and have been found to cause developmental harm. Thankfully, the most commonly used form of these chemicals was withdrawn from the U.S. market in 2005. So you can be pretty sure your new U.S. or European-made mattress is free of the banned PBDEs.

But your new mattress could have other chemical flame retardants in it, such as brominated hydrocarbons or chlorinated TRIS, a cancer-causing chemical that was banned from children’s sleepwear in 1977. Most manufacturers won’t tell you which chemicals they use as flame-retardants because they consider it a trade secret. As the environmental group’s Lunder said, “There isn’t really any system for directing manufacturers toward the least-toxic products.”

And toxic they can be, some consumers claim. One previously healthy Texas woman, Tanya Tollefson, shared a horror story about health issues both she and her husband experienced that started as soon as they brought their new standard mattress home. Tollefson said the couple’s symptoms ranged from weepy eyes, to severe headaches and tinnitus. These symptoms continued unabated for two months until they replaced the mattress with a wool-wrapped, 100 percent natural latex one from FloBeds (pictured above).

“We got the mattress in the home and within the first week we started noticing these health issues,” said Tollefson, a mother of three in her 30s. “Several that started occurring at the same time, and they finally went away or subsided after the mattress was out of the house.”

“As soon as the mattress was gone, Damian’s headaches were gone. The weepy eyes quit.”

While they don’t know for certain whether their symptoms were related to chemical flame retardants, or the mattress materials, or both, theirs is not an isolated example – other consumers share their mattress-related health issues at Chem-Tox, a website put together by a professor at the University of Florida.

As Lunder mentioned, few U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations exist to monitor indoor air quality, but there is an independent certification, Greenguard, that can give consumers some measurable information about the levels of chemicals their mattresses release into the air.

The Greenguard Certification Program is an industry-independent, voluntary third party testing program for low-emitting products and materials, overseen by a non-profit organization, the Greenguard Environmental Institute. The Greenguard Online Product Guide features products which are regularly tested to ensure their chemical and particle emissions meet acceptable indoor air quality guidelines and standards. A search on the guide turned up 16 mattresses with Greenguard certification, from three companies: Lifekind, Naturepedic (baby products), and Organic Mattresses, Inc.

The Environmental Working Group maintains a list of PBDE-free products, including mattresess, cribs and futons. IKEA is one company on the environmental group’s lists as phasing out all PBDEs from their products. European Sleepworks, also on that list, sells mattresses certified by a Swiss association, Oeko-Tex (which claims to thoroughly test its textiles for harmful chemicals and health hazards).

Companies that sell greener products sometimes go the extra mile to try to green their business model as well. Both Keetsa and FloBeds compress and pack their mattresses into boxes that fit in a standard car (Keetsa) or can be shipped by standard shippers like UPS (FloBeds). Keetsa doesn’t use delivery trucks, and sales and marketing director Joe Alexander said they could fit five times as many mattresses into a standard shipping container than traditional mattress companies, further reducing the business’ overall carbon footprint.

The bottom line? A little research can go a long way towards a greener night’s sleep.