The Chemical Industry Playbook

Last week, the NRDC came out with a compelling new report that uncovers the delay tactics used by the chemical industry to force delay upon delay of EPA assessments on harmful chemicals.

What game do they think they're playing?

The authors of the report, Jennifer Sass and Daniel Rosenberg, call it The Delay Game and describe how the chemical industry uses a set of tactics, named the Four Dog Defense, to help harmful chemicals bob and weave through the EPA and avoid regulation.

What's a Four Dog Defense?

1. My dog does not bite. The claim might sound something like this: "What, Bisphenol A? Harmful? Just look at these studies funded by the chemical industry that show no harm is caused by BPA!"
2. My dog bites, but it doesn't bite you. This is where the industry admits that a chemical might be harmful but argues that no one is exposed to it. This works well if the industry isn't testing or monitoring for the chemical.
3. My dog bit you, but it didn't hurt you. As in, "Sure, people end up with BPA in their bodies, but it is excreted quickly so it doesn't hurt you." (Ignoring that most people are exposed to BPA on an ongoing basis and from several different sources).
4. My dog bit you, and hurt you, but it wasn't my fault. To be used when other dogs have failed. With this dog you deflect the blame and liability to someone or something else, like: improper use or poor health.

Game Time: The Four Dog Defense in Play

The NRDC report has reviewed the timeline for three different, hazardous, chemicals that have been slated for EPA review for several years. One of the three is formaldehyde which has also been named as a Priority Chemical in Minnesota, putting it on a short list for the worst of the worst toxins that are found in children's products.

The first assessment of formaldehyde was published in 1989. Then, in 1998 the agency initiated an update of the assesment. During that time, science regarding the links between formaldehyde and certain cancers became increasingly available.

The industry's response? Fund more studies specifically targeted to discredit science linking formaldehyde exposure to leukemia, and leverage poltical support to pressure for further delays.

Despite the fact that the National Toxicology Program in 2011 named formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen in its 12^th Report on Carcinogens, the EPA assessment is still awaiting completion, 13 years after the initial re-assessment began and more than 20 years after the first assessment was published. All the while, chemical companies continue to manufacture formaldehyde and use it in consumer products, leading to untold cases of illness.

We need to tell the chemical industry that our health isn't a game, and that's why Healthy Legacy supports reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)--the law that has failed to protect us from exposure to toxic chemicals. Visit the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families website to learn more about how the Safe Chemicals Act will fix our broken system.

In the meantime, you can use these tips to reduce your exposure to formaldehyde:

Formaldehyde is commonly found in textiles, cleaning products, composite wood products and as a chemical byproduct in personal care products. Exposure is linked to cancer and respiratory problems.

1. Wash new clothes and linens before wearing or using to reduce formaldehyde levels.
2. When purchasing composite wood products, look for those made for outdoor use which use phenol-formaldehyde (PF), a lower emitting resin than those with urea-formaldehyde (UF).
3. Avoid personal care products with Quaternium-15; it can release formaldehyde over time.
4. Purchase cleaning products without formaldehyde or its variants: formalin, methanal, oxymethyline, urea, 1,3-Dioxetane, Quanterium 15, methylaldehyde, methylene oxide, formic aldehyde, oxomethane formalin or phenol formaldehyde.

Download the Healthy Legacy guide Quick Tips to Avoid Toxins: Reducing Exposure to Priority Chemicals in Children’s Products.

On the TRAIN to weaker health protections?

Public health protections in the U.S. took a hit late last week with the house passage of an act that would make health concerns secondary to business impacts in assessing EPA regulations.

The Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act of 2011 recently  passed the U.S. House. This bill requires the President to establish the Committee for the Cumulative Analysis of Regulations that Impact Energy and Manufacturing in the United States to analyze and report on the cumulative impacts of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules and actions concerning air, waste, water, and climate change.

Sounds sensible, right? Wrong!

This bill delays or scraps an array of current regulatory actions, turning back decades of progress on addressing environmental health protections. This bill attacks the Clean Air Act by rolling back EPA regulations on ozone, fine particulates and hazardous pollutants like mercury. The bill requires consideration of the effects of regulation on business growth, while effects on public health are secondary. Thousands more deaths and hundreds of thousands more childhood asthma attacks will occur each year as a result of failure to reduce air pollution.

Attacks like this on environmental protections not only undermine the crucial work of the EPA, but the basic principle of government’s role in protecting public health from environmental threats. Rep. Henry Waxman (CA) calls the current U.S. House “the most anti-environment House in history. The House has voted to block action to address climate change, to stop actions to prevent air and water pollution, to undermine protections for public lands and coastal areas, and to weaken the protection of the environment in dozens of other ways."

This bill is based on the assumption that environmental regulations are bad for business. We must challenge this assumption. Regulatory certainty, improved quality of our environment and reduced health care costs all support a healthy business climate.

Unfortunately, Minnesota Representatives Paulsen, Cravaack, Kline and Peterson voted for the bill.

The good news is that representatives Ellison, Walz and McCollum all voted against TRAIN. Rep. McCollum’s amendment to protect the Great Lakes from toxic air and water pollution was defeated. Rep McCollum argued, "The TRAIN Act will make the enforcement of many environmental protections uncertain and will create confusion in the EPA about which public health efforts they can pursue.”

Please thank Rep. Tim Walz, Rep. Betty McCollum and Rep. Keith Ellison for putting public health first and voting against this bill and urge Senators Klobuchar and Franken to help defeat TRAIN in the Senate. Help send this TRAIN back to the station!

Find contact information for your representative and senators.

Gifts come with a toxic surprise: What’s a mom to do?

By Madeline Kastler, mom of two

Gifts and hand-me-downs. We rely on these as our primary sources of toys and kids’ clothes in our  house for my five-year old daughter and two-year old son.

A relative recently gave my daughter a doll as a gift, which she immediately fell in love with. The trouble is, it stunk of perfume and made my eyes water. I knew that absolutely COULD NOT be good. Balancing what I know of toxic chemicals in children’s products and our appreciation for the generosity of our friends and family is a tough one. What could I do?

Take the doll away? (Probability for tears and hurt feelings? Extremely high).
Provide a restrictive list of ‘mom-approved’ toys to each friend and family member? (Not unless I want to be like this lady!).

Buy all of my own unpainted wooden toys, organic cotton clothes, and chemical-free sheets? (Ha!).

I do my best to be frugal, keep my kids happy and protect them from harm. But it’s not that easy—especially when toxic chemicals are lurking in places I never expected: toys, backpacks and shampoo. And did I mention that everything (everything) goes into my two-year old son’s mouth?

I am a mother. I am also a wife, daughter, sister, employee, community member, neighbor and homeowner. I don’t have time to research and control all of the toys, clothes and art supplies that my children come in contact with. Nor should I have to! Time with my kids is precious and I want to focus on them during that time, not their stuff.

The problem of toxic chemicals in children’s products is one that needs to be solved. It’s so big (there are over 80,000 chemicals in commerce today) and the current law so inadequate (the EPA has only required safety testing on 200 of these chemicals, and has only banned five). It’s clear we need a comprehensive solution.

Minnesota has been a leader in changing policies to protect children’s health, by being the first state to ban Bisphenol A (BPA) and also take steps to assess chemicals in a different way (as in: for their safety) by passing the Toxic Free Kids Act.

Now it’s time for the federal government to follow suit and pass real reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This law was passed in 1976, a long 35 years ago.

That’s why I’m relieved that both of Minnesota’s senators (Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken) have signed on to the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 (S. 847), which will take some really important steps to help keep kids safe. The bill will:

•    Require action on the worst chemicals first
•    Require basic safety data for all chemicals
•    Protect all people, especially vulnerable groups like children, pregnant women and workers

Please join me in thanking Senators Klobuchar and Franken for being heroes and co-sponsoring the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011.

State victories on toxics in 2011

This entry was originally posted on the Safer States Blog.  

As legislative sessions around the country wrap up it's a good time to take stock of the landscape. Even in the wake of federal struggles, economic concerns and industry backed opposition, states continue to take on and pass toxic laws and policies.

So far in 2011, nine new toxic chemical policies have been passed in seven states, adding to a total of over 80 chemical safety laws passed in the last nine years by an overwhelming margin with broad bipartisan support (see the Healthy States report for more details on bipartisan support for toxics reform). In 2011, 99% of Democrats and 86% of Republicans supported these policies. In addition to bills passed, protections also increased through administrative action and rule implementation. In total, 10 states in 2011 have made changes in favor of a healthier, less toxic environment for families and future generations.

Some firsts:

1. Connecticut became the first state in the nation to ban bisphenol-A (BPA) from thermal receipt paper.
2. Washington became the first state to require manufacturers of children's products to report what toxic chemicals are present in their products.
3. New York was the first state in the nation to ban products for children containing the toxic tris flame retardant linked to cancer.

On the federal landscape this year, Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 (S.847), which would overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—the outdated law that oversees toxic chemical use in the United States. Environmental advocates and sympathetic legislators have been working hard to pass legislation making TSCA current. TSCA was originally enacted during the Ford administration and has never been updated. The Safe Chemicals Act would reform TSCA, which has proven ineffective in identifying and reducing the use of toxic chemicals. The proposed bill was introduced into the U.S. Senate in April, and has to date not made any progress.

Meanwhile, states are shouldering the load and protecting their residents from toxic chemicals to the best of their ability. In addition to the "firsts" listed above, in 2011:

1. California and Illinois passed resolutions urging Congress to update TSCA.
2. Delaware, Maryland and Maine passed laws against BPA. Additionally, the Massachusetts Public Health Council approved a ban on BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups through an administrative action.
3. Massachusetts declared formaldehyde and hexavalent chromium to be high risk chemicals.
4. Maryland banned cadmium in jewelry for children.
5. Minnesota published a list of nine Priority Chemicals of High Concern that are found in the body, setting the stage for the phase-out of these chemicals.

State laws continue to pass, despite industry opposition

Nearly every time a proposed toxic chemical law is being discussed in statehouses across the country, representatives from some of the nation's largest industries show up to fight. State advocates report seeing representatives from the Toy Industry Association, the American Chemistry Council, the Grocery Manufacturers' Association and other similar organizations at their hearings. These organizations put their bottom line above public health and attempt to use economic scare tactics, distort legislation and marginalize overwhelming scientific evidence against toxic chemicals to convince legislators to vote ¬¬against protective laws.

It's hard to know exactly how much money industry is spending to fight these laws, but reports show that they are willing to spend big bucks to protect their interests – Environment & Energy Daily reports that players in the chemical industry spent $4 million in lobbying money—just in the first quarter of 2011 and just on federal laws.

In February, we talked in detail about the specific tactics industry employs against state legislation.

Legislators on both sides of the aisle time and time again stepped up to pass laws despite industry efforts.

This year, industry tactics played out in Maine in dramatic fashion. While Maine passed a "Kids Safe Products Act" in 2008, Governor Paul LePage, a newly-elected, Tea Party-backed Republican, set about to repeal the law and question whether BPA needed to be banned. It was uncovered that out-of-state lobbyists and large trade groups had the ear of the Governor and were advising him to repeal the law. A four-month back-and-forth about banning BPA ended when the Maine House voted by a 145-3 margin to phase out BPA, overriding Governor LePage's veto.

"The legislative victories in 2011 have shown that, at the end of the day, most legislators prioritize the health of their constituents over industry interests. Until the federal government steps in and passes and enforces strong toxic chemical legislation, the states are going to continue to fight for the health and welfare of their residents. We have a lot of work yet to do, but the 80 laws passed in the past 9 years are a very encouraging start."

- Sarah Doll, National Director for Safer States

Report Back from the Toxic Red Carpet

Red carpet events are common enough, but none are quite like “The Toxies.” Costumed characters,  dressed up to personify common toxic chemicals found in consumer products, accepted awards on Thursday evening for their prevalence in our daily lives and their linkages to harmful health effects.

In Minnesota, we recognized four of the chemicals nominated at the national level that are also on the Minnesota priority chemicals list. The nine chemicals on this list are found in children’s products and are linked to harmful health effects. They are: Formaldehyde, Lead, Bisphenol A and decaBDE (representing the Halogenated Flame Retardants, a whole class of chemicals). 

While all of the toxic, bad actor nominees deserve our attention, they couldn't all win an award. Here's the breakdown on who took home the trophies:

1. Most Annoying Priority Chemical of 2011: decaBDE. Minnesota has banned the use of penta and octa BDE, but a close relative of those chemicals, decaBDE is still in use, landing it a spot on the “priority chemicals” list. DecaBDE is a chemical flame retardant and is part of a larger group of halogenated flame retardant chemicals that are persistent in the environment and are linked to several negative health problems like cancer, thyroid hormone disruption, and adverse impacts on learning and development.
2. MN People’s Choice Award for Worst Performance of the Year: Bisphenol A (BPA). Minnesota was the first state in the nation to ban BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, a step which has contributed to manufacturers removing those products from the shelves across the country. However, other exposures to bisphenol A remain through products like the linings of food and infant formula cans, receipt paper, dental sealants and more. BPA is linked to serious health effects including early onset of puberty, certain types of cancers, obesity and diabetes.

You can watch their acceptance speeches here.

We also had the great fortune to honor Representative Kate Knuth with the "Best Performance in a Legislative Session" for her work on the Toxic Free Kids act in 2009, which culminated in the Minnesota Department of Health creating the "priority chemicals" list earlier this year. Rep. Knuth has been a champion on this issue and continues to work for policies that will protect children's health from toxics. Take a look at the presentation of her award!

 

Toxic Flame Retardants are Hidden and Harmful

By Karen Einisman, Women's Cancer Action

Parenting. It’s the hardest job I have ever had. From the minute my children were born, I took on the  responsibility of keeping them safe. While I was still pregnant, I painstakingly researched the perfect stroller, the safest car seat, the best high chair. The list went on and on. But, it wasn’t until I started paying attention to the chemical problem in this country that I realized that all of my preparation didn’t truly help me protect my children from serious harm.

Take the new study released today, for example, that found 80 percent of all baby products tested contained chemical flame retardants that are considered toxic…80 percent! The study, published in the peer-reviewed Environmental Science & Technology Journal, analyzed 101 children’s products for flame retardants. A wide range of products—from nursing pillows to high chairs and everything in between—were sent in from around the country and tested.

Almost one-third of the tested products contained TDCPP or chlorinated Tris, a possible human carcinogen that was removed from children’s pajamas over health concerns when I was a kid.  Chlorinated Tris has been linked to cancer of the liver, kidney, brain and testis.  And, that’s just one of the chemical flame retardant mentioned in this study. The list of flame retardants found in these popular baby products is an alphabet soup of acronyms that no parent should have to memorize.

According to Arlene Blum, PhD, co-author of this study, flame retardants migrate out of the products and into our homes and our bodies, affecting IQ levels, disrupting hormones and impairing development. In fact, experts say that these chemicals are linked to some of today’s biggest health problems.

That’s why I have been avoiding flame retardants in pajamas (yes, they substituted chlorinated tris for another toxic flame retardant) ever since my pediatrician warned me about them—an easy task since they are labeled. Most products are not.

Until I started paying attention to the issue of toxic chemical reform, I had no idea the extent to which these chemicals were present in the very things I used to keep my kids safe! It’s horrifying to think that my children’s bedrooms and playrooms were and are filled with toxic substances that can seriously harm them. The unfortunate news that this study brings is a blatant reminder of why we need toxic chemical reform in this country. Hopefully, by the time my kids have kids, they won’t have to have a degree in chemistry to go shopping.

What are the concerns about toxic flame retardants?

A new study* found that 80% of baby products tested contained toxic flame retardants. Products tested included nursing pillows, car seats, sleeping wedges, portable crib mattresses, baby carriers, strollers and changing table pads. Toxic flame retardants were prevalent in products that contained polyurethane foam. The chemicals can leak from the foam and get into dust, which gets on to hands and food, exposing children through ingestion and inhalation. Flame retardants found in foam baby products include neurotoxin penta-BDE (already banned in MN and 11 other states) and chlorinated tris, which was removed from children’s pajamas in the 1970’s because it was a suspected carcinogen.

Tips to Reduce Exposure**

1. Keep dust levels down by wet mopping and vacuuming with a HEPA filter.
2. Wash your hands and your children’s hands often.
3. Purchase new and used baby products and furniture filled with cotton, polyester or wool, rather than polyurethane foam.
4. Avoid products containing polyurethane foam and have a TB117 label (California fire retardant standard), which are likely to contain chemical flame retardants.
5. Write or call the manufacturer to inquire whether the product contains flame retardants.
6. Find out more and take action at healthylegacy.org and toxicfreefiresafety.org.
7. Safe brands include:

•    BabyLuxe organic pads and mattresses
•    BabyBjorn baby carriers
•    OrbitBaby strollers and car seats
•    Boppy nursing pillows

*Stapleton HM, Klosterhaus S, Keller A, Ferguson PL et al. Identification of flame retardants in polyurethane foam collected from baby products. Environmental Science and Technology, online May 18, 2011. http://pubs.acs.org/journal/esthag

**Adapted from “Flame Retardants in Baby Products: What You Can Do”, Green Science Policy Institute, greensciencepolicy.org
 
 

Loud and Clear: "Message in a Bottle" Report Finds State Laws Get BPA out of Baby Bottles, Sippy Cups

By Katie Rojas-Jahn, Healthy Legacy Coalition Coordinator

Are you a parent? How many times have you thought about your child today? Worried about her or him? Today we’ve got some good news! In several states, parents have one less thing to worry about when trying to keep their families safe and healthy.

Today, a new market survey, Message in a Bottle: A Market Survey on Bisphenol A (BPA) in Baby Bottles and Sippy Cups (PDF), announces that state legislation has been a key driver in phasing out the use of BPA in these products. Thanks to the actions of key states, parents in those states with BPA bans can be pretty sure that baby bottles, sippy cups and breast-milk storage products on the market are free of bisphenol A (always look for a BPA-free label, though). Unfortunately, states without BPA laws, like Oregon, still have BPA-containing children’s products lurking on some store shelves.

The market survey checked the inventory of baby bottles and sippy cups in 89 stores from 35 communities in five different states. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Chicago, and New York all have laws on the books that ban the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. The survey findings confirm that in these locations, nearly all bottles and sippy cups are BPA-free and labeled as such. However, in Oregon where legislation to ban BPA is still pending, parents need to be alert for BPA containing products still on store shelves. Based on our samples, parents should be particularly alert on shelves of dollar stores, value stores and drug stores.

Both state and federal action are needed to ensure that parents in every state, no matter where they live or where they shop, need not worry about BPA in baby products such as bottles and sippy cups. While the U.S. lags behind the European Union, China and Canada in federal action to restrict BPA, states are still moving to phase out BPA in baby products and food can linings. Beyond baby products, families should have information that makes it easy to make BPA-free purchasing choices when it comes to canned food and other consumer products.

We also need to fix the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the broken and out of date law that is failing to protect public health from exposure to toxic chemicals. Current legislation introduced by New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg seeks to fix many of the problems with TSCA through the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. In Minnesota, Senators Franken and Klobuchar are both co-sponsors of the bill. Take a moment to thank them for their support.

Toxic Chemicals Reporting Bill Introduced in MN

By Dan Endreson, Healthy Legacy Lobbyist

Would you eat a plate of food without knowing what it is? Would you take medicine without someone telling you it was tested for safety?  If your answer is no, then why would you buy a product for your child unless you knew it did not contain a toxic chemical? Last week, state legislation was introduced to ensure manufacturers reveal this information.

In 2009, Minnesota passed the Toxic Free Kids Act which instructed the Department of Health and the Pollution Control Agency to create a list of the toxic chemicals known to be found in children’s products. This was a great first step. However, the problem for consumers is that no one knows for certain what products contain these chemicals.

This newest piece of legislation, authored by Representative Kate Knuth and Senator Linda Higgins, would require manufacturers to disclose the presence of a listed toxic chemical in their products to the agencies by January 1, 2012. If chemicals are added to the priority list in the future, manufacturers will have 180 days to report the presence of this chemical to the agencies. This legislation has broad support. Co-authors on the bill include Democrats and Republicans from urban, suburban and rural areas in Minnesota.

Allowing agencies and consumers to have this important piece of information is crucial step for parents to know the products they buy are safe for their children.

Faith and Toxics: Advocating for a Better World in the Christian Community

By Jerad Morey, Minnesota Council of Churches.

This Easter season the Minnesota Council of Churches has been glad to speak with faith  communities about creating a better world. We work with the National Council of Churches of Christ to teach people in local congregations about the dangers of toxic chemicals, how to reduce personal and community exposure to toxic chemicals, and how to advocate for a world where you don’t need to memorize words like “polybrominated diphenyl ethers” to keep from buying products that will hurt you.

We believe that theology—what we believe about God—matters. In each of our presentations we proclaim the Principles for a Healthy Body and Spirit that call Christians to work and pray for a better environment.

These principles are:

• Protecting God’s Creation: Human beings are made in the image of God and placed on this planet to serve and protect what God has created. Pollution jeopardizes the health of Creation. By protecting the water, air, land and living things from pollution we recognize that all creatures are reflections of the divine. (Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:15)

• Caring for Our Bodies: Creation has inherent value by itself, and when it is unpolluted it also helps us, the created, to live abundant lives. We can better treat our bodies like temples to the Holy Spirit by making decisions and advocating for policies that put human health and the health of creation first. We rank protecting health above preserving profits. (2 Corinthians 6:19-20)

• Justice for Vulnerable Populations: From the prophet Moses in the 14th century BCE to Jesus Christ to our prophets today, we are called to walk with the poor and seek justice for the vulnerable. All people are children of God, and we share in the joy and suffering of all Earth’s members. As we make their suffering our own, we act to end it with the same urgency as though it were our own. (Leviticus 19:9-10, Luke 14:15-24, John 1:11-13)

• Sustainability: As people of faith we hold out promise of a hope-filled world for our children to inherit. We believe in a future, and that this future will have healthy, sustainable ecosystems and communities. God gave us gifts so we can cooperate with God to achieve this future. (Romans 8:22-26; Jeremiah 29:4-11).

As Christians celebrate the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ this Sunday, we reflect on the power of God and pray that our environment can be healed—that the effects of toxic pollution in our world and our bodies can be healed just as Jesus’ pierced hands and side were.

To request an environmental health presentation at your church, call the Minnesota Council of Churches at (612) 870-3600. To learn more about the Christian Principles for a Healthy Body and Spirit, or to endorse them, click here.

Minnesota's senators are co-sponsors on the Safe Chemicals Act, which will work to heal our environment by changing the way we regulate chemicals. Please take a moment to thank Senators Franken and Klobuchar.

Safe Chemicals Act = Safer Families

Today, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey introduced the Safe Chemicals Act, which seeks to  reform the outdated and badly broken Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Minnesota Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken are co-sponsors, please thank them for championing this bill.

We think this is good news for people and families across the U.S. Why? Because TSCA has failed so completely to protect our health! Of the more than 80,000 chemicals on the market today, only about 200 have ever been tested for safety. Of those, only five have been banned. Despite ten years of rulemaking, the EPA could not even ban asbestos, a substance which is widely known to be harmful to health.

Now, more than 35 years after TSCA was passed, there is no shortage of stories about toxic chemicals, like BPA, phthalates, formaldehyde and lead ending up in the products we use everyday.

The Safe Chemicals Act will change that by changing the way we review and regulate chemicals. 

Here's what we like about the bill:

1. Takes fast action to address highest risk chemicals.
2. Further evaluates chemicals that could pose unacceptable risk
3. Ensures safety threshold is met for all chemicals on the market.
4. Provide broad public, market and worker access to reliable chemical information.
5. Promotes innovation, green chemistry, and safer alternatives to chemicals of concern.

In Minnesota, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken have signed on to be co-sponsors of the Safe Chemicals Act. Please take a moment to thank them for standing up for our health!