Updated January 17, 2013.

We thought that the beginning of the year would be a good time to update you on bisphenol A (BPA): the ubiquitous chemical that is found in canned goods, register receipts, children's products, plastics and even dental sealants, and is linked with health impacts including behavioral impacts in young children, reproductive issues, miscarriage in pregnant women, diabetes, obesity and cancer.

In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups nationally. At this point, eleven states had done the hard work of banning BPA from these products, including New York and California. Manufacturers realized this was a losing battle, and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) took the unusual step of asking the FDA directly to ban the chemical from baby bottles and sippy cups. When asking for the ban, the ACC—the industry group that lobbies on behalf of chemical companies—directly cited the number of state bans that had passed as a reason for requesting an FDA ruling. This group had worked very hard to keep BPA bans out of the states, using industry tricks and millions of dollars. But they realized that the public and the tide were against them and requested the federal ruling.

But BPA is still present in so many products that we come into contact with every day, and we continue to learn about the health impacts associated with BPA.

A study reported this month in Environmental Health Perspectives tells us that high levels of BPA present in a mother's urine may be a marker of stunted fetal growth. While the study cautions that further evidence is needed before this can be extrapolated to the greater population, the findings among the subjects of the study were significant enough to be reported. This study comes out on the heels of a UC Berkeley study last fall which shows a link between bisphenol A levels in mothers and thryoid hormone changes in newborn boys.

"Most of the women and newborns in our study had thyroid hormone levels within a normal range, but when we consider the impact of these results at a population level, we get concerned about a shift in the distribution that would affect those on the borderline," said study lead author Jonathan Chevrier, research epidemiologist at UC Berkeley's Center for Environmental Research and Children's Health (CERCH). "In addition, studies suggest that small changes in thyroid level, even if they're within normal limits, may still have a cognitive effect."

The good news is that we continue to make progress in removing BPA from products affecting the most vulnerable populations.

Just last week, a law was signed in Suffolk County, New York that will prohibit the use of receipt paper containing BPA in the county. Connecticut was the first state to pass a receipts law in 2011, and we're hoping that Suffolk County will help lead to a ban in New York State. The BPA that is present in receipts is quite insidious; it is applied to receipt paper as a thin powder to help during the thermal binding of ink to paper. The powder easily rubs off and gets into our skin and elsewhere. This is of concern to all populations, but it is especially worrisome for cashiers and others who handle receipts many hours a day for their jobs—they are being unfairly exposed to this harmful toxic chemical.

Good news is coming out of Europe, as well, where France has banned BPA from containers that are intended for food. The law will take effect in two stages, with children being protected this year, and then food containers for adults being free of BPA in 2015.

The fight to get BPA out of baby bottles and sippy cups was a tough one, and there are many other products that contain BPA that need to be addressed. Maine is working on a ban on BPA in the lids of baby food jars, and has identified safer alternatives.

Update: Within a couple days of of the original publication date of this post, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection unanimously declared their intention to extend Maine's BPA ban to include infant formula packaging and baby food containers. After a board vote, the recommendation will go to the legislature and a ban could take effect as early as August 15, 2013 (more info).

We hope that in 2013 states will again lead the way to national changes and we'll be able to get BPA out of receipts, food containers for babies and cans and other containers that come in contact with our food. It's time for this ubiquitous toxic chemical to go.

You can keep apprised of the fight against BPA by checking our bisphenol A fact page.

Click through the web site belonging to the Toy Industry Association (TIA) and you'll read about dedication to providing Americans with creative and fun toys. And really, what's more fun than toys? But behind TIA's seemingly positive face lies a more nefarious goal: laser-focused dedication to the bottom line of the companies it represents, at the cost of the health of children. We have heard from organizations throughout the country who say that TIA lobbyists show up at state hearings, opposing rules that would give the public a true insight into the chemicals that are in toys.

Much like the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the TIA wields hundreds of thousands dollars in some states trying to defeat bills and policies which would protect the public from toxic chemicals like bisphenol-a (BPA), formaldehyde, cadmium and phthalates in our children's most prized possessions: toys. Children sleep with toys, put them in their mouths and even put them in their food. And sometimes those toys contain chemicals that can negatively affect children's cognitive function and development, skin and respiratory systems, and can increase the risk of cancer later in life.

Seven manufacturers reluctantly disclosed that the chemical BPA is present in 280 plastic toys, in the first chemical use reports submitted under Maine's Kid Safe Products Act, a chemical safety law bitterly opposed by the toy industry (pdf). BPA disrupts hormones in the body, harms brain development and reproductive health and may contribute to obesity and diabetes. Because of growing concern about threats to healthy childhood development, BPA has been removed from virtually all baby bottles and formula can linings. Why then is it OK that BPA is present in the toys that the children pick up once they put down their baby bottles?

For years, the Healthy Stuff website (a project of The Ecology Center) has tested and reported on chemicals found in toys. In the past few years, Healthy Stuff has found:

- "Medium" to "High" levels of chemicals of concern in one in three toys tested.¹ The chemicals include arsenic, flame retardants and phthalates (ingredients considered toxic that are used in plasticizers). All of these chemicals can be detrimental if they get into the systems of children. Toxic flame retardants have been associated with thyroid issues leading to retarded brain development, lower IQ in children, and lowered fertility in women and men.

- High levels of toxic chemicals in low-cost jewelry including lead, cadmium, nickel and chromium. These chemicals are persistent, bioaccumulative toxins which build up in your system and are not easily flushed. Once they are present in the bodies of children they can cause irreversible problems with the developmental and nervous system. Low-cost jewelry is available for adults and children alike, but children often put the jewelry in their mouths which speeds up transmission of the toxic ingredients.

Healthy Stuff keeps an app updated that gives the public information about the toys and other products they've tested. This research is done at non-profit expense because the Ecology Center sees it as important to inform the public about the ingredients in these products. "There is simply no place for toxic chemicals in children's toys," said Ecology Center's Jeff Gearhart, who leads the research. "Our hope is that by empowering consumers with this information, manufacturers and lawmakers will feel the pressure to start phasing out the most harmful substances immediately, and to change the nation's laws to protect children from highly toxic chemicals."

But shouldn't it be incumbent on the manufacturers to inform the public of the ingredients in toys and other products and to not put toxic chemicals in the toys in the first place?

Organizations that we partner with think so, and that is why they are working hard around the country to pass laws and policies that will restrict the use of the worst-of-the-worst chemicals, encourage the substitution of safer alternatives, and create databases which inform parents when toxic chemicals are used in products.

"If the Toy Industry focused on ensuring all TIA members were making their products without toxic chemicals, then none of them would be affected by the legislation they oppose," says Bobbi Chase Wilding, Deputy Director for Clean and Healthy New York.²

And there have been successes. For example, Hasbro reformulated their product line to eliminate all use of BPA in plastic toys in response to Maine's requirement to report BPA use in toys. But no progress on policies to phase out toxic chemicals has happened without the Toy Industry Association opposing these actions every step along the way.

Throughout the country, the toy industry has aggressively opposed every effort by states to restrict toxic chemicals in products. Next to the chemical industry, the toy lobby has been the most consistent and aggressive opponent of chemical safety requirements.

Consider these actions the Toy Industry Association has taken in the states in 2011 alone:

- The TIA reportedly took positions on 33 bills in the New York State Assembly. Many of the bills had no impact on toy makers and included laws regarding lighting, furniture and appliances.

- They aggressively lobbied in Maine in a failed campaign to gut the Kids Safe Products Act. The law was passed in 2008 by an overwhelmingly bipartisan margin, making it one of the strongest toxic chemical safety measures in the nation. The legislative attack by TIA and the chemical industry was rejected, and the Kids Safe Products Act was not only fine-tuned, but strengthened.³

"Shamefully, the toy industry has embraced a toxic alliance with the chemical industry," stated Mike Belliveau from the Environmental Health Strategy Center. "Rather than joining other downstream industries committed to reporting chemical use and avoiding dangerous chemicals, the toy industry has become widely recognized as an apologist for the toxic chemical industry."

Later in the legislative session, the toy industry lobby tried to attach an industry exemption to another bill, but was rebuffed again. Then, during the rulemaking process to implement the changes to the law, the Toy Industry Association (along with the ACC) tried to carve out an exemption from reporting or restrictions on BPA in toys by claiming that the chemical was a "contaminant" (meaning that it occurs in the toys naturally, and is not added through their processes). The state agency rejected the toy industry bid to hide its use of BPA-containing plastics through such a loophole.⁴

The TIA spent thousands upon thousands of dollars in Washington State lobbying against the Children's Safe Products Act Reporting Rule, which would require that manufacturers declare toxic chemicals that are present in toys. Their work against the rule included not wanting to report phthalates—toxic chemicals that reside in plastic toys and mimic hormones in the body, wreaking havoc in the development of small children.⁵ In another example of TIA's alliances with the rest of the chemical industry, the Washington State TIA lobbyist also represented Citizens for Fire Safety—the recently disbanded industry front group that worked for the chemical industry against toxic flame retardant bills.

The main message that the Toy Industry brings when they approach legislators: These regulations are going to be too costly, they're going to force us to stop selling toys in your state, and you should leave it up to us to perform our own internal safety assessments which will take into consideration your child's safety. To be clear: According to its own reports, the traditional Toy Industry is a $21.2 billion a year industry and it has held fairly steady during the most recent economic downturn.⁶

The TIA's economic threats are proving to be unfounded. The toy industry has not pulled out of any state where laws against toxic chemicals have been enacted, and life seems to go on when chemicals are banned. The best example we have of this is Europe, where six worst-of-the-worst toxic chemicals were banned from toys several years ago, with no apparent negative impact to the EU. When discussing economic impact, we must also take into consideration the cost of unhealthiness to the economic bottom line. Several of the toxic chemicals we have mentioned are considered possible obesogens, for instance, and the economic cost of obesity is $270 billion per year in the United States alone.

In Washington State, the Toy Industry Association did not get their way. Just this month, manufacturers began having to report 66 toxic chemicals contained in toys to the state, and the database has been released to the public. This is the first time in history that such a database is being required, and it's seen as a huge victory against the Toy Industry Association and other industry groups.

"These chemicals are on the list because they are not good for kids' health. Manufacturers shouldn't want to be using these chemicals in the first place," explains Ivy Sager-Rosenthal of the Washington Toxics Coalition.⁷

The work the states have done to require more reporting, and more chemical regulation within the toy industry is commendable, and we look forward to watching it continue through more and more states. It is critical that we continue to protect the health of the most vulnerable population that we have: our children.

References

¹ One in Three Children's Toys Tested by www.HealthyToys.org Found to have Significant Levels of Toxic Chemicals Including Lead, Flame Retardants, and Arsenic, Dec 03 2008.
² The Other Toy Story: Toy Industry Lobbies Against Laws to Make Toys Safer, Feb 14 2012.
³ Maine strengthens safer chemicals law
⁴ Maine DEP Gets it Right in Rules to Protect Children’s Health from Toxic Chemicals
⁵ New state law requires chemical data on certain children's products, Aug 22 2011.
⁶ Toy Industry Association, Rolling Data (pdf)
⁷ Database reveals toxic chemicals used to make toys and other products, Sep 24 2012.

Updated October 13, 2011

Toxic flame retardants are one of the most common sources of toxicity in our homes and our lives. They are used on everything from computer casings, to furniture, to carpeting, to children's products. "The problem is, they don't stay put," says Rebecca Williams, a reporter for The Environment Report¹. "They leach out of products and they get into us."

Health concerns surrounding these chemicals—including everything from cancer to thyroid issues to reproductive harm—are serious enough that many groups including fire professionals are interested in getting toxic flame retardants out of our daily lives.

From a letter² released by the International Association of Fire Fighters:

"Many studies involving fire fighters exposed to these and other toxic gases during active fire fighting, overhaul, and long term exposure from these chemicals penetrating protective gear, have found that fire fighters have a much greater risk of contracting cancer, heart and lung disease, and other debilitating diseases. While we support the concept of flame retardant chemicals, there are [safer] alternatives."

When we talk about toxic flame retardants on Safer States, we are referring to a whole group of chemicals that are used on household products for the purposes of slowing down combustion. Unlike some chemicals (cadmium, for example), the concern isn't with a specific single chemical. Instead, we reference a group of chemicals intended for a single purpose, nearly all of which have been shown to have harmful effects on children, fire fighters, fish and wildlife.

In this post, we will be discussing a variety of flame retardants, particularly PBDE flame retardants and toxic Tris flame retardants. PBDEs are a class of flame retardants formerly used in many household products. Tris flame retardants are used in baby products, couches, car seats, and other household items. Several flame retardants have been banned or phased out in the United States, but others are still used as ingredients in every day products. You can see a more specific glossary of flame retardants at the end of this post.

Banning toxic flame retardants doesn't mean they disappear.

Even when banned or eliminated, toxic flame retardants can stick around in our environment. Many of them are considered to be persistent, bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) which means that they build up in our systems, stick around in the environment for years and migrate broadly beyond national boundaries.

The pervasiveness of toxic flame retardants was recently illustrated in a California study that revealed high levels of flame retardants in second-trimester California women—despite the fact that some of the most harmful of the flame retardants (penta-BDE and octa-BDE) were banned in California in 2004. "Despite the ban, blood levels of flame retardant chemicals are two times higher for California residents than for people in the rest of the country," says Ami Zota, one of the study authors³. Because flame retardants are meant to be difficult to breakdown, it can take decades for levels in the environment and people to decrease, making it even more critical that they are phased out of commerce quickly.

Moms & fire professionals are in favor of banning toxic flame retardants.

Given mounting evidence of health concerns, environmental health advocates, fire professionals and many other affected groups are interested in replacing toxic flame retardants with safer alternatives. In August of this year, moms in 17 states—-from coast to coast--joined together in a "National Day of Action" to:

1. Raise awareness about toxic flame retardants and other chemicals of concern, and
2. To encourage their members of Congress to pass legislation in favor of toxic chemical reform.

Fire fighters and other safety personnel have emerged as strong advocates for the phase-out of toxic flame retardants in certain applications in favor of safer alternatives—many of them believe that the health threats from toxic flame retardants outweigh the arguable benefits. Fire fighters in each state where toxic flame retardant bills have been introduced have gone on record to support the restriction of flame retardants⁴.

Health Concerns associated with Toxic Flame Retardants

• Researchers have found that women with high levels of PBDEs in their blood are more likely to have lower birth weights than women with low levels of PBDEs. "There is a growing body of evidence that PBDE exposure impacts human health, and not a lot of evidence that these chemicals are making our homes safer from fires," remarks UC Berkeley professor Brenda Eskenazi who led the study, "Other chemical flame retardants are replacing the old PBDEs, but more information is needed about exposure to the newer chemicals. More attention should also be given to finding non-chemical approaches to achieving fire safety."⁵
• Studies have shown that even brief exposure to toxic flame retardants can affect thyroid hormone levels. The thyroid is responsible for body growth and development, and metabolism in the body—critical functions especially for developing fetuses and children. Decreases in thyroid levels at critical periods of growth can disrupt brain development.⁶
• Flame retardant build-up is often demonstrated in household dust, and studies have shown that high toxic flame retardant levels in household dust are associated with high levels in the inhabitants of that home. High levels of toxic flame retardants in households have been associated with lower-quality sperm in men⁷, lower IQ in children⁸ and lowered fertility in women⁹.
• Research shows that tris flame retardants are probable carcinogens. TDCPP, used many years ago in children's pajamas, was eliminated for this reason. However, TDCPP is one of the most commonly used flame retardants in other products.

Whack-A-Mole with our health: Ban one chemical and a new one pops up.

Environmental advocates who are trying to protect vulnerable populations from toxic chemicals are confronted with a tricky challenge: Flame retardants run the gamut of chemical compounds and specific combinations of chemicals.

When one toxic flame retardant is outlawed, another pops up with health effects that are harmful to children and vulnerable populations, creating a game of whack-a-mole with the chemical industry substituting the banned chemicals with the latest toxic chemical. If one chemical is banned, "The industry moves a few molecules and calls it a new product," says Kathy Curtis, the policy director of Clean New York.

Industry fear-mongering on the state level to defeat safe products bills.

The industry that wants to keep flame retardants in American products is motivated by big dollars. Flame retardants are a large chunk of the multi-billion dollar chemical industry in the United States. An article in Salon¹⁰ last year details the industry efforts against flame retardant bills. Calling their front-group "Citizens for Fire Safety," industry moves from state to state trying to defeat laws protecting children from toxic flame retardants.

In 2008, then California Assemblyman Mark Leno worked on passing a bill to ban toxic flame retardants in the state (which was defeated). When talking about industry efforts, Leno remarked "I should have expected it... This is about large quantities of money, so of course they are going to protect every inch of their turf. We were out-staffed 10 to one. They are disseminating and spreading fear every step they take, showing images of buildings going up in flames, with the implication that I wanted to set children on fire."

Bans on specific chemicals are the first step.

Several states have been successful in banning specific toxic flame retardants. Years ago, some PBDEs were outlawed in specific states. Deca-BDE was widely considered to be one of the worst PBDEs, and many states moved to ban it. Maine, Vermont, Oregon and Washington have specific bans on the books. In Washington State, the law could not go into place until safer alternatives were identified that met fire safety standards. The state successfully identified those alternatives, proving that it is possible to create household products free from certain toxic flame retardants¹¹.

These bans, and promises of more state bans across the nation, put significant pressure on manufacturers, and in December 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) negotiated with three major manufacturers to phase out Deca-BDE throughout the United States, effectively phasing out mainstream use of Deca-BDE for certain applications throughout the U.S.

Recently, New York State passed a law banning TCEP, a toxic tris flame retardant, from products intended for use by children under three including baby toys, car seats, crib mattresses and strollers. In a recent scientific study, TCEP was found in 17% of foam baby products tested.

Update, 10/12/2011: Within a couple weeks of the original publication date of this post, the Carcinogen Identification committee of California, a scientific committee appointed by the California Governor, moved to regulate TDCPP by adding it to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals. This move means that chlorinated Tris may be listed on products in California as a chemical which is known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. (More info.)

Comprehensive bills are the secret to banning toxic flame retardants.

Bans on specific toxic flame retardants are helpful, especially when the targets are the worst-of-the-worst chemical compounds such as toxic tris and PBDEs; these specific bans often help to move the chemicals out of the population quickly and decisively.

However, the real key to banning toxic flame retardants is a comprehensive policy which identifies the worst-of-the-worst chemicals, and sets in place a plan for phase-out in favor of safer alternatives. The states have seen that using the laser-focus of an individual chemical ban hand-in-hand with sweeping comprehensive policy is the most effective way to reduce toxic exposure to adults and little ones alike.

Comprehensive bills like those passed in Maine and Washington state help to make institutional changes on a broad level in the states: they lay out a plan for the identification of toxic chemicals, create incentives for choosing safer alternatives, and often work proactively with retailers to be sure that the safest possible products are being sold there.

On the federal level, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) should be overseeing the release of these chemicals into consumer products, but it is decades-old, outdated, and does not require testing of chemicals or a "proof of safety" test for chemicals before they are used. Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 which would overhaul TSCA. The proposed bill was introduced into the U.S. Senate in April, and to date has not progressed further.

We are looking forward to the rest of the 2011-2012 legislative session when many more states will be pushing hard against these ubiquitous chemicals. While TSCA reform is still being worked out on the federal level, the states are picking up the slack by banning toxic flame retardants in more and more products. And much in the way that bisphenol-A bans are rolling across the country, we look forward to the big day when so many states are banning toxic flame retardants that a sea-change occurs on the manufacturing level for all Americans.

Resources

¹Is fire safety putting us at risk? The Environment Report, 2010.
²Letter to LeRoy Wilkison from the International Association of Firefighters (pdf). January 22, 2008.
³Study finds high levels of flame retardant chemicals in california pregnant women. University of California San Francisco, August 10, 2011.
⁴CFC SB 772 fact sheet: Toxic flame retardants and fire safety alternatives. Consumer Federation of California.
⁵Flame retardants linked to lower birthweight babies. UC Berkeley News Center, August 30, 2011.
⁶Thyroid hormone understanding branches out: Insights into PBDE impacts on brain development. Environmental Health Perspectives, February 1, 2011. Disruption of Thyroid hormone receptor–mediated transcription and thyroid hormone–induced Purkinje Cell dendrite arborization by polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Environmental Health Perspectives, February 2011.
⁷House dust concentrations of organophosphate flame retardants in relation to hormone levels and semen quality parameters. Environmental Health Perspectives, March 2010.
⁸Prenatal exposure to PBDEs and neurodevelopment. Environmental Health Perspectives, May 2010.
⁹PBDE concentrations in women’s serum and fecundability. Environmental Health Perspectives, May 2010.
¹⁰The poison crib: When protective chemicals harm. Salon, June 10, 2010.
¹¹Alternatives to Deca-BDE in televisions and computers and residential upholstered furniture.State of Washington, Department of Ecology, January 2009.
¹²Flame Retardants TDCP and TCEP (pdf). National Resources Defense Council, July 2010.

In 2010, dozens of laws were passed in statehouses and localities to protect children, families and workers from toxic chemicals. The laws ranged the gamut from bisphenol-A (BPA) restrictions, to laws promoting green chemicals in state buildings, to comprehensive laws moving toward a healthier, greener approach to chemicals in particular states.

As different as these laws were, nearly every one shared something in common: loud and highly paid opposition from the chemical industry, an industry which is not willing to yield to public outcry and scientific evidence and move toward a safer lifecycle for products which we use every day.

The chemical industry is an incredibly influential force in the United States, and around the world. The loudest voice in the industry is its trade association, the American Chemistry Council (ACC). It represents over 150 of the largest chemical manufacturers in this country, including the $46 billion chlorine industry and the plastics industry which touches every part of our lives, provides $379 billion in annual shipments and employs 850,000 workers .

Some of the largest companies in the chemical industry are BASF, Bayer Group, DuPont and Dow Chemical. Most of the large players produce chemicals which are used in the production of other products. For instance, among thousands of products, BASF makes dyes used in clothing manufacture, fungicides and insecticides used in farming, coatings and solvents used in electronics, foams used in construction and appliances, and even acid that is used to disinfect kegs and barrels in breweries and wineries.

Peruse the websites of any of these global companies, and you will see a lot of real estate given to the environment and chemical reform. On the front page of the ACC's site, you see reference to their "10 Principles for Modernizing TSCA," the main law governing federal regulation of toxic chemicals that was passed in 1976 and is hopelessly out of date. The truth, however, is organizations like the ACC push against health advocates every step of the way. They may say they are interested in reform, but only as it relates to their bottom line.

The methods that the chemical industry uses to overturn efforts to make a safer, healthier environment for our families fall into four categories which will be discussed here:

• Scare tactics and economic threats,
• Out-of-state pushes against toxics reform,
• Gutting state laws in favor of federal law, and
• High-priced lobbyists, powerful friends, backroom deals.

Tactic #1
Scare tactics and economic threats.

In September 2010, a law banning BPA from children's containers in California was set to pass. It had passed the California State Assembly and Senate, and was just back in the Senate for a final procedural vote.

BPA is a chemical that is used in hard plastics and epoxy resins, and is nearly ubiquitous in modern life; it's found in food containers, children's toys, register receipts and even toilet paper. BPA is a hormone-disrupting chemical, which means that it can mimic or block hormones and disrupt the body's normal functions. Hundreds of scientific studies have tied BPA to health concerns including reproductive issues, miscarriage, diabetes and obesity, cancer, behavioral impacts in young children, and brain development.

In a last minute push, highly paid lobbyists from industry misled lawmakers with claims that production plants would close, that a BPA ban would cause an infant formula shortage, and that alternative products were not available -- all untrue. At the time, BPA had already been banned in seven states (now nine), Canada, the European Union, many localities around the country, and many big corporations producing children's containers had already eliminated BPA from products.

Everything about the defeat of the California BPA ban was extremely strategized, and nothing was left to chance. According to The Breast Cancer Fund, an organization which worked extremely hard on the bill's passage, industry meeting notes leaked in a 2009 documented plans to thwart the California legislation by "befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process and use "fear tactics" to scare the public into opposing the BPA ban.

"I hate to say it, but after an intensive and expensive lobbying campaign by the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, it looks like big money has trumped the health of babies in the California legislature today."

- Gretchen Salter, Breast Cancer Fund

The way that industry tells the story, bans such as the California BPA ban harm all companies that are affected. But the truth is companies that listen to the public outcry against toxic chemicals and use it to their advantage often thrive. Klean Kanteen, a California-based company which produces metal bottles for beverage transport and consumption, says that their sales have increased more than 800% since the health risks of BPA were reported in mainstream media. Fighting the idea that banning BPA is unequivocally bad for business, founder Jeff Creswell wrote in the Capitol Weekly:

"I tell our story to make a point. Klean Kanteen, along with many other purveyors of BPA-free products, have experienced considerable growth because consumers are looking for alternatives to products with chemicals known or even suspected of causing health concerns. We are examples of the economic promise of the clean, green industries that are California's future."

- Klean Kanteen founder Jeff Creswell

Tactic #2
Out of state pushes against toxics reform.

One of the most insidious ways that the chemical industry and its allies push against state toxics reform is to descend upon a particular state, pushing legislators and wielding influence as outsiders. As we go to press, this scenario is playing out in dramatic manner in Maine.

In 2008, Maine passed the "Kid Safe Products Act," one of the strongest toxic chemical laws in the nation. It requires the state to adopt a list of priority chemicals which are harmful to children, and manufacturers to disclose those chemicals and move toward safer alternatives. Under this law, Maine's Board of Environmental Protection recently recommended the phase-out of BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, a restriction that is common among BPA laws throughout the country.

Upon his election as Governor of Maine in November 2010, Paul LePage, a Tea Party-backed Republican, quickly set his sights on repealing the Kid Safe Products Law and questioning whether BPA needed to be removed from children's products. In a strange and amazing turn of events, Governor Le Page stated, to the outrage of many in the health community, "The only thing that I've heard is if you take a plastic bottle and put it in the microwave and you heat it up, it gives off a chemical similar to estrogen. So the worst case is some women may have little beards." This prompted Mike Belliveau, executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center, to respond, "It displays shocking ignorance for the science and a callous disregard for children's health."

A piece published by the Maine Public Broadcasting Network in January 2011 reported that most of the opposition to the Kid Safe Products Act, and to the BPA repeal was coming from out-of-state chemical companies and trade associations. And while the Governor is insisting that the repeals are coming at the behest of in-state business owners, an investigation by The Boston Phoenix tells a different story: the lobbyists and the interests of large trade groups have the ear of the governor, and even are providing documents which are being passed off as being from the administration.

"I think you can safely say that there is unprecedented access for big out-of-state companies to influence legislative proposals in the state of Maine … Repealing these laws will not create a single job in Maine. There isn't a single Maine businessperson who says, 'you know, the reason I can't grow my business is that law that gets brominated fire retardants out of mattresses or BPA out of babies' bottles.' It's ludicrous."

- Matt Prindiville, Project Director, Natural Resources Council of Maine.

In a statement on February 17, partner organization Environmental Health Strategy Center stated that not a single Maine company stood up in opposition to the Kid Safe Products Act in 2008 or against the BPA rules adopted in 2010. They say, "The exclusive opposition to these protective laws comes from the chemical industry including Dow Chemical who manufactures BPA and the national chemical manufacturers trade association and toy industry giants including Hasbro and Mattel which want to continue to sell toys to Maine parents without disclosing which ones contain BPA."

The attention to state laws by out-of-state interests is playing out across the country. Those who are trying to pass toxics laws in any municipality or state across the country can be sure that they will garner the laser-focused attention of the chemical industry.

Tactic #3
Gut state laws in favor of federal law: State pre-emption.

Many of the pleas that you'll see the chemical industry make to the government boil down to a single idea: instead of following state laws, they want the federal government to pass an over-arching toxic chemicals law that would overrule all the state laws and render them powerless. This is called "state preemption" and has been used by all manner of industry including the tobacco industry fighting smoking laws, the food industry fighting state labeling or ingredient laws, the pesticide industry fighting local farming laws, the beverage industry fighting local alcohol laws, and the firearms industry fighting local gun laws.

State preemption is a tactic usually employed by industry appealing to the courts or the federal government because they find state laws too restrictive, and they want to abide by a looser national law. Of course the industries would not be in favor of state preemption if the federal law were stricter than the state laws. But the truth is that the federal laws are currently much looser.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the law that oversees toxic chemical regulation on the federal level, is over 30 years old. While laws attempting to overhaul TSCA were introduced last Congressional session, and are being reintroduced this session, reform on the state level is moving much more quickly than reform on the federal level.

For over twenty years, the states have been working to ban chemicals that the federal government hasn't: mercury, cadmium, BPA, formaldehyde and toxic flame retardants just to name a few chemicals. Additionally, the states have been passing comprehensive toxics laws which change the entire approach on a state level to promoting safe chemical alternatives, green chemistry, and phasing out toxic chemicals. To gut these laws in favor of likely less protective federal laws is a major step backward for the health of kids and families.

Tactic #4
High-priced lobbyists, powerful friends, backroom deals.

How can industry opponents to toxics laws be in so many places at once, fighting all the laws that are trying to follow public opinion and regulate toxics? The answer is easy: lots and lots of money.

In many states, the ACC employs local lobbyists to represent their interests. It's hard to estimate nationwide total amount of money being spent against toxics reform, but we know the opposition is bankrolled in the millions. For instance, the opposition to the California BPA ban was reportedly funded to the tune of $5 million, and state partner organizations are seeing expenditures in the hundreds of thousands of dollars each time they bring a toxics reform bill to the legislature.

And the ACC often calls in friendly organizations like the Grocery Manufacturers' Association, the Toy Industry Association, and others to wield money and influence against toxics laws and leverage even more money against reform.

Often the "friends" called in to fight against toxics reform aren't even directly affected by the proposed regulation. In Washington State this year, a Children's Safe Products Bill has been proposed that would help get toxic chemicals out of children's toys and products, the most vulnerable population in our society.

One of the groups loudly voicing opposition to the Children's Safe Products Bill is the Grocery Manufacturers Association -- the trade group that represents large grocery chains and that would not be affected by the proposed law in any significant way.

Why does the opposition to the trouble of calling in their friends, making backroom deals, and spending so much money? They are protecting the production of trillions of dollars of chemicals being pumped into our lives -- BPA alone is produced at the level of 6 million pounds a year. And the United States currently does not require government testing of these chemicals, so by the time BPA is being produced at such an amount, it is a major undertaking to tap into innovative green chemistry research and development then shift their operations toward safer alternatives.

Compare this to the organizations working hard for reform, and to carry out the will of the public who wants more assurance that their products are safe: non-profits, advocacy groups and volunteer groups which are typically run on a shoestring.

In all of this hard news about the seemingly insurmountable chemical industry, there is great news. More and more laws protecting families are being passed on the state level every year, and in landslide votes by legislators from both sides of the aisle, as shown by last year's Healthy States Report. The laws that are being passed are creating a wave of changes that the chemical industry can't ignore.

The grassroots support for toxic chemical reform is incredibly strong. Parents want to protect their children from endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and legislators are often hearing the yells of their constituents over the tactics employed by the chemical industry.

By Mike Belliveau, Executive Director for the Environmental Health Strategy Center.

I was pleased to see yet another display of bipartisan state leadership aimed at preventing disease, disability and environmental damage from toxic chemicals. Today, the leading coalition of state agency environmental directors, the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), announced adoption of a resolution calling for strong federal legislation to fix our broken chemical safety system. In exercising state leadership, they proved the case for a new federal partnership with the states to ensure chemical safety.

Current law, the federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), has failed miserably in protecting human health and the environment from the tens of thousands of chemicals used in everyday products and materials. That’s why the Environmental Health Strategy Center has joined the national Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition to campaign for a comprehensive TSCA overhaul.

The ECOS call-to-action mirrors many of the same policy elements advanced by the pending federal legislation, H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 sponsored by Reps. Bobby Rush (D-IL) and Henry Waxman (D-CA). These include support for new provisions of law that:

• Hold the chemical industry accountable for proving that existing and new chemicals are safe;
• Provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with ample new authority to determine the safety of chemicals and to take action to restrict chemicals that are unsafe or pose an imminent hazard; and
• Preserve the authority of the states to freely regulate chemicals in order to protect their citizens and environment.

Federal policy makers would do well to follow the recommendations of the states to strengthen the pending safer chemicals legislation in two additional ways:

1. ECOS supports new EPA authority to impose interim conditions and take expedited action on chemicals before completing full safety determination, when data or information indicate there are significant concerns.

H.R. 5820 requires EPA to take similar action but only for one group of the worst-of-worst chemicals – the PBTs, which pose a triple threat because they are Persistent (long-lived in the environment), Bioaccumulative (build up to high levels in the food web including human breast milk) and Toxic (harmful to living things). For example, mercury, lead and the PBDE flame retardants are notorious PBTs that have been targeted for elimination by the states to prevent otherwise inevitable harm.

Section 32 of H.R. 5820 would require EPA to identify PBTs to which people are exposed and impose immediate restrictions to reduce human exposure to the greatest extent practicable. That makes a lot of sense and would place the federal government in good company with the U.S. states and international community who are working to phase out PBT chemicals.

However, the ECOS recommendation better matches the science and effective chemical policy track record of the states. Significant concerns about any chemical should trigger authority to act on early warnings to reduce use of and exposure to the chemical, not just PBTs.

Some worst-of-worst substances are not PBTs, although exposure persists from widespread use and daily contact with products. For example, available data support interim action to restrict uses of bisphenol A, the notorious hormone disrupting chemical used in paper receipts and food can linings, and the phthalates, used in vinyl plastic and personal care products.

Comprehensive safer chemical laws passed in Maine and California provide similar authority for state governments to take action on specific uses of chemicals in products based on certain findings. Washington state and Minnesota have passed safer chemical laws that also begin to establish a comprehensive system for regulation of chemicals in products, and similar legislation is pending in other states.

For example, the State of Maine has proposed a rule to restrict the use of BPA in all reusable food and beverage containers under its chemical policy, popularly referred to as the Kid Safe Products Act.

2. ECOS calls for federal policy that authorizes EPA to require an assessment of safer alternatives for any priority chemical, including PBTs and very persistent, very bioaccumulative chemicals (whose toxicity may not yet be well understood).

Section 35 of the House bill defines what makes up a “safer alternatives assessment,” providing useful guidance to the states and businesses on standard criteria and a process for identifying safer alternatives to chemicals of concern. However, H.R. 5820 fails to authorize EPA to require an alternatives assessment, as recommended by ECOS. Instead, its leave the discretion with the chemical industry to decide whether or not they wish formally assess the availability of safer alternatives.

If a manufacturer shows that a new chemical intended for the market is a safer alternative for a specific use of an existing chemical, the federal legislation provides for expedited review and approval of the new chemical. H.R. 5820 also provides for less priority attention of existing chemicals that are shown to be safer alternatives for specific uses of other chemicals. Further, when restrictions on chemicals are proposed by EPA, a manufacturer can obtain a temporary exemption for a specific critical use of the chemical if a safer alternative is not yet available, under Section 6(e) of the bill. In each instance, a safer alternatives assessment will provide the essential proof necessary to meet the test.

Federal policymakers would do well to heed the ECOS recommendation to empower EPA to require safer alternatives assessments at its discretion, rather than leave it up to the self-interest of the chemical industry.

Lastly, the ECOS resolution has made the compelling case for a federal-state partnership for managing chemical safety in the United States. Consistent with the proposed federal legislation, the states seek a working collaboration with the federal government. They want to share confidential data on chemicals, jointly prioritize ‘hot spots’ where communities are disproportionately exposed to toxic chemicals, and to consult and coordinate on other areas of mutual interest. The states also want and deserve federal funding to assist in carrying out their chemical management activities at the state level.

All these state needs are reflected in both the ECOS resolution and in the legislation’s proposed amendment to Section 28 of TSCA regarding state programs.

State leadership on toxic chemicals has helped drive the debate on federal reform and brought the chemical industry to the table for first time in support of TSCA modernization. The ECOS resolution reflects just the latest example of state leadership on safer chemicals policy.

We should honor the state’s authority and role, and harness the energy of state leadership to finally fix our broken federal chemical safety system.

The state of Maine is looking to ban bisphenol-A (BPA) as the first "priority chemical" in their Kids-Safe Product Act (a law that was passed in 2008). BPA bans are already in place in Vermont, Maryland, Minnesota, Connecticut, Wisconsin and Washington as well as several counties and cities in the United States. This toxic chemical is being banned in many places because of its health effects which harm vulnerable populations like pregnant women, babies and children.

This month, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) is holding public hearings about whether to ban BPA from baby bottles, sippy cups and reusable food and beverage containers that are used by children. The public comment period ends on August 30, and we urge Maine residents to check the bottom of this post for instructions on how to have your voice heard. Next, the bill will go up for a vote by the Maine Board of Environmental Protection, then there will be a vote in the Maine Legislature.

Amanda, a concerned mother in Maine urged for passage of the BPA ban on the Environmental Health Strategy Center's website :

"I ask you to join me as one of the "hopeful moms" (or Dads, or grandparents, or aunties, etc) gaining strength from the successes we’ve had shifting the market away from toxic baby bottles so quickly and expressing your hope that the BEP will take the opportunity of this rulemaking to get BPA out of our kids food too."

By passing a BPA ban, Maine would join Vermont, Maryland, Minnesota, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Washington, New York, and several municipalities throughout the United States in banning BPA in children's products. Yesterday, it was announced that Canada is in the process of adding BPA to its list of toxic substances which would make it the first country in the world to call BPA toxic.

The Biddeford Journal Tribune today stated,

"The BEP should certainly designate BPA as a top priority, after which the Legislature will consider how strictly to regulate it. It’s an early but essential step toward protecting Maine’s children.".

If you are a Maine resident who would like to voice your opinion about the passage of a BPA ban to protect your family, please click through to send a message to the Board of Environmental Protection and encourage them to swiftly pass the proposed ban.

Further reading

• Leader of mothers’ group testifies against using chemical in kids’ stuff. Portland Press Herald, 08/20/10.
• Mothers speak out about controversial chemical. Kennebec Journal, 08/20/10.
• Regulators hear testimony supporting bisphenol-A ban. Associated Press, 08/19/10.

In 2008, Maine passed the "Kids-Safe Products Act," one of the strongest toxic chemical laws in the nation. It requires that the state adopt a list of priority chemicals which are harmful to children and that they be phased out in order to protect this vulnerable population.

A list of 1700 "Chemicals of High Concern" have been identified by the state, and from that list Maine's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will be identifying "Priority Chemicals" at the rate of two per year which are particularly harmful to children. Chemicals identified on this list will be regulated in children's products and manufacturers will be required to disclose the use of these chemicals and move toward safer alternatives.

Maine's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has recommended that Bisphenol-A (BPA) be the first Priority Chemical listed under the new law.

"When it comes to toxic chemicals, it doesn’t get much worse than Bisphenol-A. This chemical is not only dangerous, it is everywhere. From baby bottles to pizza boxes, from canned food to credit card receipts, BPA is getting into our systems and causing serious health effects. We applaud DEP’s proposal to ban BPA from baby bottles and make it Maine’s first Priority Chemical. This will immediately protect children and help consumers get good information about other products that contain BPA."

Mike Belliveau, Executive Director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center

BPA bans are already in place in Vermont, Maryland, Minnesota, Connecticut, Wisconsin and Washington as well as several counties and cities in the United States. Laws are also under consideration in many states including Massachusetts, New York and California.

The banning of BPA as the first priority chemical in Maine will be an excellent first step, and health advocates in the state are looking for even more protection. Steve Taylor, program director at the Environmental Health Strategy Center, told Maine Public Broadcasting, "We're very pleased that the department has proposed bisphenol A as the first priority chemical for immediate action. We do hope the board will consider going farther ... Unfortunately there's a very, very large list of chemicals that are already harming our children. We have been advocating and campaigning for over a year for the department to prioritize a large number of those chemicals and get them out of the products that expose Maine's children." You can listen to the full story below.

The BPA ban will head for a public hearing in August, followed by a vote by the Board of Environmental Protection, and finally a vote in the Maine Legislature. If you are a Maine resident and would like to be apprised of updates and action alerts as the BPA ban progresses, you can sign up with the Environmental Health Strategy Center.

Maine Public Broadcasting, "Maine DEP Recommends Ban on Bisphenol-A".

There has been a lot of toxics news coming from the states lately. The Safer States organizations have been doing an amazing job of protecting their state's citizens through legislation restricting toxic chemicals. Moreover, elected officials have been hearing the message from their voters: we deserve to be protected from toxic chemicals in our lives.

Here's what's happening, state by state:

Alaska

This year's legislative calendar included a ban on Deca-BDE in mattresses and electronics. The bill ultimately failed, but the momentum for the bill was encouraging.

California

The California State Senate has approved a ban on Bisphenol-A (BPA) in baby bottles, sippy cups and food containers. It will now move to the State Assembly. The bill faces strong opposition by the US chemical industry. This bill has been in the California legislature for over a year and was introduced by Senator Fran Pavley.

“Every day, children nationwide are being fed a chemical that alters brain and behavioral function in ways we still don’t fully understand. This mass chemical experiment on our children’s bodies must stop.”

Senator Pavley is also the sponsor of a bill to ban the dangerous metal cadmium from children's jewelry. This bill has passed the State Senate and is headed toward the Assembly. Cadmium is a persistent chemical that builds up in the body. It is associated with birth defects and central nervous system damage in animals, and there is concern that children ingest cadmium by putting jewelry in their mouths which could cause health problems including kidney and bone damage.

Connecticut

A cadmium ban has passed in Connecticut! Upon signing the bill, Governor Rell said “I want to keep Connecticut at the forefront of chemical policy reforms. This law builds on our successes in phasing out toxic chemicals from children’s products – products like lead and Bisphenol-A."

Illinois

Our colleagues at Environment Illinois are working hard to support the passage of a BPA ban and a cadmium ban in Illinois. Illinois residents can ensure passage of the BPA ban in children's food containers by taking action and emailing your legislator.

Maine

Today, the Governor of Maine is signing a law called the Toxics Use Reduction Program. This bill will modernize the 20-year old Toxics Use Reduction Program, and will help to protect Maine's citizens froom the worst-of-the-worst chemicals. It will prioritize chemicals of high concern and will move toward planning and goal-setting to reduce the use of those chemicals.

Maryland

In addition to the passage of their new BPA law, the state of Maryland has passed a law against the harmful chemical Deca-BDE from many consumer applications. Passage of the Deca Bill means that children will be protected from this toxic flame retardant, as well as firefighters who are exposed to the toxic gases while on the job.

Massachusetts

Advocates in Massachusetts are focused on strengthening the BPA regulation that is pending in the Massachusetts Public Health Council.

Michigan

On June 24 & 25, supporters of the PVC-Free schools campaign will be gathering in Detroit to rally at the US Social Forum. If you're attending the forum, please stop by Hart Plaza to meet Betty the Besafe Ducky!

Minnesota

An Omnibus Workforce Development Bill was recently passed in Minnesota which includes a prohibition on cadmium. As you can see, state by state citizens are being protected from this toxic metal. The same law also contains a definition of "green chemistry." We first mentioned this in a post in February. Basically, it means that economic incentives can now be created around green chemistry. It sets the state up for an entire push toward developing products with the least amount of hazardous substances and energy consumption during the development process.

New York

In addition to their hard work on the Child Safe Products Act, advocates in New York have been hard at work on other laws. A law has been passed which prohibits the use of pesticides on school and daycare playgrounds, turf, athletic and playing fields.

Oregon

Oregon's attempt to ban BPA this year failed with a vote of 15 to 15 in the State Senate. Even though the bill didn't pass, it marked great work by a strong cadre of coalition partners who will be ready to fight for BPA another day.

Vermont

Vermont's BPA bill has been signed. It bans the manufacture, sale or distribution of canned infant formula, bottled infant formula, plastic baby containers, and reusable food and beverage containers containing BPA.

Washington

Washington's BPA bill has been signed, which wraps up this update on a positive note. The bill bans bisphenol-A from baby bottles, sippy cups, children's dish ware and sports bottles.

Earlier this month the President's Cancer Panel, a panel of doctors who serve as a medical advisory committee to the President, released a report recommending that Americans take action in order to reduce cancer risk in their lives.

The recommendations include avoiding pesticides in foods, filtering water, and avoiding Bisphenol-A (BPA) and phthalates in order to decrease cancer risk.

As the news spread through the Safer States Coalition, states began to respond in support of the Panel report, and in favor of the passage of a strong Safe Chemicals Act.

In the Baltimore Sun, Jenny Levin of Maryland PIRG co-wrote an op-ed with Brenda M. Afzal, a health professional, explaining the importance of getting the Safe Chemicals Act right:

This legislation should immediately phase out the most hazardous chemicals, including PBTs (persistent, bio-accumulative toxins). Lead, for instance, is present in most brands of lipstick, posing a danger for pregnant women or even young children playing dress-up. In addition to lead, PBTs such as mercury (present in light bulbs and power plant emissions, for example) and formaldehyde should be phased out of commerce except for critical uses.

By ensuring a safer, less toxic environment, we can improve our health and well-being while also reducing the costs borne by our health care system. We should seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve our quality of life and reduce the burdens placed on families struggling with chronic disease. Let's get it right.

Maryland advocates have been working hard to protect the state's most vulnerable populations, and passed a BPA ban this year and a ban on the toxic flame retardant DecaBDE, but all states need the backbone of a strong federal toxics policy to depend on.

An editorial in the Bangor Daily News urged federal leadership in protecting Americans from cancer due to toxic chemicals in light of the assessment by the President's Cancer Panel. Quoting Margaret Kripke, an immunologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (and a President's Cancer Panel appointee), the editorial said:

Leadership on these concerns must come at the federal level. Dr. Kripke stressed that children are most vulnerable for such environmental cancers. “It’s very, very important to protect children,” she said. That’s a message that must be heeded.

The states are joining together to make their voice known to decision-makers in Washington, DC. In December, the Safer States outlined the critical principles for reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act. And in April, many state legislators signed on to a letter (PDF) urging EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to use her position to ensure that effective TSCA reform takes place, and to recognize the important role of states in innovation, implementation and enforcement of toxic chemical reform.

Last week, the President's Cancer Panel -- a panel of doctors originally appointed by President Bush -- released a damning report underlining the acute need for stronger toxics laws.

The report, which was submitted to President Obama before it was released to the public on May 6, asks the President "to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our nation's productivity, and devastate American lives."

In addition to recommendations such as avoiding pesticides in food and filtering water, the report also advises that Americans avoid BPA and phthalates in order to decrease cancer risk.

This is in line with what science is telling us: BPA harms vulnerable populations like babies, children, and pregnant women by increasing risk for cancer and endocrine disruption. And those with high exposure to phthalates are at greater risk for cancer, fetal development issues, and problems with reproductive development.

In January, a report was released by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families which underlined the economic reasons for toxics reform: if exposure to toxic chemicals is reduced, Americans will be healthier and health care costs will be lower.

The 240-page report by the President's Cancer Panel acknowledges the hard work by the states for toxics reform.

"Some states have taken action to fill the regulatory void left by weak Federal regulation of environmental chemicals and other contaminants. California has long been a leader in this regard, but other states likewise are stepping up occupational and environmental protection efforts ... In 2008, both Maine and Washington passed legislation to reduce children’s exposure to toxic chemicals. The Washington Children’s Safe Products Act focuses specifically on eliminating lead, cadmium, and hormone-disrupting phthalates in children’s toys."

Once again, we ask that citizens continue to push for strong state legislation while at the same time supporting legislators who will pass toxics legislations on the federal level. The passage of a solid Safe Chemicals Act by the US Congress will protect vulnerable populations across the country.

Reacting to the report by the President's Cancer Panel, Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times called the document "extraordinary" and said that the report is remarkable in its source: "not from the fringe but from the mission control of mainstream scientific and medical thinking, the President's Cancer Panel."

“Chemicals strike me as a bit like tobacco in the 1960’s: the evidence of danger was growing but not 100 percent conclusive, and regulators were painfully slow to act. What is changing now is that the mainstream medical establishment is embracing the concern that the fringe food and environmental movement has always had. One milestone was the report of the Endocrine Society (the leading group of endocrinologists) last year warning about chemicals that fool the body’s hormonal systems. And another milestone is the new President’s Cancer Panel report. I used to be a skeptic, but I’ve become a convert.”
- Nicholas Kristof, NY Times

Further Reading:
New alarm bells about chemicals and cancer. New York Times, 05/05/10
President's Cancer Panel. Environmental Health News, 05/06/10
President's panel releases groundbreaking report linking toxic chemicals to cancer. Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, 05/06/10.
President's Cancer Panel calls for fundamental shift in chemicals policy. Breast Cancer Fund, 05/06/10.
Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What we can do now (PDF). President's Cancer Panel, 05/06/10.