Safer States: Washington News

Washington State: The Toxic Facts are In

SAFER States — 2013-05-01T00:01:00-07:00

The chemical industry has long said that all of the chemicals in our household products are totally safe—and anyone who believes otherwise is being ridiculously extreme. In fact, they're just silly chemophobes!

But we here at SAFER aren't motivated by baseless extremism or irrational fears—we're motivated by scientific data. And today, the numbers are in.

Thanks to groundbreaking legislation in Washington State, makers of kids' products have to report when they have chemicals that have been flagged as dangerous. And the data have been staggering.

Over 5,000 kids' products in Washington contain toxic chemicals— everything from cadmium to phthalates to flame retardants. And these chemicals are in products with trusted labels—everything from Walmart to the Gap to H&M.

We applaud the manufacturers for reporting these chemicals in Washington—and the other states that are considering similar legislation to address the products sold in their state. We're still working for a federal solution to move these toxic chemicals out of kids' products for good. But for now, we're happy to have the data on hand, so consumers can see what's in their products. Because our concern isn't about extremism or irrationality—it's about the toxic facts.

No More Nasty Surprises

SAFER States — 2013-03-28T17:22:59-07:00

In the absence of strong legislation, finding out about toxics in products can be something of a do-it-yourself endeavor. Consumers depend on voluntary disclosures and their own sleuthing.

So when Graco—a leading manufacturer of high chairs, car seats, strollers and other kids' products—took a stand (pdf) against certain toxic chemicals, concerned parents breathed a sigh of relief.

Unfortunately, all of the parents who rushed out to purchase these toxic-free products learned a hard lesson. According to data filed under Washington State's new disclosure law, Graco's kids products contain tetrabromobisphenol A, or TBBPA, a toxic flame retardant.

TBBPA is categorized as a persistent, bioacccumulative, and toxic chemical (PBT), has been shown to effect thyroid hormone activity, and may effect nervous system function as well.

Washington State is currently considering a bill that would ban certain toxic flame retardants, and prevent them being replaced with other harmful chemicals. We'd love your support for this bill. But the issue is much larger than one chemical, one company, one state.

Graco's toxic kids' products painfully underline the fact that we can't make decisions about our kids' health based on companies' voluntary announcements or concerned consumer sleuthing. We need real reform! Across the country, state governments are considering laws to ban toxic chemicals—including sweeping legislation that ensures bad chemicals aren't just being replaced with other bad chemicals, but that we have a real system in place to assess what makes its way into our products.

Check our tracking site to see what's happening in your state. Let's continue to pass real standards and reform, in the states and on the national stage—and put an end to these nasty surprises!

Your children’s health isn’t the Toy Industry Association’s top priority

SAFER States — 2012-11-13T08:41:43-08:00

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.

States lead the fight against toxic chemicals lurking in cosmetics

SAFER States — 2012-03-21T16:56:08-07:00

Lead, arsenic, cadmium, formaldehyde, mercury. These are some of the toxic ingredients that are found in products that we put on our skin, in our hair, and on our lips that ultimately make it into our bodies where they can wreak havoc with endocrine systems, neural development, reproductive systems and contribute to higher levels of cancer.

These ingredients are unreported and hard to track, even for the most scrupulous consumer. Annie Leonard, who produced The Story of Cosmetics in partnership with The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics said it best: "It turns out the important decisions don't happen when I choose to take a product off the shelf. They happen when companies and governments decide what should be put on the shelves."

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees regulations governing cosmetics. However, regulation is a term used loosely, as manufacturers can use nearly every chemical and ingredient, man-made or natural, in a cosmetic without approval from the FDA.¹

What is considered a cosmetic?

According to the FDA,² the following types of products are seen as cosmetics: skin moisturizers, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup preparations, shampoos, permanent waves, hair colors, toothpastes, and deodorants.

As is the case with many other toxic chemicals (BPA laws, cadmium laws, flame retardants and others) regulation is beginning with the states. While an overhaul of the federal regulations overseeing cosmetics would have to pass through the United States Congress, dodge strong-arming tactics of industry lobbyists, and make it through regulatory translation, a state law or regulation can be implemented within a relatively short period of time, and quickly start protecting residents.

What's lead doing in our lipstick?

Late last year, the FDA published the results of an analysis of hundreds of lipsticks, which found measurable amounts of lead in 400 different lipsticks. Lead is a persistent, bioaccumulative toxic metal, which means that it builds up in our systems and does not break down. It's been associated with neurological effects like seizures and impaired concentration, and with reproductive effects such as miscarriages and reduced sperm count, and is a developmental neurotoxin which may cause significant issues for children.

"Lead is a proven neurotoxin that can cause learning, language and behavioral problems such as lowered IQ, reduced school performance and increased aggression. Pregnant women and young children are particularly vulnerable to lead exposure, because lead easily crosses the placenta and enters the fetal brain where it can interfere with normal development," according to Sean Palfrey, MD, a professor of pediatrics and public health at Boston University and the medical director of Boston's Lead Poisoning Prevention Program.³

As is the case with many cosmetics products, consumers wishing to avoid lead in lipstick would be hard-pressed to do so without eschewing lipstick altogether. "The truth of the matter is a majority of lipsticks on the market, especially those with color additives, will contain some amount of lead," writes Sheila Viswanathan of the GoodGuide's science team.⁴ It gets into lipstick via source materials that contain lead. But there are widely varying amounts of lead, and it's clear that best practices could minimize the amount of lead contamination in lipstick significantly.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, arguing that there is no safe level for lead for children and pregnant women, has sent a letter (pdf) to the FDA requesting the lowest possible limits for lead in lipstick.

Hair straighteners and nail polishes: posing a risk for salon workers.

When Molly Scrutton, a hair stylist in Oregon, started experiencing respiratory and other health issues in 2010, she began to look into the Brazilian Blowout product, a heat-activated straightening chemical used in salons. Scrutton had the product tested and researchers found high levels of formaldehyde in the product, which is an extreme irritant to the eyes, nose and throat.

Two years after the initial findings, the manufacturers of Brazilian Blowout agreed to put a warning on the product about the hazards of formaldehyde and the need to use the product in a well-ventilated area.⁵ However, this only came after California and Oregon took legal action against the company.

Similarly, nail polishes and hardeners contain several toxic chemicals, called the "toxic trio," which present a problem less for women who use them once every couple of weeks, and more for salon workers who are exposed to the chemicals on a daily basis. The toxic trio is a group of three toxic chemicals that are often found in nail products: formaldehyde, toluene which is associated with negative effects to the central nervous system,⁶ and dibutyl phthalate which is associated with endocrine system disruption. Nail salon workers are often young immigrant women, and studies have shown that they have a greater prevalence of respiratory, skin problems and headaches when compared with the general population.⁷

After consumer group pressure, some companies have agreed to remove this toxic trio of chemicals from their products in the past few years. And the state of New York is working to make their removal mandatory with a proposed law, AB 1473, which would prohibit the manufacture, distribution and sale of nail polish and nail hardener containing any of the toxic trio. The law is currently in committee.

Toxic chemical laws around the United States, federal and state laws, need to be in place that can flex and bend to keep chemicals out of our lives.

"Currently, it is nearly impossible to identify the presence of carcinogens, reproductive or developmental toxins on a product's label because companies are not required to list them. So, even if women are armed with knowledge about the potential presence of toxic chemicals, there is virtually no way for them to make informed decisions about the products they buy."

- Michelle Noehren, founder of Connecticut Working Moms.

Proactive state bills could protect the most vulnerable populations from toxic chemicals in cosmetics.

Bills are being proposed in statehouses throughout the country to keep toxic products from getting into consumer products using a process of identifying priority chemicals and encouraging businesses (through incentives or rules) to choose safer alternatives. Connecticut's Senate Bill 274 would address a strategy for getting the worst-of-the-worst chemicals out of children's products. In its current iteration, SB 274 would cover products such as cosmetics intended for children under 12 years of age, phasing toxic chemicals out of children's shampoos, lotions, soaps and toothpastes.

Oregon entertained a bill this legislative session which could have an affect on toxic chemicals in cosmetics. House Bill 4151 would require that products purchased by state agencies be submitted with a transparent list of ingredients and chemicals of concern, and that purchasing decisions factor in this list.⁸ All other things being equal, the state agencies would, under this bill, be required to choose a product that is safer for human health and the environment over one containing chemicals of concern. Like the proposed Connecticut law, Oregon's would begin to set into place a new way of thinking about chemicals of concern, and would provide the legal backup for safer products to be used in lieu of unsafe ones.

This will prove to be a big year for makers of children's personal care products, as well as parents and policymakers in Washington State. Beginning August 2012, manufacturers of personal care products, including cosmetics, intended for children will be required to disclose whether products contain any of the 66 chemicals that have been identified by the state⁹ as a concern for children's health. These chemicals of concern include chemicals used in cosmetics like formaldehyde, parabens, and 1,4 dioxane.

The new requirements are the result of Washington State's Children's Safe Products Act, which passed in 2008. Advocates and policymakers hope the information on chemical in personal care products will not only help parents make better decisions about what products to use, but also inform policymakers of where problem chemicals are showing up in products so they can implement policies to tackle the problem.

Europe is leading the charge against toxic chemicals in cosmetics.

It is easy to feel defeatist about toxic chemicals in cosmetics. They're so pervasive that it seems maybe it is impossible to get them out of chemicals. But the European Union (EU) is doing an admirable job of protecting citizens in all 25 EU countries from the worst-of-the-worst chemicals in cosmetics. As of January 2003, 1100 chemicals are banned from cosmetics (vs. the United States' ban of 11 chemicals), proving that it is possible to set rules that cosmetics companies have to follow. Many companies are reformulating their product for EU acceptance, but still selling toxic-laden products in countries like the US that allow it.

The best-case scenario for strong cosmetics reform in the United States would be strong action on the federal level, with a standard plan across industries to identify the worst-of-the-worst chemicals and create an efficient strategy for getting them out of our lives quickly. However, as is the case with many chemical laws in this country, the states can take the lead on reforming the cosmetics industry on a state-by-state level until that can happen. Sometimes it takes state reform to prove to the federal branches that change is possible and imperative.

Look to the rest of the states to begin to join with Connecticut, New York, Washington and Oregon to demand change from cosmetic manufacturers, and protect consumers from the rampant use of toxic chemicals in cosmetics.

References

¹ Ingredients prohibited & restricted by FDA regulations. www.FDA.gov, May 30, 2000.
² Cosmetics Q&A: "Personal care products". www.FDA.gov, December 14, 2011.
³ Lead In lipstick. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.
⁴ What Science Makes the Cut. The Good Guide, February 10, 2012.
⁵ Brazilian Blowout agrees to post formaldehyde warning. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, January 31, 2012.
⁶ Toluene fact page. www.FDA.gov.
⁷ At Some Nail Salons, Feeling Pretty and Green. The New York Times, November 10, 2010.
⁸ Fostering green chemistry innovation through healthy state purchasing: Policy concept. Oregon Environmental Council.
⁹ The Reporting list of chemicals of high concern to children. Washington State Department of Ecology.

Report round-up: Toxic chemicals in hidden places

SAFER States — 2012-01-11T09:51:40-08:00

Recent reports show that toxic chemicals are found in every corner of our lives. They are being found in everything from foam in children's products to household cleaners and canned foods. This month, we rounded up some of the most significant studies from our partner organizations. These studies outline the ubiquity of toxic chemicals, and point the way toward solutions.

Fortunately, not all the news is bad. It was discovered that some products don't contain the worst-of-the-worst toxic chemicals, proving that it is possible to create these products with safer alternatives.

And when The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics announced that Johnson & Johnson baby shampoo still contains a harmful, formaldehyde-releasing chemical, the pressure of the news caused Johnson & Johnson to finally agree to remove it. While getting a harmful chemical out of a baby shampoo shouldn't require such action, it is encouraging to see forward motion away from toxic chemicals in some situations.

Washington Toxics Coalition and Safer States
Hidden Hazards in the Nursery (pdf)

Many nursery items contain toxic Tris flame retardants.

In a study released today by the Washington Toxics Coalition and SAFER states we learn that many foam products in children's nurseries contain high levels of toxic flame retardants. These chemicals are associated with health concerns such as lower birth weights, changes in thyroid hormone levels which affect critical metabolic functions, and lower IQ in children.

As we discussed on this site in September, the world of chemical flame retardants is an alphabet soup of names and chemical mixtures. As quickly as some chemicals are being banned, the chemical industry is creating new combinations which skirt the rules.

Washington Toxics Coalition in partnership with Safer States purchased foam-containing baby and children's items from major retailers in six states. They sent samples of the foam to a Duke University research laboratory for testing.

The study found:

Chlorinated Tris (TDCPP) was present in 16 of 20 products. TDCPP is the chemical that was voluntarily removed from children's pajamas in the 1970s because of health concerns.
The level of flame retardants in products was high. The 17 products that contained toxic flame retardants had an average of 3.9% by foam weight.
These flame retardants are not chemically bound to the foam, which means that they escape from the products and get into the air and household dust, endangering the health of all in the home.

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. Several states will be taking up the charge of toxic flame retardants this year, following in the footsteps of states like New York, which banned TCEP, a toxic Tris flame retardant, in 2011.

Women's Voices for the Earth
Dirty Secrets: What's Hiding in your Cleaning Products?

Hidden toxics in household cleaners underline the need for mandatory disclosure.

Women's Voices for the Earth (WVE) commissioned a laboratory to test 20 popular cleaning products for hidden toxic chemicals from the five top companies: Clorox, Procter & Gamble, Reckitt Benckiser, SC Johnson and Son, and Sunshine Makers (Simple Green). The report was particularly looking for undeclared and hidden toxic chemicals in products like all-purpose cleaners, laundry detergents, dryer sheets, air fresheners, disinfectant sprays and furniture polish.

WVE found:

Some of the products tested contained reproductive toxins, carcinogens, and hormone disruptors.
Allergens were detected in several products, with the most being found in fragranced air fresheners.
Some "fragrance-free" products contained allergens.
All toxic chemicals and allergens were undisclosed on the products' labels.

Simple Green, which bills itself as creating "non-toxic, biodegradable and environmentally safer cleaning products" contained several chemicals which cause health issues ranging from allergies to neurodevelopmental problems. One Simple Green product was found to have Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, which is part of the phthalate family associated with health risks such as lowered testosterone and lowered metabolism, which affect obesity rates. Simple Green had previously pledged to remove phthalates from its products.

WVE's findings underline the need for consistent ingredient disclosure, mandated and standardized on the federal level, so that consumers can make informed decisions about their household cleaning products.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
Baby's Tub is Still Toxic

A report that changed the most famous children's shampoo.

In "Baby's Tub is Still Toxic", The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics—a coalition of women's, public health, labor, environmental health, and consumer's rights organizations—raised concerns about in Johnson & Johnson's use of quaternium-15 in the formula for its baby shampoos in the U.S. and some countries (but not in others). Quaternium-15 is of concern to environmental health advocates because it releases formaldehyde into cosmetics products. Formaldehyde is a carcinogenic chemical that is an extreme irritant to the eyes, nose and throat.

In a victory for the campaign, just as the report was being released Johnson & Johnson publicly stated¹ they were phasing out the use of formaldehyde- releasing chemicals from its baby products worldwide. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics also announced that 322 cosmetics companies have met the goals of the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, the Campaign's voluntary pledge to avoid chemicals banned by health agencies outside the U.S. and to fully disclose product ingredients – a pioneering practice in the cosmetics industry².

These major successes by The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics prove that companies sometimes respond when consumer outrage is loud enough. But here's the thing: it took scientific analysis, dedicated dollars, and a coalition to identify the chemical in a baby shampoo. Federal disclosure laws should mandate that companies inform parents of any toxic chemicals in products used on their children.

Breast Cancer Fund
BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food

Another BPA in cans test, same frustrating results.

In November, the Breast Cancer Fund released a report which studied the levels of bisphenol-A (BPA) in cans of food that would typically be used at the Thanksgiving dinner table: cream of mushroom soup, turkey gravy, evaporated milk, creamed corn, canned green beans, canned pumpkin, and cranberry sauce.

The report reinforced previous study results and found harmful amounts of BPA in cans. BPA in cans comes from the epoxy-resin can liner which is used to seal in the food.

The amount of BPA contained in the products which would be combined at a Thanksgiving meal reached levels which have been tied to health effects such as increased risk of breast cancer, reproductive effects, prostrate issues, obesity, and metabolic functions. The levels would be especially harmful to fetuses and infants.

An especially frustrating fact for environmental health advocates is that the levels of BPA varied from state to state and even from can to can across the same product. Del Monte Fresh Cut Sweet Corn, Cream Style had undetectable levels in New York, 4 parts per billion (ppb) of BPA in California, but 221 ppb in Minnesota (the highest result of the test). Moreover, BPA levels were not tied to a predictor such as expiration date. This means that consumers cannot depend on BPA levels to be consistent for a particular product, which makes protecting one's family from BPA all the more difficult without removing canned food from the diet altogether.

A Lot of Work To Do

We at Safer States are often reporting on victories among the states, be it bans on specific chemicals or wide-sweeping policies which encourage safer chemical alternatives. But these reports remind us that we have a long way to go. Until consumer products are safe from toxic chemicals which threaten the health of children and adults alike, our work is not done.

This year, we will continue to push for:

Specific policies which quickly phase out the worst-of-the-worst chemicals. Focus on toxic chemicals like BPA, phthalates and toxic Tris on the state level is the quickest path to getting them out of our lives.
Comprehensive policies on the state level that address the backbone of how we deal with toxic chemicals. States need to set policies into place which dictate how chemical companies manufacture and sell consumer products, and whether those products contain toxic chemicals.
Federal reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which is the law that oversees chemical policies on a federal level and is hopelessly out of date.

In our next post, look for specific ways that advocates around the country will be looking to pass policies in 2012 state legislative sessions that better protect citizens from these toxic threats.

References

¹ Letter from Susan Nettesheim to Lisa Archer Johnson & Johnson, November 16 2011.
² Market Shift: Hundreds of Cosmetics Companies Fulfill Safe Products Pledge Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, November 30 2011.

Obesity: What do chemicals have to do with it?

SAFER States — 2011-11-21T15:13:55-08:00

It's no secret that the United States is battling overwhelming issues with obesity. Current statistics show that 34% of Americans are clinically obese, and 68% are overweight¹, and the federal government has found that a third of American children are obese or overweight.

This is having a tremendous consequence on the nation as a whole, including an estimated economic cost of $270 billion per year in the United States, according to a report² released this year. The costs come in need for medical care and the loss of worker productivity due to death and disability.

So, as a society, we are tackling obesity in all the expected ways. We are encouraging adults and children alike to eat less, eat better, move more, and to live healthy lifestyles. We are reevaluating school lunch programs, insisting that fast food restaurants provide healthy options, and encouraging healthy decisions at every juncture.

But what if some chemicals we were exposed to every day were making us fat? Enter obesogens. Science has recently uncovered that exposure to certain chemicals sets the stage for obesity.

While obesity is a very complicated, multicausal issue, it is becoming increasingly clear that certain chemicals, dubbed obesogens, act upon genes in utero and may predispose some humans to becoming obese.

Bruce Blumberg, developmental biologist at University of California, Irvine, coined the term "obesogens" and is considered to be one of the lead researchers on the subject. "Diet and exercise are insufficient to explain the obesity epidemic, particularly the epidemic of obese six-month-old babies," he says³.

Last year, many scientists and medical doctors joined together to write a letter to First Lady Michelle Obama⁴ regarding her hard work to bring down obesity rates in the United States. Mrs. Obama has launched the "Let's Move" program⁵ which encourages children to eat healthily and get active to maintain a healthy weight. The letter to Mrs. Obama requested that the federal government take a holistic approach to obesity, acknowledge that chemicals are contributing to the obesity epidemic, and consider national chemical policy reform as an essential part of the campaign against childhood obesity.

Obesogens are quickly becoming a high priority among environmental advocates. Last month, our partner organization in Maine, the Environmental Health Strategy Center, hosted a conference focusing on chemicals and their role in obesity and diabetes. The conference included discussions of scientific studies supporting the obesogen hypothesis, and lectures by leading researchers including Dr. Blumberg, and Dr. Mark Mitchell whose work covers obesity In minority and low-income populations⁶.

Which chemicals are obesogens?

Some chemicals act as endocrine disruptors, which means that when they get in our systems they mimic or block hormones in the endocrine system, and interfere with the body's normal regulation of bodily functions. With regard to obesity, endocrine system hormones regulate hunger, fat storage, and the rate at which fat is burned—all important attributes which affect whether you gain or lose weight.

Bruce Blumberg's research⁷ indicates that obesogens can target the growth of a fetus and trigger more fat cells to be produced, setting the fetus up for a lifetime of body fat accumulation.

There are many ways that babies, children and adults are exposed to obesogenic chemicals, and most are chemicals that are commonly found in our households.

Bisphenol-A (BPA). A chemical that is ubiquitous and used to strengthen hard plastics, to make ink adhere to thermal receipt paper, and to coat metal food containers. Approximately six pounds of BPA are produced for every American per year⁸. It is an endocrine disruptor and has been tied to health effects including obesity and diabetes.

Phthalates. A group of chemicals that are used as plasticizers. They are found widely in our homes. Susan Freinkel, in her book Plastic: A toxic love story, lists out some of the places where phthalates are found:

"Phthalates have become so ubiquitous in consumer and industrial products that manufacturers make nearly half a billion pounds of them each year. They're used as plasticizers, lubricants, and solvents. You'll find phthalates in anything made of soft vinyl. But you'll find phthalates in other types of plastic and other materials too, in food packaging and food-processing equipment, in construction materials, clothing, household furnishings, wallpaper, toys, personal-care products such as cosmetics, shampoos, and perfumes; adhesives, insecticides, waxes, inks, varnishes, lacquers, coatings, and paints. They're even used in the time-release coating for medications and nutritional substances."

Phthalates are associated with health effects including lowered testosterone and lowered metabolism, which affect obesity rates.

Organotins. Used in several industrial applications, certain organotins are considered obesogens. In the past, some organotins were used as marine ship paints, and then leached into marine life, water, and was eventually ingested by humans. Their use in marine paint has been phased out, but "incompletely," according to some⁹. Additionally, organotins are used to make plastics, food packages, plastic pipes, pesticides and pest repellents¹⁰. It is thought that organotins interfere with the way that the body forms fat, and causes fat storage to be increased¹¹.

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Found in the environment, PFOA has been detected in household items such as non-stick cookware, stain resistant carpets, and microwave popcorn bags. A study¹² in 2009 showed that low doses of in utero exposure to PFOA in mice resulted in overweight mice in mid-life.

There are other obesogens, and you can see that the breadth of their reach could be overwhelming to a mother who is trying to protect her children from harmful chemicals.

Janet Tauro, board chairman of the New Jersey Environmental Federation, the state chapter of Clean Water Action, and mother of two teenagers summarizes the pressure many parents feel:

"The most fundamental thing a parent can do is make your family home a safe and healthy place to be. That is becoming progressively difficult because so many products in our homes are filled with an alphabet soup of chemicals, even chemicals that are suspected of causing obesity. Shame on the chemical industry for foisting unnecessary chemicals on the American public and contributing to making our kids sick and obese."

We can't possibly expect individuals to be able to keep track of all the harmful chemicals, and how to avoid them. While in a reasonable scenario, we could expect the federal government to vet the chemicals that are in our homes, that is not happening.

The law that oversees chemical policies on a federal level is hopelessly out of date, and an overhaul of that law is stuck in a quagmire in Congress. This year, the Safe Chemicals Act was introduced into Congress which would help to modernize the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act (TSCA) and update it from its 1970s beginnings. The law is outdated enough that there is bi-partisan support for new legislation, and a hearing was held last week to help advance its passage. "I believe there has never been such broad agreement that TSCA needs to be fixed" said Ted Sturdevant, director of the Washington State Department of Ecology. "States are urging Congress to fix this law so we establish a strong federal system that ensures the safety of chemicals in commerce."

In the meantime, the states are taking over protection where possible.

Comprehensive policies can tackle new discoveries like obesogens

In the absence of proper oversight of chemicals, many states are taking a two-pronged approach to getting dangerous chemicals out of the lives of their residents:

Banning the use of individual chemicals to get them out of our homes quickly. This has happened in many states with BPA, cadmium, and certain toxic flame retardants. Single-chemical bans are particularly helpful when the threat to our health and environment is clear, and public outcry about a chemical is loud.
Passing comprehensive policies which take a more holistic approach to chemical use within a state, and affect the lifecycle of chemical use from manufacture to household use to disposal. While single-chemical bans are imperative in some situations, the chemical industry often abandons an outlawed chemical for an equally harmful one, causing environmental advocates to play whack-a-mole with laws, and to constantly be a step behind the chemical industry's games.

What we're learning from obesogens science, and other similar efforts, is that we need to build laws that are flexible enough to respond to new concerns with chemicals. Laws that can bend and adapt as emerging science pushes chemical understanding further, and as the chemical industry constantly innovates.

The best comprehensive laws in the nation:

Allow for constant evaluation of chemicals, and have a process for identifying the worst-of-the-worst chemicals. Several states now have policies in place to identify the worst-of-the-worst chemicals, and some states are working together, as it's not always feasible for an individual state to do the research for the state list.

For instance, Minnesota's "Toxic Free Kids Act," passed in 2009, required the creation of a "Priority Chemicals" list, and allowed for additions to the list dependent on work done by other state agencies including the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Washington Department of Ecology, the United States Department of Health, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the United Nation's World Health Organization, and European Parliament Annex XIV.

By identifying a process for chemicals to be admitted on to priority lists, states are acknowledging the fluidity of chemical manufacture. "If one chemical is banned," says Kathy Curtis, the Executive Director of Clean and Healthy New York, "the industry moves a few molecules and calls it a new product." Priority chemical lists are better able to react when this occurs than are specific chemical bans.

Work hand-in-hand with manufacturers to phase the worst-of-the-worst chemicals out in favor of safer alternatives. States don't have the resources to determine safe alternatives for every harmful chemical that is in our households. So, the best comprehensive laws are creating mechanisms to work hand-in-hand with manufacturers to get harmful chemicals out in favor of safer alternatives. Maine's law has policies in place to require manufacturers to demonstrate alternatives to priority chemicals.

Create incentives for those manufacturers who are doing it right. Many states are discussing financial incentives for manufacturers who use safe alternatives to toxic chemicals. In 2010, Minnesota passed a policy which stated that companies who meet the definition of "green chemistry" (as defined in the Minnesota Toxic Free Kids Act) were eligible to access economic development programs.

Gather information about where chemicals are used, or require reporting of chemical use. Washington's Childrens' Safe Products Act, passed into law in 2008, will now require that any children's products containing any of the Chemicals of High Concern to Children¹³ be reported, beginning in 2012. This provides an incentive to manufacturers to get harmful chemicals out in lieu of safer alternatives before the reporting requirement begins, so that their products are not listed.

Consumers are starting to ask the hard questions about what's in our everyday products, and they are becoming less and less tolerant of the manufacturers' unwillingness to disclose ingredients. Laws like Washington's are acknowledging the need of consumers to have more information.

State chemical laws are not only helping the residents of the state where they are passed; they are sending a message to the federal government that it is possible to regulate chemicals in a successful way. As Delegate James Hubbard, a safe chemicals leader in Maryland, says, "When you start working at the state level then Congress sees that the legislation is possible."¹⁴

The passage of state chemical laws also sends a message to the chemical industry that the time for harmful chemicals in our household products is limited. It's becoming clear that chemicals have health effects that were never originally anticipated; obesity is having major repercussions on society as a whole, and it is imperative that we quash the role that toxic chemicals play on our weight, and the weight of our children.

References

¹ Endocrine disrupting chemicals and the developmental programming of adipogenesis and obesity. Birth Defects Research Part C: Embryo Today, March 2011.
² Cost of obesity approaching $300 billion a year. USA Today, January 12, 2011.
³ Prenatal Exposures Prompt EPA to Re-examine Chemical Regulations New York Times, November 16, 2010.
⁴ Letter to Michelle Obama. The Collaborative on Health and the Environment, March 29, 2010.
⁵ Let's Move.
⁶ Chemical Obesity Conference Proceedings. Colby College, October 14, 2011.
⁷ Endocrine disrupters as obesogens. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, March 29, 2011.
⁸ Chemical profile: Bisphenol A. ICIS, January 14, 2008.
⁹ Identification of environmental obesogens or is the environment making us fat? Bruce Blumberg, PhD.
¹⁰ Tins and compounds, ToxFAQs for Tin Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, August 2005.
¹¹ Enter the obesogen. The Economist, February 22, 2007.
¹² Phenotypic dichotomy following developmental exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in female CD-1 mice: Low doses induce elevated serum leptin and insulin, and overweight in mid-life. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, May 25, 2009.
¹³ The reporting list of chemicals of high concern to children. Department of Ecology, State of Washington.
¹⁴ Our Heroes: Fathers, Grandfathers, Legislators. Safer States, July 7, 2011.

Toxic flame retardants: In our homes, our dust, our lives

SAFER States — 2011-09-22T18:00:00-07:00

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:

Raise awareness about toxic flame retardants and other chemicals of concern, and
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.

Toxic Flame Retardant Glossary


Brominated flame retardants (BFRs)	A large class of chemicals added to materials to inhibit ignition and slow rate of combustion. PBDEs are BFRs. Some BFRs are persistent, bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs), which build up in our systems, persist in the environment for years and do not respect country boundaries. In addition to the BFRs outlined in this piece, there are many others that are used in insulation, electronics and other household products.
Deca-BDE	A commercial mixture of PBDEs used in plastics for electronics like laptops, televisions, and computers. Several states—Maine, Washington, Vermont and Oregon—have passed laws restricting Deca-BDE. Often called "deca."
Octa-BDE	A commercial mixture of PBDEs used in plastics for electronics like laptops, televisions and computers. Octa-BDE is no longer manufactured legally or imported into the United States without first being subjected to an EPA evaluation.
PBDE	Polybrominated diphenyl ethers, the technical term for a class of flame retardant chemicals.
Penta-BDE	A commercial mixture of PBDEs used in polyurethane foam used for furniture cushions. Penta-BDE is no longer manufactured legally or imported into the United States without first being subjected to an EPA evaluation.
Tris	The flame retardants TDCP (Tris (1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate), TDCPP (Tri(2,3-dichloropropyl) phosphate), TCPP (Tris(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate) and TCEP (Tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate) that are generally referred to as "tris." They are found in baby products, furniture, and many other household items. TDCPP was banned from children's sleepwear in 1977 but is still found in many baby products¹².

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.

States join together to get rid of the worst-of-the-worst chemicals

Safer States — 2011-04-29T18:29:02-07:00

Persistent, bioaccumulative toxics, commonly known as PBTs, are a group of toxic chemicals that are joined together by some common features. Common PBTs in our lives include mercury, DDT, cadmium, lead, and several groups of chemicals including PCBs, toxic flame retardants (PBDEs) and dioxins. While these chemicals have many different uses in our lives, and different effects on our health, they are joined together by the following facts:

PBTs are persistent. These chemicals are often used in manufacturing because of the exact features that cause great, great trouble in our environment: they don't break down, and they stay in the environment for a very long time. PCBs, for instance, are man-made mixtures of chlorinated compounds that are used in manufacturing because they are non-flammable, have a high boiling point, and are insoluble in water: all features that make them very difficult to dispose of.
PBTs are bioaccumulative. Once these chemicals are ingested by living creatures, they build up in fatty tissue, and move up the food chain as they are consumed by bigger creatures, eventually making their way into our diets.
PBTs are toxic. These chemicals have been associated with all manner of health effects: mercury affects the nervous system of developing fetuses, chronic exposure to DDT affects the liver and kidneys among other parts of the body, cadmium has been labeled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a probable carcinogen, lead exposure in adults results in neurological effects like seizures, PCBs pose a cancer risk, PBDEs have been found to be endocrine disruptors, and dioxins cause reproductive and developmental problems.

Perhaps as important as the above features, PBTs know no borders. DDT and PCBs have not been used widely in the United States for over thirty years, yet they persist in our water and in our animals all over the world, and thus in the bodies of many human beings.

"Persistence is a great trait if you're job hunting, learning to play the piano or potty training your child. But when it comes to toxic chemicals, persistence is a characteristic that spells trouble for people, animals and the environment."

- Nena Baker, author of "The Body Toxic".

These chemicals are the worst of the worst (see chart below for a complete description of the chemicals), and for that reason, they are receiving special attention from environmental advocates in many states. While the federal government is still determining how to handle PBT contamination on a national level, many states are taking the lead in eliminating these dangerous chemicals.

Tackling PBTs in Washington State

Much of Washington State surrounds water. Between the Puget Sound (which has 2,000 miles of coastline), and the many rivers and lakes, much of the state's economy depends on healthy water.

As a result of increasing populations in the Puget Sound area in the second half of the 20th century, many toxic chemicals are found in the Sound, including PCBs, dioxins and PBDEs. Harbor seals have been found to have levels of PCBs that were three times higher than harbor seals in other common areas¹ and orcas have high levels of PBDEs.

"The decline in some marine mammal populations is linked to the prevalence of flame retardant chemicals and other persistent organic pollutants"

- Jean-Michel Cousteau, Ocean Futures Society

Additionally, studies have found high levels of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in osprey eggs in the Columbia River² in concentrations which were higher than the surrounding environment – proving the bioaccumulative effect of these chemicals. It is suspected that the high levels got to the osprey eggs by way of the fish that compose their diet. The Department of Ecology has also found high levels of PBDEs in the fish of the Spokane River, and are searching for a source of the chemical which is not immediately clear.³

Due to the extreme effect of PBTs on Washington State, the state plays a leadership role in going after PBTs and developing strategies to handle these dangerous chemicals:

In 2000, Washington State became the first state in the nation to have a mandated, long-term PBT strategy. The legislature allocated $800,000 to identify the worst-of-the-worst PBTs.
In 2003, the state legislature banned the use of mercury in most consumer applications.
In 2007, Washington banned PBDEs from mattresses, televisions, computers and residential upholstered furniture.

"Washington is blazing a trail that other states and the international community can watch and learn from."

- Center for International Environmental Law.

Alaskan indigenous people show high PBT exposure

Due to its location, Alaska is a hemispheric sink for PBT chemicals. Few of the chemicals are manufactured in Alaska, rather "Alaska is on the receiving end of toxic chemicals that arrive in the north via wind and ocean currents," says Pam Miller, the executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. Once the contaminants arrive in the Arctic, they are trapped by the cold climate – a process known as global distillation.

"Indigenous Arctic peoples are among the most highly exposed people on earth to toxic chemicals, because these chemicals—DDT, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and perflourinated compounds, to name a few—are persistent, and drift hundreds and thousands of miles north on wind and ocean currents from where they are manufactured from more southern latitudes. These chemicals contaminate our traditional foods and affect our health and the health of our children,"

- Vi Waghiyi (Yupik Eskimo) Tribal Member.⁴

Alaska's wildlife tests high for contamination—there are high levels of DDT in bald eagles, sea otters and Steller sea lions, and some orcas have tested at levels which show them to be among the most contaminated mammals on earth.⁵

In Alaska, more than other places, PBTs make their way into the bodies of its citizens—namely the Alaskan tribal communities – via food. Alaskan tribal communities are closely dependent on traditional foods that include fish and marine mammals. "This is a physical, spiritual, and cultural dependence on the land and ocean," says Miller. Native peoples are eating foods at the top of the food chain that are oil and fat based, where the toxic chemicals are the most highly concentrated.

Though Alaska is a perfect argument for the need for federal legislation—its citizens are receiving many more chemicals than they are manufacturing – the state is still tackling toxic chemical legislation on the state level.

Environmental advocates this year introduced a State Senate bill which would phase out the sale of PBDE chemicals from consumer products in order to protect Alaskans from developmental effects, thyroid disruption, and adverse reproductive effects.

Even in far-afield Alaska, some of the well-known dissidents of flame retardant bans have been showing up at hearings for this bill. Under the guise of protecting people from fires, representatives from the Citizens for Fire Safety – an industry group with a goal of protecting the $4 billion-a-year global market for flame retardants⁶—show up at nearly all hearings regarding flame retardants. This front group takes their playbook from the tobacco industry who worked to fight all Clean Indoor acts and other anti-smoking legislative initiatives.⁷

The truth is the phase-out of toxic PBDEs is supported by many citizens, physicians and even firefighter groups. Those who fight fires are among the people who are in the most danger from high PBDE exposure.

The Great Lakes' Toxic Legacy: Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Click image to view larger.
Credit: Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

The Great Lakes: A melting pot for PBTs

The Great Lakes cover over 10,000 miles of coast line, and are the largest surface area of freshwater in the world. They are bordered by two countries and eight U.S. states, and they provide drinking water for 40 million people. Unfortunately, they also have a history of pollution and contamination.⁸

The EPA has identified 43 Areas of Concern around the Great Lakes (26 in the United States). – areas that have undergone a significant change in its chemical, physical, or biological integrity. These changes can include things like changes in algae growth, tainted fish, or a problem with drinking water.

Due to the fact that the Great Lakes are also bordered by Canada, a special agreement was entered into between the U.S. and Canada in 1972. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement⁹ shows the intention of both countries to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem." The agreement has served to reduce many of the pollutants in the lakes; however they do not address the contaminants that the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) does not recognize.

Therefore, many PBTs are still found in the lakes. For instance, in Lake Superior the levels of PBDEs doubled every 3-4 years between 1980 and 2000, Lake Erie has extremely high levels of mercury, lead and PCBs, and there have been over 1500 advisories against eating fish in the Great Lakes due to the presence of many PBT chemicals.¹⁰

Environmental advocates in the states around the Great Lakes have been doing what they can to protect the lakes via state legislation:

In 2008, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact was signed by the legislatures of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and the President of the United States. It is a binding interstate compact that provides a framework to enact protective laws, including environmental protection standards.
The state of Michigan tried to pass a PBDE ban last year that is similar to the bans in Vermont, Oregon, Washington and Maine.
New York, which borders Lake Ontario, has several pieces of PBT legislation this session, including a ban on cadmium in consumer products, a limit on lead in jewelry, a limit on PBDE flame retardants, and a comprehensive bill which would establish a list of chemicals of concern, presumably including many PBT toxins.
Last year, the state of Illinois became the third state in the nation to restrict cadmium in children's jewelry. Illinois joins another Great Lake state—Minnesota—in this groundbreaking ban.

The Safe Chemicals Act: taking PBT cues from the states

This month, the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 was introduced into the U.S. Senate, sponsored by Senators Lautenberg (NJ), Boxer (CA), Klobuchar (MN), and Schumer (NY). This law will overhaul the antiquated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which has not been updated since first passed in the 1970's, and is so weak, it makes true regulation of toxic chemicals in this country nearly impossible.

If there's one thing we know about PBT chemicals, it's that they don't respect state borders – which is why it is critical that the federal government's policies work hand-in-hand with state legislation to keep Americans safe from these harmful toxins which risk the health of our families.

"We need a fix at the federal level so that we don't have to do this in the states," said Ted Sturdevant, Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology. "States have limited resources and lack the tools of federal agencies to drive a national program. However, until we have a national solution, we will continue to act on chemical safety concerns in our states."

The 2011 Safe Chemicals Act gives special priority to PBT chemicals, classifying them as particularly harmful and will hopefully give the EPA the support it needs to move swiftly against the use of PBTs when safer alternatives are available. The states have begun the hard process of eliminating PBTs, and in the case of the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, they've even banded together to create regional regulations. But without the backup of the federal government, future generations will still be dealing with the consequences of ubiquitous PBT use.

"I'm pleased that the 2011 version of the Safe Chemicals Act directly targets persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals and requires actions to quickly achieve the 'greatest practicable reductions in exposure' to them. Some state legislatures have also identified PBTs as chemicals of high concern and are acting as best they can to restrict their use, but it's time for the federal government to ensure all Americans are protected. These chemicals know no borders, and a national approach is essential."

- Dr. Richard Denison, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund.

You can read more about the Safe Chemicals Act, and keep abreast of its progress at Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

Worst-of-the-Worst PBT Chemicals

Chemicals
Mercury	Mercury is a naturally found element, and is the only metal that is liquid at room temperature. It is used in dental fillings, some batteries, and in compact fluorescent bulbs and has even been found in tested toys.
DDT*	Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) is a synthetic insecticide that was used in the United States in the 1940's and 1950s. Its use was outlawed by the federal government in 1972 for many purposes after its effect on people and wildlife was determined. DDT has not been used widely in first-world countries in over 30 years, yet it is still found in the fat of marine mammals.
Chemical Groups
PCBs*	Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), are man-made mixtures of chlorinated compounds that have been used in electrical equipment, synthetic rubber, plasticizers and even products like asphalt. They are non-flammable, have a high boiling point, are insoluble in water, and have insulating properties – exact features that make them difficult to get rid of in the environment.
Dioxins*	Dioxins are chemical compounds that are formed as a result of industrial processes like bleaching of paper pulp, waste incineration and manufacture of some chemicals. Exposure to dioxins usually comes from food. It accumulates in fatty tissue (of humans, and the meat we eat), and stays there.
PFCs	Perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) are used are used to make non-stick and stain-resistant chemicals like Teflon, Scotchguard and Stainmaster. They are commonly found in non-stick cookware, food packaging like pizza boxes and microwave popcorn, and stain-resistant material for clothing, furniture and carpeting. They "off-gas" from many of those products and mix with air and dust in our homes. PFCs are detected in human blood samples worldwide.
PBDEs	Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are used as flame retardants in our everyday lives. They are found on furniture, in electronics casings, in household dust, in children's clothing and products. High levels have also been found in farmed fish – presumably from water contamination and feed.
Metals
Cadmium	Cadmium is an extremely toxic metal that is used in batteries, industrial paints, metal coatings and as a stabilizer for plastics. It is mainly produced as a byproduct of smelting and refining of zinc concentrates. Cadmium is of increasing concern to parents as it's been found recently in many instances of inexpensive, metal children's jewelry.
Lead	Lead is a naturally-occurring metal that is resistant to corrosion and is used in paints, pigments and dyes. It was outlawed from use in paint in 1978, and from children's consumer products in 2009. However, it is still found in old homes, in some plastic PVC products, and in drinking water (when the lead leaches from metal pipes).

PBTs that are marked with an asterisk (*) are considered to be persistent organic pollutants (POPs) by the Stockholm Convention, a treaty that has been signed by over 100 countries (but not the United States) to eliminate the most harmful contaminants that are persistent in the environment and cross borders.

Resources

¹U.S. States and the Global POPs Treaty. Center for International Environmental Law, May 2005.
²Study affirms state's aim to reduce perfluorinated compounds. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, 08/10/2010.
³Toxic flame retardants may be decreasing in Spokane River fish. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, 03/22/11.
⁴Chemical Reform Urgent for People of Color and Low Income Communities. Native American Times, 04/11/11
⁵Contaminants in Alaska: is America's Arctic at Risk? An Interagency Collaborative Paper (US Department of Interior, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, et al.link, 2000.
⁶ACC announces the North American Flame Retardant Alliance.American Chemistry Council, 03/31/11.
⁷Citizens for Fire Safety Exposed: A chemical industry front group for manufacturers of toxic flame retardants (PBDEs). Environmental Health Fund.
⁸Great Lakes Basin Facts. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
⁹Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Environmental Protection Agency.
¹⁰Toxic Substances Control Act: Failing the Great Lakes. Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

Industry Opposition to Toxics: How the chemical industry undermines state efforts.

Safer States — 2011-02-28T10:00:00-08:00

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.

Toxic Toys 101

Safer States — 2010-12-23T13:00:43-08:00

Originally published by Washington Toxics Coalition.

This post was written by science teacher Garrison Dyer. As a teacher he sees first hand the toll developmental and learning disabilities have on children, families, and the classroom. He also knows some of these disabilities are linked to toxic chemicals and are preventable, which is why he supports getting toxic chemicals out of children's products.

I am not a father, but every day I look after 121 eleven to fourteen year-olds. As science teacher at Showalter Middle School in Tukwila, WA, I have grown to care about my student’s health, safety, and development immensely.

Approximately one in six American children have a learning or developmental disability and recent research shows this number is getting bigger. Thirteen percent of the students in my classes have been diagnosed with a learning or behavioral disability, and I have no idea how many more have slipped though the cracks. I can tell you from first hand experience that these disabilities can take a tremendous toll on the child, family and classroom.

The latest research indicates some of these disabilities may be preventable by reducing a child’s exposure to toxic chemicals. According to the U.S. National Research Council, three percent of developmental disabilities are the direct result of exposure to toxic chemicals, and another twenty-five percent result from interactions between environmental and genetic factors.

Children are exposed to chemicals from a variety of sources, but those sources shouldn’t include their favorite toy, cup, teddy bear, or necklace. For example, lead, found in paint, PVC plastic, and jewelry is linked to ADHD, reduced IQ, and juvenile delinquency. Polycarbonate plastic food containers and the linings of food cans contain bisphenol A (BPA), which is linked to altered behavior and hyperactivity.

Thankfully, in Washington state our Department of Ecology is starting to implement a law championed by the Washington Toxics Coalition that will collect information on toxic chemicals linked to learning and developmental disabilities that are in children’s products. This is a great first step! Please join me in supporting this process by telling the Department of Ecology what you think. They are accepting public comments until December 31st.

Safer States: Washington News

Washington State: The Toxic Facts are In

No More Nasty Surprises

Your children’s health isn’t the Toy Industry Association’s top priority

References

States lead the fight against toxic chemicals lurking in cosmetics

What's lead doing in our lipstick?

Hair straighteners and nail polishes: posing a risk for salon workers.

Proactive state bills could protect the most vulnerable populations from toxic chemicals in cosmetics.

Europe is leading the charge against toxic chemicals in cosmetics.

References

Report round-up: Toxic chemicals in hidden places

Washington Toxics Coalition and Safer States Hidden Hazards in the Nursery (pdf)

Women's Voices for the Earth Dirty Secrets: What's Hiding in your Cleaning Products?

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Baby's Tub is Still Toxic

Breast Cancer Fund BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food

A Lot of Work To Do

References

Obesity: What do chemicals have to do with it?

Which chemicals are obesogens?

Comprehensive policies can tackle new discoveries like obesogens

References

Toxic flame retardants: In our homes, our dust, our lives

Banning toxic flame retardants doesn't mean they disappear.

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

Health Concerns associated with Toxic Flame Retardants

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

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

Bans on specific chemicals are the first step.

Comprehensive bills are the secret to banning toxic flame retardants.

Toxic Flame Retardant Glossary

Resources

States join together to get rid of the worst-of-the-worst chemicals

Tackling PBTs in Washington State

Alaskan indigenous people show high PBT exposure

The Great Lakes: A melting pot for PBTs

The Safe Chemicals Act: taking PBT cues from the states

Worst-of-the-Worst PBT Chemicals

Chemicals

Chemical Groups

Metals

Resources

Industry Opposition to Toxics: How the chemical industry undermines state efforts.

Tactic #1 Scare tactics and economic threats.

Tactic #2 Out of state pushes against toxics reform.

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

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

Toxic Toys 101

Washington Toxics Coalition and Safer States
Hidden Hazards in the Nursery (pdf)

Women's Voices for the Earth
Dirty Secrets: What's Hiding in your Cleaning Products?

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
Baby's Tub is Still Toxic

Breast Cancer Fund
BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food

Tactic #1
Scare tactics and economic threats.

Tactic #2
Out of state pushes against toxics reform.

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

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