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.

Editor's Note: The following post was originally published at Working Mother and written by Michelle Noehren. We thank Michelle for allowing us to republish it and share it with you.

Michelle is the Events & Special Projects Manager at the Connecticut Permanent Commission on the Status of Women and is the founder of www.ctworkingmoms.com, an online community for Connecticut working moms. In addition to her career, website, husband and baby girl, she also serves on the Connecticut National Organization for Women’s Board of Directors.

As moms, we all want to protect our children from harm. But what if that harm is invisible, occurs daily, and is almost impossible to stop without government intervention?

There's a growing consensus that our exposure to toxic chemicals in consumer products is a risk factor for many serious diseases. Children are exposed to these chemicals at an alarming rate and as a result, there are long-term implications for their health and development.

One particular class of chemicals, called endocrine disruptors, has been linked to increased rates of breast cancer, early onset of puberty and rising rates of endometriosis—a leading cause of female infertility. In fact, a large body of research indicates a link between increased infertility rates in women and toxic chemical exposure. According to a report by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, at least 12% of women reported difficulty in conceiving and maintaining pregnancy in 2002, an increase of 40% from 1982. The rate has almost doubled in younger women, ages 18–25. I'm sure each of us knows at least one woman who is struggling or has struggled with getting pregnant.

Scientists on the cutting edge of research have found that chemicals such as phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), perfluorinated compounds, and cadmium are linked to these increases in reproductive health problems. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we all have some levels of these chemicals in our bodies.

Mothers-to-be and breastfeeding mothers are particularly vulnerable to toxic chemical exposure. Women's bodies are the first environment for the next generation. Unfortunately, many chemicals that are stored in a woman's body can be passed onto her child while in utero and later during breastfeeding (many toxic chemicals pass through the placenta and have been found in breast milk). In fact, an alarming study by the Environmental Working Group found that at least 287 hazardous industrial chemicals pass through the placenta to the fetus.

What's even more startling, according to Women's Voices for the Earth, is that many chemicals are so prevalent in breast milk that if it were to be bottled for sale, most breast milk would not pass FDA regulations. While breastfeeding is clearly still the number one option for building a new baby's immune system, the abundance of toxic chemicals in breast milk is cause for serious alarm.

Women are the primary consumer decision-makers in 85% of households in the United States which means we are the ones most likely to purchase products such as toys, diapers, sunscreen, bath products and more. Parents deserve the ability to feel confident that the products they buy are safe for their families, and many of us just assume that if we can purchase it in a store, it must be OK.

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.

The Connecticut legislature is leading the way by introducing a bill on this very topic, Senate Bill 274, An Act Concerning Chemicals of High Concern to Children. As parents, it's our responsibility to ensure that our children are protected from harm and Connecticut should be applauded for making the health of our children a priority.

Note: Advocacy efforts are being led by the Coalition for a Safe & Healthy Connecticut.

When it comes to toxic chemical reform across the nation, many of the legislative heroes are dads, husbands and grandfathers who are not only working hard to protect the lives of the electorate, but more personally to remove toxic chemical threats from their own families.

Today, we are featuring three legislators, Senator Richard McCormack from Vermont, Representative Dick Roy from Connecticut, and Delegate James Hubbard from Maryland who are not only leaders in their field, but also family men – fathers and grandfathers. "We're the guys who are supposed to be protecting the family from the bad guys," Senator McCormack told us in a recent interview, a sentiment which nicely sums up the quiet, family force behind the work of these heroes.

We here at Safer States stand up and applaud these legislators for keeping us all safe.

Senator Richard McCormack, Vermont

"I do think that there are times that my environmental politics derives in part from my sense of wanting to protect the people that I love."

Because of his hard work on the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, Senator Dick McCormack is a leader in the state of Vermont who helps to pass laws protecting Vermont's citizens. Senator McCormack has been in the Vermont legislature since 1988.

Vermont is a leader in toxics legislation, and their laws include a ban on bisphenol-A (BPA) in baby bottles and sippy cups, a ban on toxic flame retardants, and several laws regulating the use of products containing mercury within the state.

Senator McCormack is particularly concerned about mercury exposure, and serves on the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution¹. Describing why mercury is so harmful, Senator McCormack says, "One of the problems is that it bioaccumulates, and there's no such thing as a small dose because it keeps adding up. Several individually harmless exposures stay in the fatty tissue. Aside from the bioaccumulation; another problem is that mercury is ubiquitous." Mercury is harmful to the brain and nervous system of humans, and is particularly bad for developing fetuses².

While the mercury is not thought to harm users of the bulbs, the danger comes with disposal. If the bulb breaks, then consumers, or trash and recycling workers are exposed to the mercury. In May of this year, the Vermont legislature passed a bill³ requiring that manufacturers of CFLs create recycling programs to dispose of the bulbs. "We are not trying to beat these guys up, but responsibility needs to be placed where it belongs. However beneficial [CFLs are], if it's your product and your profit then it's your problem," says Senator McCormack.

Currently before the legislature is a comprehensive toxics bill⁴ similar to laws in Maine, California, Minnesota and Washington state that would establish a way for the state to identify the worst-of-the-worst chemicals, eliminate their use, and move toward safer alternatives. To date, Senator McCormack says, Vermont has been dealing with toxic chemicals individually. A comprehensive bill will make sure that the right toxics are getting the right attention, and being moved out of the lives of Vermont citizens.

Senator McCormack gives a lot of credit to our coalition member, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) for their work on the CFL bill, and helping to pass other environmental laws.

"Vermont is a small state with a citizen legislature. We are not in the position to do a lot of research as legislators. It's part time. Right now, I'm back to doing my job as a teacher. We look to VPIRG and others for guidance."

Representative Richard Roy, Connecticut

"I don't want anything happening to my granddaughters."

On June 9 of this year, Connecticut became the first state in the nation to ban the harmful chemical BPA from register receipts. This bill was passed largely due to the efforts of Representative Roy, who co-chairs the Energy & Environment Committee. The bill was passed in dramatic fashion on the last day of the legislative session with bi-partisan support, at 10:30 at night, and was later signed into law by Governor Malloy.

Representative Roy credits the hard work of the committee in passing the BPA bill. "The committee is made up of good people who care about the environment, who care about what happens to people, and what the chemical industry is doing to our environment."

BPA in register receipts is of particular concern to environmental advocates because it is in the form of a fine powder, which means it can easily rub off onto the skin and various surfaces, and 40% of receipts have been found to have BPA⁵. 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.

Connecticut had already passed a law banning BPA in infant formula containers, baby food cans or jars and reusable food and beverage containers, which will go into effect on October 1, 2011. Representative Roy thinks that the education process required to pass the original BPA ban helped to get the BPA-in-receipts bill passed. In a recent interview, he said, "With the original ban in place, I think that the members of the legislature were familiar with the term BPA and knew it was bad stuff. We didn't have to go through that education process."

Much of the opposition to the BPA-in-receipts bill had to do with budget questions, which were addressed partially by compromising and pushing out the effective date of the law until 2015. It is generally accepted that there will be a safer alternative by this date. Though, it should be noted that a couple of large retailers – Kroger and Ikea – have both declared intent to stop using receipts with BPA this year. Representative Roy says, "We had to convince people that it wasn't going to cost more money or break the budget. By pushing out the effective date, we took care of some of the budget problems that really would have caused problems for business. They should be thinking about what applications are going to come along that make this a safer issue."

Representative Roy's motivation for pushing state toxics reform comes from the desire to see a safer environment for the residents of Connecticut, and for parents and families:

"We just want a clean environment. We want people to be able to get up in the morning and breathe deeply and feel good about it. We want little boys to be able to get out in the yard and tumble on the grass without any concern. We want people to be able to buy products that are safe and don't pose a risk to their families."

Like Senator McCormack, Representative Roy also credits the state-level environmental groups for doing much of the heavy lifting regarding research into toxic effects. "The Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut has been a tremendous help. They have marshaled resources and brought forth much of the research that we were able to use. My hat goes off to them."

Delegate James Hubbard, Maryland

Photo of Delegate Hubbard holding his grandson Landon. Delegate Hubbard has a personal stake in making sure our future generations are not poisoned by products and toys containing BPA, Lead, and Cadmium.

As the President the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, and a strong leader in Maryland, Delegate James Hubbard is a leader who has helped to strengthen toxics laws around the country. "I felt it is incumbent on state legislators to protect our constituents if Congress isn't going to get off their asses and do it," Hubbard has said⁶.

Delegate Hubbard sees the role of state toxic chemical laws clearly: they not only protect their citizens from harmful chemicals, but they help to move forward federal legislation. Toxics laws move industry because they would prefer one, federal law to having to follow different chemical laws in different states. Also, "when you start working at the state level then Congress sees that the legislation is possible," says Delegate Hubbard.

"My experience has taught me that Congress doesn't necessarily move when it needs to. On the state level, what happens is that the states start moving forward with their own pieces of legislation. After a few states do that, the manufacturers end up going to Congress -- the industry goes ballistic. What we do in the different states tends to get industry to push Congress to move faster."

Delegate Hubbard and other legislators in Maryland have been working hard to ban BPA in the state in several applications. Last year, the legislature passed a ban on BPA in bottles and sippy cups. This year, Delegate Hubbard led the charge to successfully ban BPA from infant formula containers by 2014. "Don't ever anticipate that you're going to get 100% of what you want in a year," says Delegate Hubbard. "You have to get the tent up so that you can get your nose underneath it."

Delegate Hubbard is extremely proud that the new ban will contain a restriction on manufacturers applying for consideration for purchase by the Women Infant & Children (WIC) program if they produce any infant formula containers containing BPA. WIC is a supplemental nutrition program for women who are pregnant, infants, and young children who are low income. "The mothers in that program have no choice," says Delegate Hubbard. Many formula cans contain BPA-liners, and the BPA leaches into the formula (liquid more than powder), which exposes one of the most vulnerable populations to endocrine-disrupting BPA.

This year, Maryland also passed a law banning the extremely toxic metal cadmium from children's jewelry. Cadmium sometimes is found in the paint on inexpensive kid's jewelry, and if ingested it can interfere with reproductive development and issues with bones and kidneys. Delegate Hubbard says, "Maryland has been pretty progressive, and I've been fortunate to lead the charge."

The magic formula, in Delegate Hubbard's eyes, is when consumers are educated and that information backs up toxics legislation. "Consumer education is the biggest issue," he says. When consumers start making retail decisions based on their knowledge, then retailers move. "The more you educate the consumer," says Delegate Hubbard, "the more economic implication it has to the retailer, and the retailer is going to start pulling stuff without it being mandated."

Next month, we will be talking about the legislative victories that we have to celebrate this year. There has been great news coming from many states in the country.

Resources

¹Vermont Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution, Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
²Mercury Fact Sheet, National Resources Defense Council.
³VT Implements Law Requiring CFL Makers to Create Recycling Programs, Environmental Protection, May 23 2011.
⁴Senate Bill 24, Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System.
⁵Synthetic estrogen BPA coats cash register receipts, Environmental Working Group.
⁶Time to Ban BPA? Governing, March 2011.

Dear Mr. President:

Though overall cancer incidence and mortality have continued to decline in recent years, the disease continues to devastate the lives of far too many Americans.

In 2009 alone, approximately 1.5 million American men, women, and children were diagnosed with cancer, and 562,000 died from the disease. With the growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the unacceptable burden of cancer resulting from environmental and occupational exposures that could have been prevented through appropriate national action.

The Administration’s commitment to the cancer community and recent focus on critically needed reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act is praiseworthy.

However, our Nation still has much work ahead to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and eliminate those that are known from our workplaces, schools, and homes.

- Cover letter to President Obama from the President's Cancer Panel, May 2010.

When the President's Cancer Panel released a report in May 2010 advising Americans to take specific steps to reduce environmental toxins in their lives and thus reduce cancer risk, it was a watershed moment. The report recommended that Americans drink filtered water, avoid bisphenol-A (BPA), eat food grown without pesticides, and carefully choose the household products they use.

In an interview with the Breast Cancer Fund, Dr. Margaret Kripke, member of the President's Cancer Panel, commented on the creation of the report: "This was an enormously eye-opening experience for me." The panel decided to focus on cancer-causing environmental toxins because they are of concern to many Americans, and because 6% of cancers are thought to be caused by environmental carcinogens – this means that about 20,000 Americans are dying each year due to cancer caused by their environment.

Speaking further on the issue, Dr. Kripke talked about the United States' stance on the regulation of chemicals in commerce today: over 80,000 chemicals are approved for use in every day products, and only a few of them have been tested. Rather than proactively require testing of these chemicals, the federal government allows their use until the chemical is proven to be harmful.

"I always assumed that if something was a known human carcinogen that it would be regulated and this is clearly not the case.

Also, there are carcinogens in our environment that have been banned in Europe, banned in Canada that we are still using and that remain unregulated to this day, and I always assumed that, before things were put on the market, that they would be tested.

And that, too, is absolutely not the case -- we test very few things for cancer-causing properties."

—Dr. Margaret Kripke

In the absence of an overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) on the federal level, it is up to the states to control toxic chemical use to the best of their ability. And advocates are working hard on the ground to protect as many people as possible from the risk of cancer due to environmental factors.

White Lake, Michigan: From contamination to community activism.

Doug Schlaff was a healthy, active guidance counselor when he was diagnosed with Ewing's Sarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer that is found in only 200 Americans a year. The father of three passed away a short two years later, leaving his family with a lot of questions.

From the outset, the doctors had said that Doug's cancer was not genetic and was due to something in his environment during his short life. Doug's wife Polly Schlaff was left wondering what of the many potential toxins had contributed to Doug's cancer.

"At first, I wondered, 'Why Doug?' Now two years after his death knowing what I do about the many exposures that we all have every day to known or suspected carcinogens, I think, 'Why not Doug? Why not any of us?'"

The Schlaffs grew up in the White Lake area of Michigan, in the western part of the state. In the first part of the 20th century, White Lake was a pristine, placid, clean lake. In 1952, Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation built a plant near White Lake. Hooker is a chemical company now owned by Occidental Chemical Corporation that was associated with contamination at Love Canal. Unknown to area residents, Hooker was dumping large quantities of C-56 – a chemical that was rejected by the U.S. Army for use as a nerve gas because it was too harmful.

After twenty years of contamination, White Lake was considered a dying lake, and the EPA declared it to be an "Area of Concern". The area is now being cleaned up, and due to the tenacity of an active group of citizens, the public is informed and corporations are being held accountable. Polly Schlaff is clear to say that she doesn’t expect to ever know the exact cause of Doug’s cancer, but she wonders about a connection between White Lake’s past contamination and his illness.

Schlaff and her mother-in-law Claire Schlaff are now working with the health department on a mapping project which may help to identify whether a cancer cluster exists in the White Lake area. The area has been identified in a new issue paper released by the National Resources Defense Council, which is identifying 42 areas that need to be studied for high incidences of similar diseases.

Polly Schlaff believes that the key to protecting families from cancer-causing toxic chemical exposure is disclosure of chemicals used in products.

"I would like to live in a country where families are protected from known harm and given the tools to make good decisions about their health. Had Doug never gotten sick, I would have known nothing about the total lack of regulation of the chemical industry. I would have assumed that someone was looking out for us. "

Michigan is taking steps toward this with a proposed law that will require disclosure of harmful chemicals in children's products. Nearly 60 prominent health professionals support this bill and have stated, "Providing families with the right to know about toxic chemicals in children's products is a first step to address a subset of childhood exposures to environmental toxicants so that families can make more informed choices."

You can follow the progress of the children's products bill on the sites of Michigan coalition partners Michigan Network for Children's Environmental Health and The Ecology Center.

Connecticut: protecting its residents while the federal government founders.

Beka Apostolidis is a resident of Cromwell, Connecticut who was diagnosed with breast cancer over three years ago. She's also been a nurse for 15 years, and teaches nursing students in the oncology unit at Hartford Hospital. "I have a family history of cancer, on a personal level it has affected me," says Apostolidis. Her father died from leukemia, and her mother is a breast cancer survivor.

In her job, Apostolidis sees firsthand the effects of cancer on society. As the age of patients with cancer gets younger and younger, Apostolidis often finds herself thinking about the links between environment and cancer. Her father was diagnosed with leukemia, and before that, she says "I didn't really understand the link. Then I began to learn about pesticides and BPA and their connections to cancer."

In February, she spoke in front of the Connecticut General Assembly in support of a proposed bill which would remove BPA from register receipts in the state. "In nursing, we are taught to use the precautionary principle when there is risk of harm," she said. "I applaud Connecticut lawmakers for their leadership on the issue but we must do more."

Connecticut is a leader when it comes to regulation of toxic chemicals. They've passed the most comprehensive bill protecting their children from BPA and last year, they passed a law which sets up a Chemical Innovations Institute – a University of Connecticut institution which will promote safer chemical practices for Connecticut businesses, workers and the community.

Connecticut's proposed register receipts law would be the first in the nation if it passes. The BPA that is found in thermal register receipts is of special concern because receipts are so ubiquitous, and because the BPA that is found on the receipts easily transfers to skin and other surfaces. As of this publication, Senate Bill 210 banning BPA from receipts has passed through committee and is on its way to a full Senate vote.

Last year, legislators passed a ban on the use of cadmium in jewelry intended for children. Cadmium is a toxic metal that is sometimes used on inexpensive children's jewelry that has been tied to many health effects including cancer.

With just the laws mentioned here, Connecticut has managed to make the state safer than the federal government has. While Congress is still unable to take action against harmful, chemicals suspected of causing cancer like BPA and cadmium, the leadership in Connecticut has taken matters into their own hands and gotten rid of the chemicals in children's products.

Our partner coalitions in Connecticut are working hard to protect the residents of the state, and you can read about their progress on the sites Clean Water Action Connecticut and Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut.

Women's Cancer Action: Leading the charge in Minnesota.

Women's Cancer Action is an organization that is committed to preventing cancer and supporting people affected by cancer.

Based in Minnesota, Women's Cancer Action works to shed light on the link between environmental toxins and cancer and also works to support those living with cancer. They host a yearly conference which results in increased environmental activism in Minnesota, and discussions about environmental causes of cancer.

In December, the Minnesota Department of Health released a study which surveyed Minnesotans between the years 2000 and 2006 and looked into cancer incidences. The report found:

• While heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States at large, cancer has been the leading cause of death in Minnesota since 2000.
• In Minnesota, American Indians were 13% more likely to develop cancer than non-Hispanic white Minnesotans and 40% more likely to die of those diseases. Most of the incidences of cancer among American Indians were lung cancer.
• Based on current rates, about one in two Minnesotans will be diagnosed with a potentially serious cancer during their lifetime, and one in four will die of cancer. In 2006, lung cancer killed the most Minnesotans by a large percentage. The lung cancer incidences track regionally with smoking behavior in the region.

In 2009, the Minnesota legislature was the first in the nation to ban BPA from baby bottles and children's sippy cups. They also passed the Toxic Free Kids Act – part of that law enabled the creation of a list of priority chemicals of high concern. In January, the priority chemical list was published and included the toxic chemicals BPA, cadmium, formaldehyde, the toxic flame retardants deca-BDE and HBCD, lead and some phthalates. While the act was passed that allowed for the creation of the list of the worst-of-the-worst chemicals, the regulatory piece of the law was defeated by the opposition.

The passing of the Toxic Free Kids Act in Minnesota is a great example of the tough fight that the states face. While creating a priority chemical list is a positive step in the right direction, without the regulatory or policy back-up to get those chemicals out of the marketplace, families will continue to face the same environmental threats.

Kathleen Schuler, co-director of Healthy Legacy says, "We'd like government agencies to take a step further and that is actually require manufacturers to tell us if these chemicals are in their products and to move on to some restrictions … So that consumers can know that when they go out and they buy products for their kids that they don't have some of these priority toxic chemicals in them."

Healthy Legacy and Women's Cancer Action are working together to protect Minnesotans from toxic chemicals.

Taking action at the federal level.

While the release of the President's Cancer Panel report was a huge step forward in the environmental health community, advocates are now anxious to ask the federal government to abide by the recommendations that the President's own panel suggested, and to create regulatory reform that will help to protect Americans from cancer-causing chemicals.

News to watch on the federal level includes:

1. The hopeful overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This law, which oversees the regulation of chemicals in our country, has not been changed since the 1970's. Last year, bills were proposed which would help to overhaul the system and would require proactive testing of some of the 80,000 chemicals that are in the consumer chain. Those bills died before they saw the floor, but this spring should see the re-introduction of bills which will address TSCA. You can keep an eye on this bill's path via partner organization Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
2. A proposed BPA ban. Last year, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) proposed a BPA ban as an amendment to the Food Safety Bill which would have banned BPA from children's products. While the bill passed, the amendment was struck. At the time, Senator Feinstein vowed to try again. In January, she introduced a stand-alone bill to regulate BPA.
3. "Trevor's Law." Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Mike Crapo (R-ID) have introduced legislation to target disease clusters and provide coordination between federal and state agencies to bring help to communities like White Lake, Michigan, which may have incidences of disease due to environmental factors.

Until the federal government steps in and passes strong toxic chemicals laws, the states will continue to do the hard work of protecting our citizens from cancer and passing policies that prevent cancer.

As Massachusetts State Senator Steven Tolman said, "Dozens of states around the country are coming together to update our chemical safety laws so that hazardous chemicals are replaced with safer alternatives … If Congress is not going to act quickly enough to protect families in Massachusetts, we're going to move forward at the state level."

References

President's Cancer Panel Report (PDF)
White Lake Cancer Mapping Project
Minnesota Department of Health Study (PDF)

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

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

Alaska

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

California

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

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

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

Connecticut

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

Illinois

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

Maine

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

Maryland

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

Massachusetts

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

Michigan

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

Minnesota

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

New York

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

Oregon

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

Vermont

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

Washington

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

This month, the Safe Chemicals Act was introduced into Congress. This bill will be the overhaul to the Toxic Substances Chemicals Act -- the decades-old law that regulates toxic chemical use in this country. Time magazine said it well when the author reminded us that when this law was passed, "Gerald Ford was still President and Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody' was the No. 1 song of the year."

The Safe Chemicals Act will oversee regulation of Bisphenol-A (BPA), flame retardants, and other toxic chemicals which have proven health effects on babies, children, and vulnerable populations.

You can join us in supporting a strong Safe Chemicals Act by taking action and informing your legislators that you are concerned about protecting the health of your family.

Laurie Valeriano posted here heralding the successes of the bill and expressing disappointment with a few ways that the bill is missing the mark. This week, many other state coalition members chimed in. Below are a few of the comments about the Safe Chemicals Act.

"There are many communities, especially communities of color, tribal lands, and low-income communities, where people are dying at extraordinary rates because of toxic chemical exposure. This bill, for the first time, would give EPA authority to identify these communities and protect them from major sources of toxic chemicals."

- Mark Mitchell, MD, President of the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice.

"It's high time we closed the gap between what scientists say is safe, and what our government allows on supermarket shelves. This bill represents a major advance toward giving American families the peace of mind they've been seeking."

- Maureen Swanson, Learning Disabilities Association of America.

"Washington state has been a national leader in policies that protect our families but we can’t continue to go it alone. We’re urging Washington’s Congressional Delegation to support the Safe Chemicals Act and ensure it’s an effective federal tool to complement our local safe product laws."

- Cherie Eicholz, executive director of Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility.

“Exposure to these chemicals can impact the developing brain of the fetus, infant and young child with resulting lifelong learning problems. The State of Maine has been a national leader in policies that protect our families but we can’t continue to go it alone. We’re urging Maine’s Congressional Delegation to support the Safe Chemicals Act and ensure it’s an effective federal tool to complement our local safe product laws.”

- Sandy Cort, Learning Disabilities Association of Maine.

“Minnesota has shown that strong action on toxic chemicals is politically possible. Congress should follow our lead.”

- Meredith Salmi of Arc Greater Twin Cities, Healthy Legacy coalition member (pdf).

“These bills provide an excellent starting place to strengthen EPA’s authority to protect the public. If this legislation fulfills its promise, we can hope to see a decline in cancer, learning and developmental disabilities, infertility and other disease associated with exposure to these chemicals. Reducing such health problems will improve and lengthen lives as well as reduce the costs of healthcare."

- Daniel Rosenberg, Senior Attorney, NRDC Health & Environment Program.

“The Safe Chemicals Act offers a long overdue opportunity to fix our badly broken chemical safety system, which has failed to protect public health or keep up with the latest science. This national bill is particularly important to protect the most vulnerable populations, including children and women of child-bearing age, and for Alaskans who are exposed to chemicals that travel northward from more southerly latitudes and settle in the Arctic.”

- Pam Miller, Executive Director, Alaska Community Action on Toxics (pdf).

“Massachusetts lawmakers should take advantage of this moment to move forward with state level reforms that complement the national debate and assist our businesses in this transition towards twenty-­-first century clean tech development.”

- Cindy Luppi, Clean Water Action New England Co-Director.

“It’s shocking that the chemicals in our every day products are not tested for safety. Research has shown that these chemicals are harming the reproductive health and fertility of women, men and children. We deserve better—and this bill is a big step in the right direction,” said Jenn Rogers, Programs and Policy Director of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project. “This bill also presents a profound opportunity to protect the most vulnerable among us, from pregnant women and children to communities disproportionately affected by toxic chemicals.”

- Jenn Rogers, Programs & Policy Director of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project.

by Laurie Valeriano, Policy Director for the Washington Toxics Coalition.

This is a big moment for environmental health advocates and organizations like the Washington Toxics Coalition: today Congress released the Safe Chemicals Act, which is the first draft of a bill which will eventually overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – a decades-old law that oversees our toxic chemicals in the United States.

In a lot of ways, the release of this bill is the realization of hard work of the Safer States Coalition. 

We have been pushing for reform of chemical policies on the state level, and the federal government is finally beginning to understand what the states have known for a long time: there needs to be stronger oversight of ubiquitous toxic chemicals that have a daily, persistent effect on our families and children.

Consumers are demanding change every day. They are asking for BPA-free baby bottles, phthalate-free shampoos, and DECA-free upholstery. States are demanding safer alternatives to chemicals with laws like Minnesota’s Toxic Free Kids Act and Connecticut’s landmark BPA bill.

And the federal government is finally hearing the demand for change, but the legislation needs major changes for it to protect children and families from harmful chemicals.

The Safe Chemicals Act is proposing that the EPA gather safety and health data for all chemicals and that there at least be a minimum health based standard that chemicals have to meet. It will also identify “hot spot” communities that are disproportionally impacted by toxic chemicals and create action plans to provide relief for these communities.

This is good news, and will go a long way in overhauling the laws that we have now, which do not protect Americans from the proven health risks of toxic chemicals.

However, Congress is missing the mark on several key points which must be addressed before this bill passes into law.

The legislation doesn’t require a ban chemicals that we know pose serious health and environmental threats, not even chemicals that are found in newborn babies (persistent bioaccumulative toxics or PBTs). Washington State has been at the forefront, recognizing that these chemicals pose a unique challenge because they persist for long period of time, build up and increase in concentration in the food chain and are toxic at extremely low levels. Under this bill, it is not certain that PBT chemicals such as the toxic flame retardants (PBDEs), which numerous state legislatures have already banned, will be banned.

This is seriously flawed as the best thing to do for persistent, bio-accumulative chemicals that build up in our bodies is to phase them out, not allow small amounts of them. In December, 13 states signed a letter dictating principles for reform and asked that the Safe Chemicals Act deliberately phase out chemicals that threaten the most vulnerable populations.

Another huge flaw is that again, for chemicals like the hormone disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA), it does not require restrictions or bans. While the House version of the bill acknowledges the dangers of BPA by putting it on a list for quick evaluation, it falls short of ensuring restrictions or bans will be put in place. 

We already know that alternatives to the use of BPA in the majority of products, especially ones that children are exposed to, have safer alternatives available. Numerous states have already taken action to restrict the use of BPA—Congress should not lag behind in requiring immediate reductions of hormone disrupting and other chemicals. Our children deserve better.

We need harmful chemicals out of our lives completely as quickly and efficiently as the system allows. The Safe Chemicals Act should be taking its cues from successful state laws which have been passed by moving quickly against the worst chemicals using the common sense, business-like approaches to chemical regulation.

Clearly there are still major gaps that will be left if this bill becomes law. States will have to continue to pass strong chemical laws that phase out the worst chemicals and reduce other harmful chemicals, especially when safer alternatives are available. And that’s what states should continue to do as Congress debates this topic.

More than 200 scientific studies have linked Bisphenol-A (BPA) to known health effects including impaired brain and reproductive development in unborn babies, miscarriage in pregnant women, diabetes, obesity and cancer. Populations that are particularly vulnerable to BPA are infants, children and pregnant women.

Here at Safer States, we are working to support efforts toward eliminating BPA and other toxic chemicals from our lives.

Today, we have several updates on the BPA front.

Washington State

The Governor of Washington State signed a bill into law which will ban bisphenol-A from baby bottles, sippy cups, children's dishware and sports bottles.

The law will take effect by July 2011, with the sports bottle ban going into effect a year later. Washington is only the second state, after Connecticut, to outlaw BPA in sports bottles. Washington is now the fourth state to pass a BPA law. You can keep apprised of what states and regions are banning BPA by checking out our BPA fact page.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

This week, the EPA announced that they will take a look at BPA and its affect on the environment. This news, in conjunction with the FDA taking a look at BPA, is encouraging and shows that the federal government is taking the threat of BPA seriously.

"We share FDA’s concern about the potential health impacts from BPA. Both EPA and FDA, and many other agencies are moving forward to fully assess the environmental and health impacts to ensure that the full range of BPA’s possible impacts are examined."

-Steve Owens, assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances

Wisconsin Company Removes BPA from receipts

Last year, Science News released findings that BPA was being discovered on register receipts. This was not only of concern because of the ubiquity of register receipts, but also because the form that the BPA takes is unbound and free to be transferred into food and our bodies.

This month, Appleton — a paper company in Wisconsin — was the first company in the nation to announce a move toward BPA-free register papers by labeling their papers as "BPA-Free". They removed bishpenol-a from their paper in 2006 as health concerns about the chemical began to be made public.

BPA bans in Europe

Denmark will be introducing a temporary ban on BPA in food packaging for young children. Whether the ban stays in effect is contingent on further research.

The French government is moving toward a BPA ban in baby bottles. The French Senate voted last week to ban BPA, and now the bill will move through the legislature.

Waiting for Maryland

We are anticipating news from Maryland any day. Their legislature has voted to ban BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups. The expected signature from the Governor should come soon.

Further Reading

Bad chemistry: The poison in the plastic that surrounds us. The Independent, 03/31/10.
New research finds BPA in plastic, water — and in all of us. Rodale, 03/31/10.

This week, we checked in with Sarah Uhl, the coordinator for Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut. It's no surprise that the state that passed the most comprehensive bisphenol-a bill in the nation has lots of exciting toxics news to report. This legislative session, the coalition is working to protect citizens of Connecticut in several important ways.

CHILD SAFE PRODUCTS ACT

House Bill 5130 is in committee. It has passed through one committee and will have to pass through a few more before heading to the House and Senate floors. This important bill, called The Child Safe Products Act, would phase out chemicals of high concern from children's products.

The chemicals of concern would be partly determined through The Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse -- a vetted list shared among Maine, Washington and other states. This Clearinghouse is critical, as it allows states to share knowledge and fight toxic chemicals together.

Most importantly, this law would enable state agencies to take action on the most harmful chemicals, rather than waiting for the legislature to battle each chemical individually. "We're not going to solve this problem one chemical at a time," says Uhl, pointing to the efficiency of efforts like the Clearinghouse.

The Child Safe Products Act is modeled after Maine's Kids Safe Products Act, which is one of the strongest toxic chemical laws in the nation.

"We live in a world of toxicity, and we want to take a more aggressive approach to chemicals, especially those that affect children."
-Senator Ed Meyer, Senate Chairman of the Environment Committee

CHEMICAL INNOVATIONS INSTITUTE

Also proposed this year is House Bill 5126, which would establish a Chemical Innovations Institute to foster green job growth, promote safe workplaces, and reduce the use of toxic chemicals that are increasingly linked to the rising incidence of numerous chronic diseases. The institute will research chemicals of concern and safe alternatives to those chemicals, and share information with the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse.

"With increasingly stringent chemical regulations being implemented in other countries, a Chemical Innovations Institute is an economic development opportunity that can help make Connecticut a leader on green chemistry innovation and help protect workers from toxic chemicals at the same time."
- Pamela Puchalski, Connecticut Council on Occupational Safety & Health

CADMIUM BAN

A bill is in the state legislature that would prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of children's products that contain cadmium in the state of Connecticut. Cadmium is a persistent chemical that builds up in the body. It is associated with birth defects and central nervous system damage in animals, and there is concern that children ingest cadmium by putting jewelry in their mouths which could cause health problems including kidney and bone damage.

The bill was unanimously approved by the Environment Committee and would take effect in 2014.

Meanwhile, residents of the state are keeping an eye on federal legislation and pushing for TSCA reform. Katharine Curtin recently wrote an op-ed for The Danbury News-Times asking for reform, saying "I sincerely hope that my hometown community will work together to support these critically needed reforms."

FURTHER READING

State Lawmakers pushing for ban on cadmium in products for kids. The Day, 03/13/10.

More than 200 scientific studies have linked Bisphenol-A (BPA) to known health effects including impaired brain and reproductive development in unborn babies, miscarriage in pregnant women, diabetes, obesity and cancer. Populations that are particularly vulnerable to BPA are infants, children and pregnant women.

These sort of facts are frustrating mothers and families, and this year there are a remarkable number of states working on legislation to eliminate BPA-laden products in vulnerable populations.

We have exciting news from several states this week in the effort to ban BPA:

• Wisconsin signed a law last week limiting BPA use in the state,
• a Washington state law is expected soon, with a bill awaiting the signature of Governor Gregoire,
• a bill has passed through the Maryland houses and is sitting on the desk of Governor O'Malley, and
• Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick asked state officials to look into placing a ban on BPA, including its use in baby bottles and sippy cups.

With laws already on the books in Minnesota and Connecticut, we are looking to have a total of five states with BPA bills in effect very soon.

All bills passed with a mandate in the legislature. Elected officials on both sides of the aisle are voting yes on these important BPA bills which will protect one of the most vulnerable populations -- babies and children under 3.

WASHINGTON

A law is imminent in Washington State which will ban BPA in the state from baby bottles, sippy cups, children's dishware and sports bottles. The bill has passed in the State Senate and House, and Governor Gregoire is expected to sign the bill.

"We're very pleased with today's Senate action. Getting BPA out of children's dishware and sports bottles is commonsense given the mountain of evidence showing BPA is harmful to our health. Parents and other consumers want safer products free of BPA. Hopefully we'll see other products like food cans go BPA-free soon."
- Ivy-Sager Rosenthal, campaign director, Washington Toxics Coalition

WISCONSIN

Last Wednesday, Governor Jim Doyle signed a law banning BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups in the state of Wisconsin which made Wisconsin the third state to ban BPA, protecting children under the age of 3. The law goes into effect in 90 days.

Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group praised the move as a great first step, and Director Bruce Speight commented on the victory:

“Wisconsin is leading the way with today’s signing of the BPA Free Kids Act. This is a historic day for toxics reform, public health and consumer protection, but this is just the first step. Our kids are exposed to thousands of toxics chemicals, most of which are on the market with little to no safety testing. We are just starting to see the health effects; we must build on this important victory for the health of our kids and for the health of all of us.”

MARYLAND

A bill passed through both houses of the Maryland legislature to ban BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups in the state. All signs point to a signature from Governor O'Malley signing the bill into law.

"Baby bottles and sippy cups are one of the greatest sources of exposure to BPA for our little ones, and we commend the Maryland General Assembly for protecting our children from its toxic effects."
- Jenny Levin, environmental health associate, Maryland PIRG

"The Food and Drug Administration should have banned BPA in toddler products years ago. Without strong federal leadership, Maryland had no choice but to act."

Further Reading

Mass. to consider a limited BPA ban. Boston Globe, 03/03/10.
Doyle signs bill limiting BPA use. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 03/03/10.
Wisconsin protects kids from toxic BPA. Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group, 03/03/10.
Retailers object to ban on sports bottles with BPA. Puget Sound Business Journal, 03/04/10.
Senate votes ban on BPA in kids' containers. The Seattle Times, 01/29/10.