Pediatricians urge tougher chemical safety law

Among the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations:

• The consequences of chemical use on children and their families should be "a core component" of the new chemical policy.
• Chemicals should meet standards similar to those required for new drugs or pesticides.
• Decisions to ban chemicals should be based on reasonable levels of concern, rather than demonstrated harm.
• The health effects of chemicals should be monitored after they are on the market, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should have the authority to remove a chemical from the market if it's deemed dangerous.

Since the Toxic Substances Control Act took effect in 1976, the EPA has tested only 200 of the 80,000 chemicals in commerce and regulated just five.

"Right now, a company manufactures a chemical and puts it out on the market and reaps the economic reward," said Dr. Jerome Paulson, lead author of the policy statement. "And then the public is responsible for trying to figure out if there is any harm associated with the use of that chemical. And then it's almost a criminal procedure, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey this month introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. The law would require chemical manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of industrial chemicals used in everyday household products.

Read more at CNN

Or take action to support the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011

More on DNA mutating plastics, plus a great headline...

"USCC Fights to Keep Potentially Penis-Deforming Chemicals in Our Plastic"

As ThinkProgress reported yesterday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — one of the largest and most influential big business lobbying groups in the world — fired a letter off to Cass Sunstein, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, telling him to block the regulation of extremely toxic chemicals in consumer plastics. Despite the overwhelming evidence of the dangers of such chemicals, the chamber letter declares that that EPA “lacks the sound regulatory science needed to meet the statutory threshold for a restriction or ban of the targeted chemicals.”

A wide body of scientific research has linked these chemicals, including phthalates and Bisphenol A (BPA), to declining birth rates, stillbirths, and an increasing number of birth defects. Many of the chemicals under review for increased regulation have already been banned in Europe and Canada.

Read the full article at thinkprogress.org

Check your sunscreen with Skin Deep- EWG's 2011 Sun screen Guide

Always useful, as some sun screens can be full of unnecessary chemicals.

Check it out at ewg.org

And make sure you visit their hall of shame

Study shows popular cosmetics contain heavy metals

By Riley via Wikimedia Commons

Lead, arsenic and cadmium sound more like a chemical-laden concoction rather than ingredients found in popular cosmetics. But a new study by Environmental Defence Canada, via the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, reveals that these toxic heavy metals have been found in 49 popular cosmetic products tested and none of these heavy metals were listed on the label.

The study tested 49 products from popular brands like Laura Mercier, MAC, L'Oreal, Mary Kay, and Sephora and found that 100 percent of the products contained nickel, 96 percent contained lead and 90 percent contained beryllium. Only one product, Annabelle Mineral Pigment Dust (Solar), was found to not contain a single metal of most concern...

..."Individual exposures to these metals in small amounts are unlikely to cause harm, but heavy metals can build up in the body over time and may increase risk for a variety of health problems," the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reports. Meaning, if you're using cosmetics laden with heavy metals on a daily basis, or more than once daily, you could be putting yourself at risk.

Read the full article at Treehugger

OR download the original report from Canada's Environmental Defence

Researchers find Chemical Flame Retardants do little to slow fire and increase dangerous smoke and fumes

By Sylvain Pedneault via Wikimedia Commons The fire safety benefit of brominated and chlorinated flame retardants is questionable because they can increase the release of carbon monoxide, toxic gases, and soot which are the cause of most fire deaths and injuries (Stec and Hull 2010). For example, in one experiment, compared to untreated foam, pentaBDE-treated foam released approximately twice the amount of smoke (833 m2/kg vs. 413 m2/kg), seven times the amount of carbon monoxide (0.13 kg/kg vs. 0.018 kg/kg), and nearly 70 times the amount of soot (0.88 kg/kg vs. 0.013 kg/kg) but only provided three additional seconds before ignition compared to untreated foam (19 seconds vs. 16 seconds) (Jayakody et al. 2000). Also, the California furniture standard, California Department of Consumer Affairs Technical Bulletin 117 (TB 117 2000) on the flammability of foam inside furniture neither protects the foam from ignition nor reduces the severity of a fire, two measures of efficacy (Babrauskas 1983; Schuhmann and Hartzell 1989; Talley 1995). In applications where chemical flame retardants are considered for use, an investigation should address whether flame retardancy is needed (i.e. breast feeding pillows do not need flame retardancy) and if so, whether appropriate fire safety benefits may be obtained from using chemicals or techniques that do not present such serious potential adverse environmental and human health consequences. In some cases, reducing the sources of ignition can prevent fires without adding potentially hazardous chemicals to consumer products .

Read more about flame retardants in the San Antonio Statement- its full of good well documented scientific info.

Toxic flame retardants found in 80% of baby products

It is truly a cruel irony that in the name of protecting babies from fire (smokers anywhere?) babies and their families are instead being subjected to toxic flame retardants. According to a leading group of researchers, flame retardants only slow fire ignition by only 3 seconds and create toxic smoke and fumes when they are burned. These laws need to be changed.

Eighty percent of baby products contain toxic or untested chemical flame retardants, according to a new study of products such as car seats, changing pads and portable cribs.One-third of products, which also included nursing pillows, contained a chemical called chlorinated tris, which was removed from children's pajamas in the 1970s because of cancer concerns, though the chemical was never banned, says a study released Wednesday in Environmental Science & Technology.

The Environmental Protection Agency has said there is a "moderate level of concern" about links between tris and cancer, developmental problems, reproductive problems and other health concerns. The Consumer Product Safety Commission also has found that tris "may pose a significant health risk," spokesman Scott Wolfson says.Another flame retardant, called TCEP, was found in 10 of the nursing pillows tested. California lists TCEP as a carcinogen....

Read the full article at USA Today

Read up on the the problems associated with flame retardants in the San Antonio Statement- its full of good well documented scientific info.

Sign the statement- help change policy!

BPA-Free Receipts: Fast Food Chains Make The Switch

But is this enough? As we have learned recently, BPA alternatives are no better and possibly worse. Lets hope there is some more research on this issue.

Yum! Brands, the fast-food megabrand that includes Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut, has announced this week it will switch to BPA-free receipts...

...An investigation by the Environmental Working Group found BPA on 40 percent of receipts sampled from major U.S. businesses like McDonald's, CVS, KFC, Whole Foods, WalMart, Safeway -- even the post office. (Whole Foods has since gone BPA-free).

Read the full article at the HuffPo.

Natural anti-aging beauty tips

Cosmetics are known to contain numerous chemicals, and the Daily Green points our that it is especially important to find non-toxic eye creams.

"You should be very careful about what you’re putting in the eye area, as the skin is much thinner there, and it absorbs substances 40-times more rapidly than elsewhere" says New York City-based holistic dermatologist Dr. Alan Dattner.

It is always nice to find some alternatives. Check out The Daily Green for some tips.

San Antonio Statement on Brominated and Chlorinated Flame Retardants

Read the statement- its full of good well documented scientific info.

Sign the statement- help change policy!

BPA-free is not what it's cracked up to be

...Appleton, a specialty paper company, markets a BPA-free thermal paper that uses Bisphenol S instead. The Environmental Protection Agency has a voluntary program that is evaluating BPS and 17 other possible substitutes for thermal paper, but has not yet completed its analysis. Until it does, it will not endorse any alternatives.

In the few, limited tests conducted outside the United States, BPS shows estrogenic activity — not as strong as BPA, but not a good sign. BPS is now used in the United States to make PES (polyethersulfone) plastic. Some baby bottles marketed as BPA-free use PES plastic....

....Bisphenols are shaping up to be a dysfunctional family of chemicals. BPAF is BPA’s fluorinated twin. It is used in electronic devices, optical fibers and more. New studies have found BPAF to be an even more potent endocrine disrupter than BPA. Bisphenol B and Bisphenol F are other variants used instead of BPA in various products. In the limited testing done on those chemicals in other countries, scientists found Bisphenol B to be more potent than BPA in stimulating breast cancer cells.

Read the rest of this great opinion piece in the NYT website