Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director.
Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreed to consider withdrawing its approvals of 30 food additives known as ortho-phthalates from use in food packaging and food handling equipment. The chemicals are in a class of chemically- and pharmacologically-related substances used as plasticizers, binders, coating agents, defoamers, gasket closures, and slimicide agents to process and package food. The agency allows them to be used in cellophane, paper, paperboard, and plastics that come in contact with food. All of the chemicals were approved by the agency before 1985. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 321(s), chemicals that are reasonably expected to get into food from their intentional use in materials contacting food are considered “food additives.”
FDA acted in response to a food additive petition submitted by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Clean Water Action, Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Improving Kids’ Environment, and Learning Disabilities Association of America – groups all concerned by the adverse health effects of ortho-phthalates at the levels typically seen in food.
Academic studies have linked some of these chemicals to various reproductive, developmental and endocrine health problems. In fact, every ortho-phthalate that has been studied for these types of health effects has been found to pose a risk. From lower IQ in young children to malformation of the male genital tract, the evidence of health effects in humans continues to grow. But, with more than half of the 30 chemicals lacking any published safety data, the full extent of the threat remains unclear.
Lindsay McCormick is a Research Analyst.
It’s no secret that trichloroethylene (TCE) is a nasty chemical. A 2013 review of thousands of scientific studies by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists concluded that TCE is carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure and poses additional hazards, including immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and adverse effects on the developing heart. TCE’s link to cancer has been confirmed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the National Toxicology Program (NTP).
With such a track record, one would expect that the U.S. government has restricted its use, right? Wrong. The current annual U.S. production of TCE is 250 million pounds – so, not surprisingly, human and environmental exposure is widespread. While most TCE is used in industrial and commercial settings as a chemical intermediate in the production of other chemicals, it’s also commonly used as a metal degreasing agent and spot cleaner in commercial dry cleaning, and can be found in certain consumer products. (more…)
Sarah Vogel, Ph.D., is Vice-President for Health.
Since the crisis in Flint hit the national headlines, the problem of lead exposure from drinking water has come under greater scrutiny. And for good reason. Seven to ten million American homes have water delivered through service lines made of lead pipe – the primary source of lead in drinking water. But the events in Flint also highlight the fact that despite decades of decline in the levels of lead in the blood of American children, we still have a lead problem in this country. Given that there is no safe level of exposure to lead, we have a lot of work to do. The current crisis offers a new opportunity to make significant progress, and we have a record of past achievement to learn from and build upon.
Forty years ago over 13 million young children in American had blood lead levels at or above 10 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL). By 2000, that number had decreased to just under a half a million. The greatest reductions made were among low income and children of color who had the highest blood lead levels. As a result of such significant progress, many declared victory and organizations, including EDF, shifted their focus to other environmental health issues leaving considerable work still to be done on lead.
While blood lead levels were declining, scientific evidence was mounting to show there is no safe level of exposure to lead in infants and young children. Studies showed that adverse neurological effects were happening at lower and lower levels of lead exposure. In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reduced the level of lead in blood used to identify those with elevated exposure to 5 µg/dL. Today, approximately 500,000 children have levels at or above 5 µg/dL.
Despite the major declines in children’s blood lead levels at or above 10 µg/dL and decreases in racial and income disparities since the mid-1970s, progress has stalled over the past decade. And still disparities persist. Children living in poverty remain at the greatest risk. Indeed, children in poor households are three times more likely, and African-American children are twice as likely as white children, to have elevated blood lead levels. (more…)
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
As Senate and House negotiators are working to reconcile their Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bills, in addition to resolving the higher-profile issues, there is a need to pay attention to the important details. This post gives one example of an issue that may seem esoteric, but goes to the core of how the new law would actually function and hence needs to be addressed.
Doesn’t it make sense that someone who believes EPA erred in determining that a chemical is safe be able to challenge that decision in a manner that is on par with a challenge of an EPA decision that a chemical is not safe?
Yet this parity is a feature only of the Senate’s TSCA reform legislation, not the House’s. Here’s why: (more…)
Lindsay McCormick is a Research Analyst.
I find purchasing shampoo and other common personal care products to be a surprisingly stressful experience – I pace the aisles at the drugstore for a good 10-15 minutes, read every product ingredient list, contemplate the legitimacy of claims like “paraben-free” or “no artificial colors or fragrances,” and weigh the impact on my wallet. In the end, I usually choose a moderately priced product with some sort of ingredient safety claim brightly printed on the front label, and hope the extra $2 I spent will actually reduce my exposure to hazardous chemicals.
Many consumers are hungry for information and solutions that help reduce their exposure to toxic chemicals. As more research links exposures to common ingredients in personal care products and health impacts – like certain parabens to reduced fertility; certain phthalates to asthma, reproductive disorders, and neurological effects; and triclosan to obesity – many consumers want to feel empowered to take action. That’s why the results of a recent intervention study are so intriguing: researchers found that exposures to certain chemicals fell in a population of low-income Latina girls after using personal care products labeled as being free of such chemicals for three days.
The implications of this study raise several interesting questions that I’ll explore in this post. Specifically, are personal shopping choices an effective way to avoid chemical exposures? And, is this strategy equally available to everyone in our society? (more…)
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
My recent blog post about the public’s right to know the names of chemicals in health and safety studies brought a response from the Vice President for Government and Public Relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), a trade association of specialty chemical firms.
The response devotes considerable space to arguing for something we don’t oppose: why it’s important for a company to be able to protect information relating to the process by which a chemical is made. We have no quarrel with that: EDF has never sought to change the provision of TSCA that precludes EPA from disclosing such information, even in the context of a health and safety study. That provision is preserved in both the Senate and House bills, and that has been and remains acceptable to us.
Let me be crystal clear: EDF has not sought to alter TSCA’s requirement that EPA withhold the identity of a chemical even in a health and safety study if revealing that identity would reveal process information.
What we do strongly oppose, however, is the effort to expand TSCA’s exclusion so as to allow a company always to hide from the public the identity of the chemical in a health and safety study – even where knowing that chemical’s name would not reveal the process used to make it. That is exactly what the provision in the House TSCA reform bill that SOCMA is pressing for would do.
This would be a major weakening of current TSCA that would severely limit the public’s right to know about health and environmental impacts of chemicals in use today.
SOCMA’s response argues this would be okay for two reasons: First, EPA will know the chemical’s identity, so no one else needs to know. And second, the public should be content with a “generic” name. Let me briefly address each of these arguments. (more…)
