EDF Health

Study raises big questions about worker protection in nanotech labs

Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.

When it comes to chemical exposures, workers are on the front line.  Workers are usually the most likely to be exposed to harmful levels of chemicals, because they are the ones producing, processing, handling, sampling and measuring, transferring and transporting chemicals in larger and more concentrated quantities.

Throughout history, workers have been the canaries in the coal mines; the first to exhibit the health effects of hazardous chemical exposures, from scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps, to mesothelioma in shipyard and construction workers to liver cancer in vinyl chloride workers.

For these reasons, EDF has argued that workers handling or otherwise likely to be exposed to nanomaterials must be protected from harm (see our earlier posts here, here and here).  Now, a new government study published in the respected journal Environmental Health Perspectives reveals that certain comfortable assumptions about nanomaterial laboratory safety may be downright wrong. Read More »

Posted in Health science, Nanotechnology / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed

How should the problem of “secret chemicals” be addressed?

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

A front page article by Lyndsey Layton in yesterday’s Washington Post – spurred by an intriguing new report by the Environmental Working Group – did a great job of exposing the extent to which the identities of chemicals in widespread use are hidden from view, and of exploring some of the many adverse consequences.

Neither the article nor the report, however, had much to say about how this problem of excessive reliance on confidential business information (CBI) claims by industry might be solved, especially in the context of impending reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

In this post I’ll provide some concrete proposals for addressing this serious problem.

Read More »

Posted in Health policy, TSCA reform / Tagged , , | Read 3 Responses

EPA deserves an “A for Effort” for its new Chemical Action Plans

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

Just squeaking in under its self-imposed deadline, late on December 30 EPA issued the first batch of chemical action plans it has promised under its enhanced chemical management program.  In doing so, EPA has signaled its intention to do all it can using its existing authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – even as it also makes clear that authority is “both outdated and in need of reform.”  To my ear, that strikes just the right balance. Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation / Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Read 1 Response

Testing for endocrine disruption: Are we there yet?

Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.

After long delays, the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs recently issued endocrine disruptor screening test orders for dozens of high-priority pesticide ingredients.  Endocrine disruptors are chemicals capable of interfering with the action of hormones that regulate biological processes such as development, growth, reproduction and metabolism.  The test orders require pesticide manufacturers to evaluate their chemicals using a specific battery of tests.

Identifying which chemicals are endocrine disruptors can help protect people and the environment from harmful exposures.  So, with test orders now in the hands of pesticide manufacturers, will we finally get the data we need? Read More »

Posted in Emerging testing methods, Health science / Tagged , , , , , , , | Read 2 Responses

Coalition for Chemical Safety throws first member under the bus

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

Mr. Joe Householder, Executive Director of the chemical industry front group, the Coalition for Chemical Safety, posted a comment the day before yesterday responding to my last blog post about a local Montana chapter of the coalition.  Here’s my reply:

Mr. Householder:  It certainly seems you want to have your cake and eat it, too.  The Coalition obviously has launched a concerted effort to sign up small businesses, and it continues to purport that it’s open to anyone – all in an effort to claim, as it does on its website, that it’s comprised of “people like you.”  The Montana small businesswoman quoted in the radio story is a Coalition member and was handing out Coalition literature at a Coalition-sponsored event at the time she was interviewed.

Yet as soon as she (or, I presume, any one of your other members) speaks up and says something at odds with the chemical industry line, you quickly disavow her, saying she is not an “official spokesperson.”
Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Industry influence, TSCA reform / Tagged | Read 2 Responses

Immaculate deception, part 2: Chemical industry front group calls for ban on bisphenol A

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

I’ll bet that got your attention.  Surely I jest, you’re thinking.  Well, on December 2, Montana Public Radio’s Evening Edition included a segment in which a spokesperson for the new chemical industry front group, the Coalition for Chemical Safety about which I blogged a few weeks ago, publicly calls for an all-out ban on the controversial endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA).  Here’s the clip (5 MB mp3 file). Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Industry influence, TSCA reform / Tagged , , , , , | Authors: / Read 3 Responses