(Guest blog by Silent Spring Institute Research Director Ruthann Rudel)
Firefighters put their lives on the line to save people. What many people don’t know is that firefighters may also be facing risk from an entirely different source: the chemicals they encounter on the job. In San Francisco, which has many female firefighters, there is concern about elevated rates of breast cancer, particularly in younger women.
We know surprisingly little about women’s (including firefighters) chemical exposures in the workplace even though these can be much higher than typical exposure levels. To fill this data void, Rachel Morello-Frosch of UC-Berkeley and I, along with a powerful and inspiring group of firefighters, scientists, and advocates, have launched a new biomonitoring study to measure and compare exposures in two groups of women: firefighters and city office workers in San Francisco. The plan to compare exposures of women firefighters and city office workers emerged from firefighters’ concerns about elevated rates of breast cancer among their ranks.
The San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation, United Fire Service Women, Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center, and the Breast Cancer Fund joined forces to respond to concerns about firefighter exposure to potential breast carcinogens. Researchers from UC-Berkeley, Silent Spring Institute, and UCSF were tapped to help try to get to the bottom of what has been going on. The research team includes Rachel Morello-Frosch of UC-Berkeley, Roy Gerona and Michael McMaster of UC San Francisco and myself at Silent Spring Institute. The firefighter community is an integral part of the project. Two firefighters, Tony Stefani and Heather Buren, serve as co-PI’s on the study; and several other firefighters are part of the study team.
This collaboration of researchers, firefighters, and advocates calls itself the Women Firefighters Biomonitoring Collaborative The 3-year study, funded by the California Breast Cancer Research Program, Local 798- International Association of Firefighters, and the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation, will specifically target potential breast carcinogens highlighted in a recent review conducted by Silent Spring Institute. This review identifies chemicals that are high-priority for breast cancer research because they cause mammary gland tumors in rodent studies. The review also describes the best methods to measure those exposures in people. We used this new review to hone in specifically on potential breast carcinogens that firefighters are likely to encounter.
Past investigations into workplace exposures to chemicals of interest for breast cancer have had to rely on surveys conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, so the information is out of date and incomplete. Furthermore, most knowledge about chemicals that cause cancer has come from studies of workplace exposures, but since we don’t know what women are exposed to at work, we are missing a major potential source of information about which chemicals cause breast cancer.
Our new study focuses on occupational exposures to chemicals that raise breast cancer concerns. We will collect blood and urine samples from 80 women firefighters and 80 city office workers, in addition to interviewing the women about potential exposure sources at home and work. We will measure levels of specific chemicals, including products of combustion and diesel exhaust, flame retardants, and perfluorinated chemicals. In addition, we will use an innovative method (called Time of Flight) to test for the presence of unanticipated chemical exposures by comparing blood samples from firefighters and office workers. As a result, the project will apply one of the newest tools available for biomonitoring.
We selected these chemicals for the study because we expect firefighters may have higher exposures to some of them, and because they are among the 102 chemicals listed as priorities for breast cancer research and prevention efforts in our new review paper, entitled New Exposure Biomarkers as Tools for Breast Cancer Epidemiology, Biomonitoring, and Prevention: A Systematic Approach Based on Animal Evidence. Our review shows that rodent data is a good predictor of chemicals' links to human breast cancer, so we prioritized chemicals that cause mammary gland tumors in rodent studies for further study in women workers. Then we compiled the best methods to measure women's exposure to the priority chemicals. We found that exposure to these mammary carcinogens can come from many sources, including tobacco smoke, gasoline, diesel exhaust, air pollution, polyurethane foam, flame retardants, drinking water, and pharmaceuticals. We found that methods are currently available to measure about two-thirds of the 102 priority chemicals in people, and US CDC includes 23 of them in the national exposure report.
While human data about breast carcinogens are limited, the Silent Spring study reviews those cases where data are available and finds consistency between the rodent and human data. This supports using rodent data to predict potential risks to people in order to make good decisions about chemical use and pollution control. This is especially important for breast cancer, which is difficult to study in women because it develops over many years and is influenced by multiple risk factors. Our review highlights that many mammary gland carcinogens are ubiquitous pollutants to which most women are exposed every day. We hope our review will encourage researchers to include exposure biomarkers for these chemicals in the many ongoing breast cancer studies that have already collected blood and urine from more than a million women. And policy makers can use biomonitoring for these chemicals now to find highly exposed populations where efforts to reduce exposure will have the biggest payoff.
The Silent Spring review and the Women’s Firefighter Biomonitoring Collaborative study respond to recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, International Agency for Research on Cancer, President's Cancer Panel, and US Interagency Breast Cancer and Environment Research Coordinating Committee to improve breast cancer prevention research by focusing on laboratory evidence and developing new exposure methods and data. You can read Silent Spring Institute’s perspectives on these reports here: IOM, IBCERCC.
Ruthann Rudel is the research director at Silent Spring Institute, where she leads major exposure and toxicology research programs focusing on hormonally active chemicals and biological mechanisms by which chemicals may influence breast cancer. Her innovations in “breast cancer toxicology” include major peer-reviewed articles that identify chemicals that cause breast tumors or alter breast development in animal models, and she is developing a database of methods for measuring these chemicals in women. Rudel leads a program to develop breast cancer-relevant chemical safety tests for green chemistry. She also directs the Institute’s Household Exposure Study, which has been described as the “most comprehensive analysis to date” of exposures in homes and is widely cited. She has served on the U.S. National Toxicology Program Board of Scientific Counselors and is an adjunct Research Associate in the Brown University School of Medicine.
Posted by Breast Cancer Fund on May 13, 2014 at 01:34 PM in Bisphenol A, Chemicals policy reform, Choose Safe Cosmetics, Create a Healthy Home, Eat & Live Better, General Public Health, Green Our Chemical System | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Guest blog by Rick Smith, author of "Toxin Toxout"
When Bruce Lourie and I first began speaking to people about toxic chemicals after our first book, "Slow Death by Rubber Duck" was released five years ago; the world was a very different place. We would quite often ask “Who has heard of BPA? Of phthalates?” and not a single hand would go up in the audience.
How times have changed.
In the past few weeks, as we’ve spoken to very similar audiences about our second book “Toxin Toxout”, consumer awareness is considerably higher. Many people now know that of the 80,000-odd chemicals currently in commerce, most have never been adequately tested for safety. They know that countless consumer products that Americans use every day are full of these toxic ingredients, and they are quite concerned that their health – and that of their families – is being negatively impacted as a consequence.
They want solutions. They want to get these chemicals out of their bodies and their lives. And that’s what “Toxin Toxout” is all about.
Let’s face it: the toxic chemical issue is hard to get your arms around. The chemicals in question have long, often unpronounceable names. And with every men’s and women’s health magazine claiming to have the new definitive detox treatment it’s hard to figure out which chemicals to worry about and how to take effective action. “Toxin Toxout” tries to answer these questions head on.
Through a series of direct experiments on ourselves and other intrepid volunteers we tease apart fact from fiction. As one example, we show that eating organic food can dramatically lower levels of cancer-causing chemicals in the bodies of children. We experiment on two cosmetics industry insiders and demonstrate that using greener cosmetics can quickly alter body levels of parabens (linked to breast cancer) and phthalates. Because there is nothing we won’t do in service of science we even sit in a new car for a day, breathing in the off-gassing, to shine a light on the chemical effects of the “new car smell.” Along the way we also delve into the whole weird world of detox therapies and discover that many of the potions and cleanses on offer are nothing more than modern-day snake oil. The book concludes with a handy “Top 10” list of simple, everyday, actions that are guaranteed to reduce levels of toxins in the body.
In both our books we are honored to be able to feature the work of the Breast Cancer Fund. A true pioneer in the effort to investigate the links between toxic chemicals and rising rates of breast cancer, the Breast Cancer Fund continues to lead the way in defense of human health and the environment
Because of the perseverance of the Breast Cancer Fund and others, over the past year major companies like Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Avon and Walmart have all announced that they are moving to eliminate toxic chemicals from their products and their inventories. Jurisdictions around the world are making progress to eliminate chemicals from different aspects of our lives, such as the recent California crackdown on toxic flame retardants, and the US FDA’s new study of the health effects of triclosan. And millions of consumers across the US are getting educated like never before.
Fundamentally, “Toxin Toxout” is an optimistic book. Though it may be true that the toxic chemicals we have created are driving increased rates of serious disease such as breast and prostate cancer, the solutions to the crisis are within our grasp. Five years ago, audiences stared at us blankly when we asked them if they had ever heard of BPA. Now, every hand in the audience shoots up in answer to the same question. That’s progress!
So please check out “Toxin Toxout”, support the Breast Cancer Fund, and let’s keep the momentum going. Together, we’re winning!
RICK SMITH is co-author of the new book TOXIN TOXOUT: Getting Harmful Chemicals Out of Our Bodies and Our World (St. Martin’s Press) and of the international bestseller SLOW DEATH BY RUBBER DUCK: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things. A prominent Canadian author and environmentalist, he is executive director of the Broadbent Institute and was the executive director of Environmental Defence for almost 10 years.
Posted by Breast Cancer Fund on May 05, 2014 at 06:14 PM in Air & Water, Bisphenol A, Chemicals policy reform, Choose Safe Cosmetics, Eat & Live Better, Food, General Public Health, Green Our Chemical System, Household Products, News article, Protect Yourself & the Environment | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: BPA, Broadbent Institute, Environmental Defence, FDA, Johnson & Johnson, new car smell, Rick Smith, Slow Death by Rubber Duck: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things, St. Martin's Press, the US
Guest post by Maricel V. Maffini, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council
At low doses the FDA says bisphenol A, the substance used in cans, plastics and dental fillings, is safe. But, the agency is in the midst of a multimillion dollar study examining the safety of this synthetic estrogen. Haven’t they jumped the gun?
FDA officials seem eager to put this discussion behind them and move on, but there is still a lot to be done in the quest to find answers to the question: does BPA adversely affect human health?
In 2009, Congress provided the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) with $30 million to invest in research that will lead to a better understanding of the public health consequences of exposures to bisphenol A. NIEHS’s National Toxicology Program partnered with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and created a consortium called CLARITY in which investigators from academic institutions, the FDA and the National Toxicology Program would work together to answer “important questions surrounding BPA and risks to human health” and “to support and perform the best science we can to inform the best possible decision making.”
The experiments were designed to be comprehensive and to cover 1) a wide variety of disorders and diseases including breast cancer and 2) exposures to everyday levels throughout the life of the animals. These experiments are still ongoing and it will take another three to four years to have all the data analyzed and published.That means it should take the FDA three to four years to make sense of the results and to draw conclusions about the safety of this widespread endocrine disruptor.
For reasons only known to the FDA, its scientists published preliminary data in February that were limited in scope and duration and of questionable scientific value due to the contamination of the study’s control group. Animals that were not supposed to have been in contact with BPA were found to be contaminated. It’s bad enough that data of very limited significance got published, but FDA’s statement to Environmental Health News was worse: “[t]he study reported no effects of BPA at any dose, except at the very highest levels, and is consistent with the FDA’s current position that BPA is safe at the very low amounts that occur in some foods."
Why would FDA declare BPA safe at everyday exposure levels before the comprehensive study is finalized? What is the rush? Why would FDA jeopardize public health by making a premature decision?
Meanwhile, scientific evidence continues to pile up and other agencies have come up with opinions contrary to FDA’s current stance on BPA. In January 2014, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (FDA’s counterpart across the pond) released its draft extensive Scientific Opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of BPA in foodstuffs. EFSA’s opinion recommended to lower the current acceptable daily intake, in other words the amount of BPA one can safely consume without harm, from 50 micrograms/kg body weight to 5 micrograms/kg because of likely kidney, liver and mammary gland adverse effects. Also in Europe, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) last month has supported a proposal to strengthen the current classification of BPA as a reproductive toxicant from “suspected human reproductive toxicant” to “presumed human reproductive toxicant” based on evidence that it affects fertility.
The FDA seems unfazed by the hundreds of publications showing that 1) BPA causes numerous adverse effects and 2) free BPA can be measured in human blood. But FDA officials seem to be in a hurry to support their current stance using unreliable data. The best thing FDA should do is to let the study, and the data it will generate, run its course and then, only then, make a rigorous assessment of the safety of BPA considering ALL available information.
Maricel V. Maffini, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council
Maricel Maffini is a member of the Breast Cancer Fund’s Science Advisory Panel. She is a senior scientist in the health and environment program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in Washington, DC. She joined NRDC in 2013 after completing a three-year research project evaluating the U.S. food additive regulatory system at The Pew Charitable Trusts. Dr. Maffini holds a Ph.D. in Biological Sciences from the National University of Litoral, Santa Fe, Argentina.
Posted by Breast Cancer Fund on May 01, 2014 at 02:33 PM in Air & Water, Bisphenol A, Chemicals policy reform, Create a Healthy Home, Eat & Live Better, Federal Legislation, General Public Health, General Science, Green Our Chemical System, Household Products, Make Our Products Safe, Make Prevention a Public Health Priority, Plastics, Protect Yourself & the Environment | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: BPA, Congress, European Chemicals Agency, European Food Safety Authority, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Toxicology Program, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Pew Charitable Trusts, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
In an opinion piece for Roll Call Jeanne Rizzo argues that Congress has utterly failed to effectively regulate the chemical industry, and shares responsibility for widespread toxic chemical contamination of people and the environment.
"Will Congress become relevant by leading the way to a new federal regulatory framework that makes protecting public health the number one priority? Or will Congress be sidelined, as the states and marketplace fill the leadership void that anti-regulation forces have created by ignoring the public’s demand for safer chemicals and healthier lives?"
Read on in Roll Call.
Posted by Breast Cancer Fund on April 23, 2014 at 01:46 PM in Chemicals policy reform, Federal Legislation, General Public Health, General Science, Green Our Chemical System, Make Prevention a Public Health Priority, News article | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
When we make protecting Mother Earth from toxic chemicals a priority, we are also prioritizing prevention of breast cancer and numerous other health issues. Many of the things you can do to protect you and your family from toxic exposures are also good for the planet.
1. Find safe ways to fight germs.
These days it seems like everything claims to be antibacterial—soaps, toothpaste, clothing, bedding, band-aids, toys, cutting boards—you name it. Chances are, these products contain triclosan, an antimicrobial agent that is suspected of interfering with the hormone systems of humans and wildlife. There’s no evidence that triclosan is more effective than soap and water, so trade in the toxics for some good, old-fashioned elbow grease.
2. Cut down on personal care products, and use Think Dirty to find safe alternatives.
When it comes to personal care products, simple is best. Decrease your exposure to toxic chemicals in cosmetics by using fewer products and choosing those with simpler ingredients. What you put on your skin can end up down the drain, entering rivers and streams, and disrupt ecosystems. For products you can’t live without, find a safe alternative using Think Dirty. The app, which contains a database of more than 94,000 personal care products (with more added every day!), will give you easy-to-understand info about products, ingredients, and cleaner options.
3. Go fresh, organic and hormone-free.
When possible, choose organic foods and hormone-free meat and dairy. Buying products grown organically reduces pesticide use, which is good for families, farmworkers, and the environment.
4. Dispose batteries, electronics and light bulbs properly.
When trashed, these items, which all contain chemicals linked to breast cancer and other health concerns, end up in landfills. From there, chemicals like cadmium and mercury can leach into soil, lakes and streams. What to do? Look for special battery or electronics recycling/disposal centers in your community, return compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) to your local hardware store and return electronics to returning them to the store or manufacturer.
5. Reduce your carbon footprint by walking, biking or taking public transportation. This also helps reduce exposures to other components of exhaust linked to breast cancer, because car exhaust releases carcinogens known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (known as PAHs). If you’re in the market for a car, choose a clean, fuel-efficient vehicle using the EPA’s Green Vehicle Guide.
Posted by Breast Cancer Fund on April 23, 2014 at 01:39 PM in Choose Safe Cosmetics, Cosmetics, Create a Healthy Home, Eat & Live Better, Food, General Public Health, General Science, Green Our Chemical System, Household Products, Make Our Products Safe, Tips | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
This article, which was written by Breast Cancer Fund Director of Science Sharima Rasanayagam, appears on CNN.com.
Every day millions of women apply lipstick without a second thought. What many don't know is that lipsticks may contain lead, the notorious metal that can cause learning, language and behavioral problems. Lead is a neurotoxin and can be dangerous even at small doses.
So what's lead doing in lipsticks?
Not all lipsticks contain lead, but a number of studies in recent years show that the metal is more prevalent than previously thought.
In 2007, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics conducted a study -- "A Poison Kiss" -- that detected lead in 61% of the 33 lipsticks tested, with levels ranging from 0.03 ppm to 0.65 ppm. Parts per million (ppm) is the measurement of lead in the environment.
Medical experts say there is no safe level of lead in the blood. The FDA says it doesn't consider the lead levels it found in lipsticks to be a safety issue.
No lipstick lists lead as an ingredient. The amounts are small, but the presence of lead in lipstick, which is ingested and absorbed through the skin, raises concerns about the safety of a cosmetic product that is wildly popular among women.
Urged on by both consumers and the cosmetics industry, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration conducted its own testing in 2010. The FDA's results were even more astonishing: The agency detected lead in all 400 lipsticks tested, ranging from 0.9 to 3.06 ppm -- four times higher than the levels observed in the study done by Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.
And lead isn't the only toxic metal you may be applying to your lips. In a recent study, University of California researchers tested eight lipsticks and 24 lip glosses and detected nine toxic heavy metals, including chromium, cadmium, manganese, aluminum and lead.
The FDA said, "We have assessed the potential for harm to consumers from use of lipstick containing lead at the levels found in both rounds of testing. Lipstick, as a product intended for topical use with limited absorption, is ingested only in very small quantities. We do not consider the lead levels we found in the lipsticks to be a safety concern."
Likewise, the cosmetics industry also doesn't see this as an issue, saying that the dose makes the poison -- in other words, the trace amounts of heavy metals in lipsticks are not harmful.
But the FDA noted, "Although we do not believe that the lead content found in our recent lipstick analyses poses a safety concern, we are evaluating whether there may be a need to recommend an upper limit for lead in lipstick in order to further protect the health and welfare of consumers. "
Indeed, what the FDA and the cosmetics industry have been ignoring is cumulative exposure and potential long-term adverse effects.
It's true that a single lipstick application will not lead to harm. And the good news is that not all lipsticks contain detectable levels of lead or other heavy metals. (And by the way, cost doesn't seem to be a factor; a cheap or expensive lipstick isn't the determinant of how much lead is present.)
The problem is when women who wear lipstick apply it two to 14 times a day, according to the University of California study. The result is that they are ingesting and absorbing through their lips as much as 87 milligrams of product a day, the study says.
Women are not only applying their lipsticks several times a day, but they also are doing this in the span of a whole lifetime, which means that exposure to lead and other heavy metals adds up and canpotentially affect their health.
One challenge for people wanting to avoid exposure is that none of the metals, with the exception of aluminum, are deliberately added to lipsticks and lip glosses. The metals are contaminants that are present in the pigments and base materials used to make the products. Because the metals are not ingredients, cosmetics companies are not required to list them on products' ingredient labels.
The law regulating cosmetics passed Congress in 1938 and has never been updated. The FDA possesses no legal authority to make sure products are safe before they are sold. Nor is the agency empowered to pull dangerous products from store shelves. It's the Wild West for cosmetics companies, which have very few rules restricting chemical ingredients used in everything from shampoosto lotions to lipsticks.
As the contamination of lip products with heavy metals makes it clear, allowing the industry to police itself is not the best idea.
We need the FDA to be empowered by Congress and to take action so women won't face any health risks when they put on makeup. Cosmetics companies should be required to adhere to a standard for best manufacturing processes to limit metal contamination.
For now, consumers should take precautions to protect themselves from heavy metal exposure from lip products. First, use less. If you find yourself reapplying lipstick 14 times a day, consider cutting back. Second, don't let children use lipstick, as their young bodies are especially vulnerable to toxic metals. Then let's get to work to make sure that by the time they've grown up, we have solved the problem of toxic chemicals in cosmetics.
Posted by Breast Cancer Fund on April 16, 2014 at 12:50 PM in Chemicals policy reform, Choose Safe Cosmetics, Cosmetics, Eat & Live Better, Federal Legislation, General Public Health, General Science, Green Our Chemical System, Make Informed Health Care Choices, Make Our Products Safe, Make Prevention a Public Health Priority, News article, Protect Yourself & the Environment | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: Breast Cancer, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, heavy metals, lipsticks, Parts per million (ppm, the dose makes the poison, toxic metal, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Unviersity of California, Wild West
Facing pressure from shareholders and consumers who want safer cosmetics, Avon announced it will phase out the toxic chemical triclosan from its beauty and personal care products. While the Breast Cancer Fund and our Campaign for Safe Cosmetics are pleased that Avon has taken action to remove this hormonally active chemical, we’re pushing the company to adopt a comprehensive policy that declares all chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects and other adverse health effects to be off limits.
"The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics congratulates Avon for finally giving triclosan the boot," said the Breast Cancer Fund's Janet Nudelman."But triclosan is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to unsafe chemicals in cosmetics. We want Avon to adopt a comprehensive policy that declares chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, and other adverse health effects to be off limits in cosmetics and to support stricter regulation of the $71bn cosmetics industry so that everyone is protected."
Posted by Breast Cancer Fund on April 16, 2014 at 12:47 PM in Chemicals policy reform, Choose Safe Cosmetics, Cosmetics, Create a Healthy Home, Eat & Live Better, Federal Legislation, General Public Health, General Science, Green Our Chemical System, Make Prevention a Public Health Priority, News article | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Firefighters Sound Alarm On Toxic Chemicals
Firefighters across the nation lined public spaces with work boots to protest the pervasive use of flame retardants and other toxic chemicals in household products on Thursday, March 27. It's all part of "Give Toxics the Boot", an initiative to get toxic chemicals out of our homes launched by the HBO film Toxic Hot Seat, along with Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, and the International Association of Fire Fighters.
Mark Leno's bill would close loophole on fire-retardant use
A bill introduced by state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would give Californians the right to know whether the furniture they're buying contains potentially dangerous flame-retardant chemicals.
S.F. firefighter's new battle: proving cancer is job-related
The San Francisco Chronicle reports on a law being drafted by San Francisco Board of Supervisors President David Chiu to give firefighters the presumption that disabilities from illnesses such as cancer or heart disease were caused by their work. The article highlights the case of Denise Elarms,a female firefighter in San Francisco, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2011 and has been fighting to prove that her illness is job-related.
Posted by Breast Cancer Fund on March 28, 2014 at 12:05 PM in Air & Water, Chemicals policy reform, Eat & Live Better, Federal Legislation, General Public Health, General Science, Green Our Chemical System, Household Products, News article, Protect Yourself & the Environment | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Solidifying its national leadership to halt the use of a highly toxic flame retardant chemical linked to cancer and other serious health effects, Gov. Jerry Brown's administration issued new rules requiring the evaluation of the safety of TDCPP (chlorinated Tris) and its alternatives used in children’s sleep products sold in the state of California.
As a key step in its Safer Consumer Products regulations, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) announced three draft “priority products” that are listed below. DTSC is requiring manufacturers who want to sell them in California to conduct an “alternatives analysis” to determine if feasible safer ingredients are available.
DTSC says they selected these priority products because they contain at least one of more than 1,100 toxic chemicals that the department identified as having the potential to cause significant harm to people or the environment. The products also are widely used and create the potential for significant public exposure to these chemicals.
The three products are:
The Breast Cancer Fund's Janet Nudelman was quoted by three news outlets about the development:
Posted by Breast Cancer Fund on March 20, 2014 at 04:10 PM in Chemicals policy reform, Create a Healthy Home, Eat & Live Better, Federal Legislation, General Public Health, General Science, Make Our Products Safe, Make Prevention a Public Health Priority, News article, Protect Your Family, Protect Yourself & the Environment, State Legislation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)