March, 03 2011, 03:48pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Kathleen Sutcliffe, Earthjustice, (202) 667-4500, ext. 235
Groups Applaud Progress on Cleaning Product Chemical Right-To-Know Effort, Submit Response to State Proposal
Groups Applaud Progress on Cleaning Product Chemical Right-To-Know Effort, Submit Response to State Proposal
ALBANY, N.Y.
As New York State moves forward with a proposal requiring manufacturers of household cleaners to tell consumers what chemicals are in their products, public interest groups submitted comments this week on the plan. The coalition of 42 public interest groups applauded the state Department of Environmental Conservation's continuing effort, and urged the agency to specifically require companies to disclose any chemicals in their products that cause nerve damage or hormone disruption, even if industry asks to keep this information secret from consumers.
The State's proposal came after widespread public pressure and a lawsuit brought by advocates to enforce a first-of-its-kind but long-ignored set of 1976 regulations requiring manufacturers of household cleaners to reveal the chemical ingredients in their products and any health risks they pose. The lawsuit was brought against Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, Arm & Hammer parent company Church & Dwight, and Lysol-maker Reckitt Benckiser. All four companies, when informed by advocates about the regulations, either ignored the notification or refused to file disclosure reports with the State.
"Our new Governor has long been a champion of the public's right-to-know. As Attorney General, his Project Sunlight offered a comprehensive database of government information for the first time in New York's history. Now, DEC is poised to make history again by enforcing New York's chemical disclosure requirements," said Earthjustice attorney Deborah Goldberg, who is handling the court case against the companies. "Unfortunately, industry groups don't seem nearly as committed to this effort. Public interest groups have followed the state's timeline and made our comments available to all stakeholders. We'd be very happy to see the same kind of behavior from the cleaning products industry."
Public interest groups are backing a swift timetable for ingredient disclosure as well as a convenient information hub for consumers to search and compare chemical ingredients among different brands and products. The agency still has not said when the companies will be required to file this information, but has said it is committed to making this information easily accessible to consumers.
"Consumers have a right to know what is in the cleaning products that they use--just as they have come to expect from food. While companies have made some progress in ingredient disclosures, the efforts are inconsistent, spotty and don't provide adequate safety information," said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Director of Technical Policy at Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. "Companies should welcome this opportunity to provide a level playing field and be able to provide consumers the information they need in a consistent and comprehensive fashion."
Forty-two groups, representing a range of consumer, labor, health, environmental and good government groups signed on to the comments, which praised DEC staff for their steady progress.
"New Yorkers want to know what's in the products we use in our homes every day, and the Department of Environmental Conservation understands why it's important to share--and not hide--information about poisonous chemicals in some household cleansers. We're glad New York State is gearing up to require cleaning product manufacturers to come clean about the toxic chemicals in their products," said Saima Anjam of Environmental Advocates of New York.
In the document, the groups cautioned that the agency should require companies to disclose any chemicals in their products that cause nerve damage or hormone disruption, in addition to impacts that DEC listed, such as cancer or asthma--even if these chemicals are only present in small amounts.
"I'm sick and tired of standing in front of a store shelf and being utterly stymied by the lack of information I would need to make an educated choice about how to clean my home without contaminating it in the bargain," said Kathy Curtis, mother of four and policy director for Clean New York. "Since household cleansers are products we all use, requiring disclosure of their ingredients would be a good start toward requiring full disclosure of all ingredients in all products."
Cleaning product manufacturers are taking notice of the changing climate toward toxics in products. In response to a letter sent by the groups involved in the court case, several companies, including the California-based Sunshine Makers, Inc. (manufacturers of Simple Green products), filed reports with the State for the first time. And three weeks after the groups' disclosure lawsuit was filed, household cleaner manufacturing giant SC Johnson announced that it would begin disclosing the chemical ingredients in its products through product labels and a website. The company is now in the midst of a high-profile national advertising campaign touting its efforts.
But other companies, including the four targeted in the lawsuit, are hiding behind an industry-backed voluntary disclosure plan, which fails to connect the dots between chemicals and health hazards and thus falls seriously short of the more complete disclosure required by New York's regulations.
"Consumers have a right to know what's in their cleaning products so they can have the information they need to select the safest products for use in their homes," says Jamie Silberberger, director of programs and policy at Women's Voices for the Earth. "The industry's proposal falls far short of meaningful disclosure. In fact, it's a step behind what companies like SC Johnson & Sons and Seventh Generation are already publicly disclosing."
"The difference between the cleaning product industry's voluntary program and the full disclosure required under New York's law could mean the difference between triggering or preventing an asthma attack," said Laura Haight, senior environmental associate with the New York Public Interest Research Group.
Studies show links between chemicals in common household cleaners and respiratory irritation, asthma, and allergies. Occupational exposures to some ethylene glycol ethers, often used as solvents in cleaning products, are associated with red blood cell damage, reproductive system damage, and birth defects. Some solvents in cleaning products are also toxic to the nervous system.
"Common household cleaners such as oven cleaner, glass cleaner and furniture polish contain chemicals that are linked to serious health effects," said Sharonda Williams, Environmental Policy and Advocacy Coordinator WEACT For Environmental Justice. "The health risks are especially pronounced for low income people and people of color who shop at the 99 cent stores in their communities--often the purveyors of some of the most toxic household cleaners on the market."
New York's policy move could have national implications, as momentum builds here and abroad for toxic chemical reform. Congress is facing pressure to overhaul U.S. chemical policy and require the chemical industry to prove the safety of a chemical before it could be used in products. Meanwhile, states are taking the lead by implementing laws to protect their residents and leveraging limited resources by compiling information about toxic chemicals and their safer alternatives through the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse. Internationally, companies are preparing to comply with a similar European law (known as REACH) already taking effect.
"If companies want to sell certain products in Europe, they need to demonstrate they are safe for the intended consumer," said Christine Brouwer, Co-Founder & Executive Director of Mira's Movement. "We're still a long way from that standard. But New York's right-to-know law is a good first step. And as much as companies might wish otherwise, this law isn't going away and neither are we."
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Privacy Defenders Decry 'Spy Draft' in Section 702 Renewal Advanced by Senate
"It's not about who RISAA allows the government to spy on, it's about who RISAA allows the government to force to spy," explained one critic.
Apr 18, 2024
Civil liberties defenders on Thursday decried the U.S. Senate's advancement of the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, which critics say lawmakers are trying to ram through without protection against warrantless surveillance and with a provision that would effectively make every American a spy whether they like it or not.
Senators voted 67-32 in favor of a cloture motion to begin voting on RISAA, a bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which expires on Friday. FISA—a highly controversial law that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times—allows warrantless surveillance of non-U.S. citizens but also often sweeps up Americans' communication data in the process.
In a 273-147 vote last week, House lawmakers passed RISAA, including an amendment critics say dramatically expands the government's unchecked surveillance authority by compelling a wide range of individuals and organizations—including businesses and the media—to cooperate in government spying operations.
This so-called "Make Everyone a Spy" clause would allow the attorney general or director of national intelligence to force electronic communication service providers to "immediately provide... all information, facilities, or assistance" the government deems necessary.
"This bill would basically allow the government to institute a spy draft," Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, warned Thursday. "It will lead to significant distrust between journalists and sources, not to mention everyone else."
"It's not about who RISAA allows the government to spy on, it's about who RISAA allows the government to force to spy," he added. "Regardless of whether the end target of the surveillance is a foreigner, it's indisputable that the people the government can enlist to conduct the surveillance are Americans. And what's more, these civilians ordered to spy would be gagged and sworn to secrecy under the law."
In addition to the "Make Everyone a Spy" provision, civil libertarians have sounded the alarm over the House lawmakers' rejection of an amendment that would have added a warrant requirement to the legislation.
Critics accuse Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and colleagues including Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) of trying to rush a vote on RISAA while disingenuously claiming Section 702's powers will expire with the law on Friday. That's a misleading claim, as a national security court earlier this month approved the government's request to continue a disputed surveillance program even if Section 702 lapses.
"There is simply no defense of Majority Leader Schumer and Sen. Warner's duplicity," Sean Vitka, policy director at the progressive advocacy group Demand Progress, said in a statement. "House Intelligence Committee leaders poisoned this bill with one of the most repugnant surveillance expansions in history, and apparently the administration was too busy attacking commonsense privacy protections to notice. They know it, we know it, and now the American people know it."
"There can be no mistake: Sens. Schumer and Warner just helped hand the next president an unspeakably dangerous weapon that will be used against their own constituents," Vitka added. "And there is only one vote left to stop it."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—who
said earlier this week that the bill would dragoon the American people into becoming "an agent for Big Brother"—on Thursday argued that "this issue demands a debate about meaningful reforms, not a rushed vote to rubber-stamp more warrantless government surveillance powers."
In an attempt to tackle the warrantless surveillance issue, Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) on Thursday proposed a RISAA amendment that would require the government to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before accessing Americans' private communications.
However, the amendment contains exceptions to the warrant requirement in the event of unspecified emergencies and cyberattacks.
"If the government wants to spy on the private communications of Americans, they should be required to get approval from a judge—just as our Founders intended," Durbin said in a statement. "Congress has a responsibility to the American people to get this right."
The Biden administration and U.S. intelligence agencies vehemently oppose the Durbin-Cramer amendment. The White House called the measure "a reckless policy choice contrary to the key lessons of 9/11 and not grounded in any constitutional requirement or statute."
"The amendment outright bars the government from gaining access to lawfully collected information using terms associated with U.S. persons," the administration added. "Exceptions to that prohibition are narrow and unworkable. They are insufficient to protect our national security."
On Wednesday, the House also passed the Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act, which would prohibit the government from buying Americans' information from data brokers if it would otherwise need a warrant to obtain the data, which includes location and internet records. The Senate will now take up FANFSA.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Opposite of Leadership': US Vetoes Palestine's UN Membership
Palestine's permanent observer at the United Nations said the resolution's failure "will not break our will, and it will not defeat our determination."
Apr 18, 2024
U.S. President Joe Biden's administration on Thursday used the country's veto power at the United Nations Security Council to block Palestine's bid to become a full member of the U.N.
While 12 nations voted in favor of Palestinian membership and two abstained, the United States is one of five countries—along with China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom—who have veto authority at the Security Council.
Since Israel launched what the International Court of Justice has said is a "plausibly" genocidal assault of the Gaza Strip in response to a Hamas-led October attack, the Biden administration has blocked three cease-fire resolutions at the Security Council. Under mounting global pressure, the U.S. finally abstained last month, allowing a cease-fire measure to pass.
In the lead-up to Thursday's vote, the Biden administration was pressuring other countries to oppose the Palestinian Authority's renewed membership effort so it could possibly avoid a veto, according to leaked cables obtained by The Intercept.
"Take a moment to ponder how isolated Biden has made the U.S.," said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, after the veto. "Biden lobbied Japan, South Korea, and Ecuador HARD to oppose the Palestine resolution so that the U.S. wouldn't have to veto. They refused. So Biden cast his fourth veto in seven months (!!) This is the opposite of leadership."
In addition to the nations Parsi highlighted, Algeria, China, France, Guyana, Malta, Mozambique, Russia, Sierra Leone, and Slovenia voted for giving Palestine full U.N. membership while Switzerland and the United Kingdom abstained.
After the vote, U.N. Newsreported on remarks from Riyad Mansour, a U.N. permanent observer for the state of Palestine:
"We came to the Security Council today as an important historic moment, regionally and internationally, so that we could salvage what can be saved. We place you before a historic responsibility to establish the foundations of a just and comprehensive peace in our region."
Council members were given the opportunity "to revive the hope that has been lost among our people" and to translate their commitment towards a two-state solution into firm action "that cannot be maneuvered or retracted," and the majority of council members "have risen to the level of this historic moment, and they have stood on the side of justice and freedom and hope, in line with the ethical and humanitarian and legal principles that must govern our world and in line with simple logic."
"The fact that this resolution did not pass will not break our will, and it will not defeat our determination," Mansour added. "We will not stop in our effort. The state of Palestine is inevitable. It is real. Perhaps they see it as far away, but we see it as near, and we are the faithful."
Parsi said that "a Western-friendly senior Global South diplomat" told him of Biden's veto: "Whatever agonizing claim the U.S. had to lead a self-appointed free world has died a very loud public death on the Security Council horseshoe tonight. YOU CAN'T LEAD IF YOU CAN'T LISTEN."
Biden, a Democrat seeking reelection in November, has faced fierce criticism in the United States and around the world for U.S. complicity in Israel's war on Gaza—which Hamas, not the Palestinian Authority, has controlled for nearly two decades. In under seven months, Israeli forces have killed 33,970 Palestinians, injured another 76,770, displaced most of the besieged enclave's 2.3 million population, devastated civilian infrastructure, and severely limited the flow of lifesaving humanitarian assistance.
Israel—which already got $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid before October 7—continues to receive weapons support from the Biden administration, even as a growing chorus of critics, including some Democrats in Congress, argues that the arms transfers violate U.S. and international law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shameful': Columbia Greenlights Police Crackdown on Anti-War Encampment
Even after dozens of students were arrested, hundreds "rushed to take the place of their classmates" and continued the protest.
Apr 18, 2024
The arrests of dozens of Columbia University and Barnard College students on Thursday "galvanized" other supporters of Palestinian rights on the campuses, as hundreds of students occupied the school's western lawn after New York City police filled at least two buses with protesters who had been detained for setting up an encampment.
"Disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest," chanted hundreds of students as they marched around the area where organizers had set up a tent encampment early Wednesday morning.
Columbia President Minouche Shafik informed the campus community on Thursday that she had authorized the police to clear the encampment.
As it has been in the past, the school has become a center of anti-war protests—and crackdowns by school officials and the police—since Israel began its bombardment of Gaza in October.
Pro-Palestinian students and alumni have demanded that Columbia divest from companies that profit from Israel's apartheid policies in the occupied Palestinian territories and cancel its dual degree program with Tel Aviv University.
In response to pro-Palestinian demonstrations, Columbia in November suspended the campus chapters of Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine—an action that pushed the New York Civil Liberties Union and Palestine Legal to file a lawsuit on behalf of the students last month.
On Thursday, police and Columbia employees took down about 50 tents that had been up for more than a day and disposed of them in trash cans and alleyways—but The New York Times reported later that "demonstrators repitched a couple of tents, and ... recovered the main signage from the encampment as well," while hundreds of students were "still gathered and chanting on the south side of the grass."
The arrests came a day after Shafik testified before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce about antisemitism on campus.
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), whose daughter, Isra Hirsi, was among the Barnard students who were suspended on Thursday for participating in the encampment protest, questioned Shafik about whether antisemitic protests have actually taken place at Columbia, prompting the president to say there have not.
"There has been a rise in targeting and harassment against anti-war protesters, because it's been pro-war and anti-war protesters is what it seems, like, correct?" asked Omar.
"Correct," replied Shafik.
On Thursday, Omar posted on social media two images of protesters at Columbia: one from the encampment this week, and one from 1968, when students protested the U.S. war in Vietnam.
New York City Council member Tiffany Cabán was among those who condemned the university's crackdown on the protests on Thursday.
"Suspending and arresting Columbia/Barnard student activists and disbanding student organizations—including Jewish students and organizations—doesn't combat antisemitism or increase safety," said Cabán. "All it does is punish and intimidate those who believe in human rights for Palestinians. Shameful."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular