SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Kathleen Sutcliffe, Earthjustice, (202) 667-4500, ext. 235
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.
800-584-6460"Trump cozying up with the industry is wildly unpopular," asserted climate campaigner Jamie Henn.
Noting former U.S. President Donald Trump's coziness with the fossil fuel industry and the fact that an overwhelming majority of voters want politicians to tackle its greed, one prominent climate campaigner urged Vice President Kamala Harris—the Democratic nominee—to highlight her Republican opponent's Big Oil ties during Tuesday night's debate.
"Harris should absolutely go after Trump for being in the pocket of Big Oil," Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn said on social media, adding that "89% of Americans want politicians to crack down on Big Oil price gouging."
In a
separate post, Henn urged ABC News, which is hosting the first—and likely only—2024 presidential debate, to ask the candidates about the climate emergency.
"Ninety-nine percent of Americans have experienced some form of extreme weather this year," he wrote. "If ABC News doesn't ask about the climate crisis this evening, it's journalistic malpractice."
On Tuesday, a trio of Democratic U.S. lawmakers called on fossil fuel executives to comply with a request for "information regarding quid pro quo solicitations" from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who earlier this year promised to gut climate regulations if they donated $1 billion to his Republican presidential campaign.
Climate campaigners have been warning of the dangers of a second term for Trump, who during his previous administration rolled back regulations protecting the climate, environment, and biodiversity, resulting in increased pollution and
premature deaths and fueling catastrophic planetary heating.
"If a Trump administration was merely going to be a four-year interregnum, it would be annoying. But in fact it comes at precisely the moment when we need, desperately,
acceleration," 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben wrote in a Guardian opinion article last week.
"The world's climate scientists have done their best to set out a timetable: Cut emissions in half by 2030 or see the possibilities of anything like the Paris pathway, holding temperature increases to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, disappear," he continued. "That cut is on the bleeding edge of the technically possible, but only if everyone is acting in good faith. And the next presidential term will end in January of 2029, which is 11 months before 2030."
"If we elect Donald Trump, we may feel the effects not for years, and not for a generation," McKibben added. "We may read our mistake in the geological record a million years hence. This one really counts."
"Anti-abortion opponents are trying everything to keep abortion rights questions away from voters—but their dirty tricks keep failing," said one campaigner.
Reproductive freedom defenders on Tuesday cheered the Missouri Supreme Court's restoration of an abortion rights referendum—one of numerous 2024 ballot initiatives seeking to codify access to the healthcare procedure in states from coast to coast.
Missouri's highest court overturned Cole County Judge Christopher Limbaugh's ruling removing Amendment 3—also known as the Right to Reproductive Freedom initiative—from the November 5 ballot. Limbaugh ordered Republican Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who decertified the measure on Monday, to place it back on the ballot.
“The majority of Missourians want politicians out of their exam rooms, and today's decision by the Missouri Supreme Court keeps those politicians out of the voting booth as well," Planned Parenthood Great Rivers Action vice president of external affairs Margot Riphagen
said on social media. "On November 5, Missouri voters will declare their right to reproductive freedom, ensuring decisions about our bodies and our healthcare—including abortion—stay between us, our families, and our providers."
Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project—which provides funding and technical assistance to abortion rights campaigns in Missouri, Arizona, Montana, and Florida—said in a statement that "anti-abortion opponents are trying everything to keep abortion rights questions away from voters—but their dirty tricks keep failing. They know that when voters have a say, reproductive freedom is upheld time and time again."
Chris Hatfield, a lawyer representing abortion rights groups in the case, toldThe New York Times: "This is a big deal. The court will send a message today about whether, in our little corner of the democracy, the government will honor the will of the people, or will have it snatched away."
Missouri has one of the nation's most draconian abortion bans, with the procedure
prohibited in almost all circumstances "except in cases of medical emergency." The ban—which dates to 2019—took effect when the U.S. Supreme Court overturnedRoe v. Wade in 2022.
The Midwestern state joins
at least seven others in which abortion will be on the ballot this November. Every abortion rights ballot measure since the overturn of Roe has passed.
In neighboring Nebraska, the state Supreme Court on Monday
heard arguments in three lawsuits filed by activists trying to keep multiple abortion rights referenda off the ballot.
"You don't have to agree with the tactics of climate activists to understand the importance of defending their rights to protest and to free speech."
Rich Western countries have cracked down on non-violent climate protests with harsh laws and lengthy prison sentences, in violation of international law and the civil rights they champion globally, according to a report released Monday by Climate Rights International.
CRI, an advocacy group based in California, found that Australia, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States had used heavy-handed measures to silence climate protesters in recent years. The measures aren't in keeping with the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association enshrined in international law, the report says.
"You don't have to agree with the tactics of climate activists to understand the importance of defending their rights to protest and to free speech," Brad Adams, CRI's executive director, said in a statement.
"Governments too often take such a strong and principled view about the right to peaceful protest in other countries—but when they don't like certain kinds of protests at home they pass laws and deploy the police to stop them," Adams toldThe Guardian.
“These defenders are basically trying to save the planet... These are people we should be protecting, but are seen by governments & corporations as a threat to be neutralised. In the end it’s about power & economics”
- @MaryLawlorhrdshttps://t.co/WPunhbDhCq
— Dr. Aaron Thierry (@ThierryAaron) September 10, 2024
The CRI report details relevant international law, disproportionate actions taken against climate protestors, and draconian new laws established in four of the countries studied. It also lays out recommendations and proposed reforms. CRI was founded in 2022 with a mission that states, "Progress on climate change cannot succeed without protecting human rights—and the fight for human rights cannot succeed without protecting our planet against climate change."
The examples of government crackdowns on climate protesters are numerous. In October 2022, Just Stop Oil activists Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker climbed the cables of a major bridge in England and remained there for two days, causing police to stop traffic across the bridge. They called for the U.K. to stop licensing new oil and gas projects in the North Sea.
Trowland and Decker were each subsequently sentenced to more than 30 months in prison under a 2022 law passed by the Conservative government that led the country at the time. The sentencing prompted concern from a United Nations special rapporteur. An op-ed published Tuesday in The Guardian by Linda Lakhdhir, CRI's legal director, indicated that the Labour Party, now in power in the U.K., has not made a total break from the Conservatives policies.
A similar U.K. case involved Just Stop Oil's disruption of traffic on a highway in November 2022. Five campaigners, including Roger Hallam, well-known as a co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, had spoken on a Zoom call designed to increase participation in the direct action. This July, they were each sentenced to at least four years in jail, with Hallam receiving a five-year sentence—the longest sentences ever given in the country for non-violent protest, The Guardianreported.
Michel Forst, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on environmental defenders, attended part of the trial and called the sentencing a "dark day for peaceful environmental protest."
The attempt to silence climate protest has gone well beyond the U.K. In late August, a German court sentenced a 65-year-old man to nearly two years in prison for blocking a road as part of a protest. An Australian protester was given 15 months in prison for blocking one lane in a five-lane road for 28 minutes in 2022.
In April 2023, Joanna Smith was one of two protesters who put water-soluble paint on the protective case of a sculpture at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. She faced unexpectedly harsh federal charges—for two felonies—that could have landed her in prison for five years, and ended up making a plea deal for a 60-day sentence. Her fellow protestor, Timothy Martin, has a trial scheduled for November.
The report makes the following four general recommendations for governments:
The final recommendation stems from the fact that some jurisdictions and judges have prevented climate activists from stating the reasons for their civil disobedience in court. A U.K. judge, Silas Reid, has repeatedly denied climate protesters the ability to explain their motivations to juries, and even jailed two of them for contempt of court when they did so anyway.
The U.S. has not passed a harsh federal bill along the lines of the 2022 U.K. law, but many states have placed anti-protest laws on the books in recent years, and other state legislatures have considered measures, the report says. A 2019 Texas law strengthened penalties for protests around pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure, and a 2020 Tennessee law did so for "inconvenient" protests.
Harsh penalties are not the only danger that environmental defenders face. Nearly 200 environmental defenders were killed across the world in 2023, according a report released Tuesday by Global Witness.
Crackdowns on non-violent protest in rich Western countries extend beyond the issue of climate. Pro-Palestinian campus protests in the U.S. have also seen harsh crackdowns in the past year, with fears among campaigners that anti-protest measures could increase.
The report posits that governments should take a different approach to such civil disobedience, given its importance in spurring social change in the past.
"Governments should welcome peaceful protests as the sign of an engaged citizenry," the report says. "Those who engage in peaceful protest should, at a minimum, be assured that their rights will be respected."