March, 12 2015, 01:45pm EDT
EWG Welcomes Boxer-Markey Bill To Fix Badly Broken Chemical Safety Law
Legislation introduced today by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., to fix the nation's badly broken and outdated chemical safety law would be a major step in ensuring that Americans, especially children, are protected from toxic substances, Environmental Working Group said.
WASHINGTON
Legislation introduced today by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., to fix the nation's badly broken and outdated chemical safety law would be a major step in ensuring that Americans, especially children, are protected from toxic substances, Environmental Working Group said.
The Boxer-Markey bill, titled the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act, would correct major weaknesses of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. It would ensure that all chemicals be proven to pose a "reasonable certainty of no harm" -- the same standard required for pesticides on produce and food chemicals.
"Americans rightly expect that chemicals in everyday products they use are safe, especially for children who are most vulnerable to toxic exposures," said EWG president and co-founder Ken Cook. "The Boxer-Markey bill would make sure that the nation's chemical safety law meets that expectation."
TSCA has failed to ensure that tens of thousands of widely used toxic chemicals are safe. The 1976 law exempted chemicals already on the market from review and allowed new chemicals to be introduced without complete safety testing.
Since 1976, the EPA has done safety evaluations of only 200 of 60,000 "existing" chemicals in commerce. The law is so weak that EPA was unable to ban asbestos -- a known human carcinogen responsible for killing thousands of people each year.
The Boxer-Markey bill would require rapid review of asbestos and toxic chemicals that are known to be persistent and build up in the human body. The chemical industry would have to share the cost of the federal safety review system.
"We have waited long enough for safety reviews of the most dangerous chemicals to begin," Cook added. "We should not have to wait even longer for the results."
A competing industry-backed bill introduced by Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and David Vitter, R-La., would create a weaker safety standard, give the EPA up to seven years to complete safety reviews and unlimited time to implement chemical restrictions. The Udall-Vitter proposal also would preempt state regulation of chemicals designated as "high priority" by EPA.
"In the absence of a credible federal toxics law, states have led the way to ensure that chemicals are safe," said Heather White, EWG's executive director. "To take away that right undermines public health. Congress should instead take advantage of the states' leadership, expertise and resources to better safeguard children's health and our environment."
See also a comparison of the two chemical safety "reform" bills introduced this week in Congress.
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982LATEST NEWS
2024 Still on Track to Be First Full Year That Breached 1.5°C
"No surprise at all, but still shocking news. Will temperatures drop below 1.5°C again? I have my doubts," said one climate scientist.
Dec 09, 2024
Data from the first 11 months of 2024 reaffirmed that the globe is set to pass a grim mile stone this year, according to the European Union's earth observation program.
The E.U.'s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said in a report Monday that November 2024 was 1.62°C above the preindustrial level, making it the 16th month in a 17-month stretch during which global-average surface air temperature breached 1.5°C. November 2024 was the second-warmest November, after November of last year, according to C3S.
"At this point, it is effectively certain that 2024 is going to be the warmest year on record and more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level," according to a Monday statement from C3S. With data for November in hand, the service estimates that global temperature is set to be 1.59°C above the pre-industrial level for 2024, up from 1.48°C last year.
C3S announced last month that 2024 was "virtually certain" to be the hottest year on record after October 2024 hit 1.65°C higher than preindustrial levels.
"This does not mean that the Paris Agreement has been breached, but it does mean ambitious climate action is more urgent than ever," said Samantha Burgess, deputy director of C3S.
Under the 2015 Paris agreement, signatory countries pledged to reduce their global greenhouse gas emissions with the aim of keeping global temperature rise this century to 1.5ºC, well below 2°C above preindustrial levels. According to the United Nations, going above 1.5ºC on an annual or monthly basis doesn't constitute failure to reach the agreement's goal, which refers to temperature rise over decades—however, "breaches of 1.5°C for a month or a year are early signs of getting perilously close to exceeding the long-term limit, and serve as clarion calls for increasing ambition and accelerating action in this critical decade."
Additionally, a recent paper in the journal Naturewarned of irreversible impacts from overshooting the 1.5ºC target, even temporarily.
Climate scientist and volcanologist Bill McGuire reacted to the news Monday, saying: "Average temperature for 2024 expected to be 1.60°C. A massive hike on 2023, which itself was the hottest year for probably 120,000 years. No surprise at all, but still shocking news. Will temperatures drop below 1.5°C again? I have my doubts."
The update comes on the heels of COP29, the most recent U.N. climate summit, which many climate campaigners viewed as a disappointment. During the summit, attendees sought to reach a climate financing agreement that would see rich, developed countries contribute money to help developing countries decarbonize and deal with the impacts of the climate emergency. The final dollar amount, according to critics, fell far short of what developing countries need.
Keep ReadingShow Less
ABC Anchor Rebuked for Claiming Popular, Cost-Saving Medicare for All Won't Happen
"The D.C. media insists nothing can ever happen," said one progressive journalist. "It's the press corps' Jedi mind trick."
Dec 09, 2024
Advocates for a government-run healthcare program applauded U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna for pushing back during a Sunday morning interview in which ABC News anchor Martha Raddatz casually dismissed Medicare for All as a proposal that has no chance of ever being implemented.
Khanna (D-Calif.) spoke to Raddatz days after the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City—an event that brought to the surface simmering, widespread fury over the for-profit health insurance industry's denial of coverage, high deductibles, and other obstacles placed in the way of Americans when they try to obtain both routine and emergency healthcare.
The congressman said he was "not surprised" by the response to the killing, in which the suspect has yet to be named or found by authorities five days later.
"I mean, people are getting denied cancer treatment," said Khanna. "It's absurd in this country, what's going on."
Raddatz noted that Khanna last week reposted a message from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on the social media platform X, in which the senator pointed to the country's exorbitant spending on healthcare administrative costs—15-25% of total healthcare expenditures, or as much as $1 trillion per year.
"'Healthcare is a human right. We need Medicare for All,'" Raddatz read before adding her own perspective: "That's not really going to happen, so what would you say to those Americans who are frustrated right now?"
Khanna quickly pushed back, saying he believes Sanders is "absolutely right."
"I believe we can make Medicare for All happen," he said, pointing out that Sanders was responding to billionaire Tesla founder Elon Musk, who President-elect Donald Trump has nominated to lead a proposed body called the Department of Government Efficiency, denouncing high healthcare administrative costs last week.
That spending is far higher than the 2% spent by Medicare on administration and results in lower life expectancy, more preventable deaths, high infant and maternal mortality rates, and other poor health outcomes.
Skepticism of the for-profit healthcare system from one of Trump's closest right-wing allies mirrors public support for Medicare for All, which comes from across the political spectrum.
In 2020, a Gallup poll found that 63% of Americans backed at single national health plan to provide coverage for all Americans, including more than a third of Republicans and Independents who lean Republican, and 88% of Democrats. Another American Barometer survey in 2018 found 52% of Republicans supported Medicare for All.
Khanna said Musk's comments indicate that "finally, after years, Sanders is winning this debate and we should be moving towards Medicare for All."
Kenneth Zinn, former political director of National Nurses United, asked, "Who is Martha Raddatz to say" that Medicare for All—which would cost $650 billion less than the current for-profit system, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis—is "not really going to happen."
"This is how the corporate media tries to shut down the discussion or narrow the parameters. The majority of Americans support Medicare for All," said Zinn.
David Sirota of The Leverapplauded Khanna's "direct pushback" against the commonly accepted assumption that expanding the popular and efficient Medicare program to all Americans is an impossibility.
"The D.C. media insists nothing can ever happen," he said. "It's the press corps' Jedi mind trick. Ro called bullshit—which is the right response. [Medicare for All] won't happen overnight, but it CAN eventually happen."
In 2019, Khanna himself slammed "Beltway pundits" for dismissing Medicare for All as "unrealistic and too expensive" even as the U.S. was shown to spend twice as much per capita on healthcare as other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
"Points well-taken, Congressman," said former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner on Sunday. "The United States is the only industrialized nation without universal healthcare. It is immoral, unacceptable, and costly not to have Medicare for All."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Bans Known Carcinogens Used in Dry Cleaning, Other Industries
"Both of these chemicals have caused too much harm for too long, despite the existence of safer alternatives," said one environmental campaigner.
Dec 09, 2024
The Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced a permanent ban on a pair of carcinogenic chemicals widely used in U.S. industries, including dry cleaning services and automative work.
According to the Washington Post:
The announcement includes the complete ban of trichloroethylene—also known as TCE—a substance found in common consumer and manufacturing products including degreasing agents, furniture care and auto repair products. In addition, the agency banned all consumer uses and many commercial uses of Perc—also known as tetrachloroethylene and PCE — an industrial solvent long used in applications such as dry cleaning and auto repair.
Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, applauded the move but suggested to the Post that it should have come sooner.
"Both of these chemicals have caused too much harm for too long, despite the existence of safer alternatives," Kalmuss-Katz.
The EPA's decision, reports the New York Times, was "long sought by environmental and health advocates, even as they braced for what could be a wave of deregulation by the incoming Trump administration."
The Timesreports:
TCE is known to cause liver cancer, kidney cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and to damage the nervous and immune systems. It has been found in drinking water nationwide and was the subject of a 1995 book that became a movie, “A Civil Action,” starring John Travolta. The E.P.A. is banning all uses of the chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which was overhauled in 2016 to give the agency greater authority to regulate harmful chemicals.
Though deemed "less harmful" than TCE, the Times notes how Perc has been shown to "cause liver, kidney, brain and testicular cancer," and can also damage the functioning of kidneys, the liver, and people's immune systems.
Environmentalists celebrated last year when Biden's EPA proposed the ban on TCE, as Common Dreamsreported.
Responding to the news at the time, Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), said the EPA, by putting the ban on the table, was "once again putting the health of workers and consumers first."
While President-elect Donald Trump ran on a having an environmental agenda that would foster the "cleanest air" and the "cleanest water," the late approval of EPA's ban on TCE and Perc in Biden's term means the rule will be subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), meaning the Republican-control Senate could reverse the measure.
In his remarks to the Times, Kalmuss-Katz of Earthjustice said that if Trump and Senate Republicans try to roll back the ban, they will be certain to "encounter serious opposition from communities across the country that have been devastated by TCE, in both blue and red states."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular