SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A Pro-Industry EPA Could Undermine New Chemical Safety Law
By releasing the first 10 chemicals to be reviewed under the new federal chemical safety law, the Environmental Protection Agency reminds us of what's at stake - and how decisions made by the incoming Trump administration could jeopardize Americans' health.
"If the EPA's top spots are packed with pro-industry officials, Americans may never have the safety protections in place that we deserve."
Dec 03, 2016
By releasing the first 10 chemicals to be reviewed under the new federal chemical safety law, the Environmental Protection Agency reminds us of what's at stake - and how decisions made by the incoming Trump administration could jeopardize Americans' health.
"If the EPA's top spots are packed with pro-industry officials, Americans may never have the safety protections in place that we deserve."
Many of the chemicals identified by the EPA are found in consumer products and have been linked to cancer. But the team deciding how the incoming administration will implement the new law is led by Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded front group that has consistently downplayed the risks toxic chemicals pose.
The front group's so-called experts deem chemicals posing serious health hazards safe - including arsenic, mercury, phthalates and formaldehyde. The Institute even laments that the notorious killer asbestos might be among the first "casualties" of the new law, which gives the EPA new power to review and regulate the most dangerous chemicals.
If people like Ebell, who is not a scientist, are put in charge of the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, there's no telling how the science will be twisted to serve the chemical industry. And if the EPA gets it wrong with these first 10 chemicals, there could be serious consequences.
Several of the chemicals on the list are found in consumer products:
- 1,4-dioxane is a likely carcinogen, can lead to irritation in the respiratory tract, and cause damage to the kidneys, liver and brain. It's used in dyes, varnishes and waxes. The chemical can also contaminate cosmetics and cleaners because it is created as a byproduct of chemicals sometimes used in those products. In fact, there are more than 9,000 cosmetics in EWG's Skin Deep(r) database with chemicals that may produce 1,4-dioxane as a byproduct. While technology exists to strip out 1,4-dioxane contamination, there is no requirement to do so or mandatory reporting, making it nearly impossible to know which companies have taken action.
- 1-bromopropane, is "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen," and is linked to reproductive and developmental harms. It is especially risky for women who are pregnant or of child-bearing age because even short-term exposure can harm a developing fetus. It is a powerful solvent used in degreasers, aerosol spray adhesives, aerosol spot removers, and aerosol cleaners and degreasers. 1-bromopropane is also sometimes used in dry cleaning.
- Tetrachloroethylene, better known as PERC, is a solvent used in dry cleaning fluid by approximately 28,000 U.S. dry cleaners. It is also used in household products like water repellents, spot removers, wood cleaners, adhesives and silicone lubricants. The EPA considers PERC a probable human carcinogen and it is on California's list of known carcinogens. It has also been linked to harmful effects on the nervous system and reproductive system, and can affect fetuses.
These chemicals and the others on the EPA's list pose serious risks to consumers, workers and the environment. The new law should be an opportunity for the EPA to finally restrict these toxic chemicals and ensure that consumers are safe. But if the EPA's top spots are packed with pro-industry officials, Americans may never have the safety protections in place that we deserve.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Melanie Benesh
Melanie Benesh is EWG's Legislative Attorney. She provides a legislative and regulatory analysis of federal food, cosmetics, farm, and chemical law. At Georgetown University Law Center, she was a Cutler Salzburg Fellow and served on the Georgetown Journal of International Law. After college, Benesh worked as a research assistant studying fair trade coffee in Chiapas, Mexico, and later as a community organizer for Voces de la Frontera in Milwaukee. She currently co-teaches a course on public interest advocacy as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
By releasing the first 10 chemicals to be reviewed under the new federal chemical safety law, the Environmental Protection Agency reminds us of what's at stake - and how decisions made by the incoming Trump administration could jeopardize Americans' health.
"If the EPA's top spots are packed with pro-industry officials, Americans may never have the safety protections in place that we deserve."
Many of the chemicals identified by the EPA are found in consumer products and have been linked to cancer. But the team deciding how the incoming administration will implement the new law is led by Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded front group that has consistently downplayed the risks toxic chemicals pose.
The front group's so-called experts deem chemicals posing serious health hazards safe - including arsenic, mercury, phthalates and formaldehyde. The Institute even laments that the notorious killer asbestos might be among the first "casualties" of the new law, which gives the EPA new power to review and regulate the most dangerous chemicals.
If people like Ebell, who is not a scientist, are put in charge of the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, there's no telling how the science will be twisted to serve the chemical industry. And if the EPA gets it wrong with these first 10 chemicals, there could be serious consequences.
Several of the chemicals on the list are found in consumer products:
- 1,4-dioxane is a likely carcinogen, can lead to irritation in the respiratory tract, and cause damage to the kidneys, liver and brain. It's used in dyes, varnishes and waxes. The chemical can also contaminate cosmetics and cleaners because it is created as a byproduct of chemicals sometimes used in those products. In fact, there are more than 9,000 cosmetics in EWG's Skin Deep(r) database with chemicals that may produce 1,4-dioxane as a byproduct. While technology exists to strip out 1,4-dioxane contamination, there is no requirement to do so or mandatory reporting, making it nearly impossible to know which companies have taken action.
- 1-bromopropane, is "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen," and is linked to reproductive and developmental harms. It is especially risky for women who are pregnant or of child-bearing age because even short-term exposure can harm a developing fetus. It is a powerful solvent used in degreasers, aerosol spray adhesives, aerosol spot removers, and aerosol cleaners and degreasers. 1-bromopropane is also sometimes used in dry cleaning.
- Tetrachloroethylene, better known as PERC, is a solvent used in dry cleaning fluid by approximately 28,000 U.S. dry cleaners. It is also used in household products like water repellents, spot removers, wood cleaners, adhesives and silicone lubricants. The EPA considers PERC a probable human carcinogen and it is on California's list of known carcinogens. It has also been linked to harmful effects on the nervous system and reproductive system, and can affect fetuses.
These chemicals and the others on the EPA's list pose serious risks to consumers, workers and the environment. The new law should be an opportunity for the EPA to finally restrict these toxic chemicals and ensure that consumers are safe. But if the EPA's top spots are packed with pro-industry officials, Americans may never have the safety protections in place that we deserve.
Melanie Benesh
Melanie Benesh is EWG's Legislative Attorney. She provides a legislative and regulatory analysis of federal food, cosmetics, farm, and chemical law. At Georgetown University Law Center, she was a Cutler Salzburg Fellow and served on the Georgetown Journal of International Law. After college, Benesh worked as a research assistant studying fair trade coffee in Chiapas, Mexico, and later as a community organizer for Voces de la Frontera in Milwaukee. She currently co-teaches a course on public interest advocacy as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
By releasing the first 10 chemicals to be reviewed under the new federal chemical safety law, the Environmental Protection Agency reminds us of what's at stake - and how decisions made by the incoming Trump administration could jeopardize Americans' health.
"If the EPA's top spots are packed with pro-industry officials, Americans may never have the safety protections in place that we deserve."
Many of the chemicals identified by the EPA are found in consumer products and have been linked to cancer. But the team deciding how the incoming administration will implement the new law is led by Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded front group that has consistently downplayed the risks toxic chemicals pose.
The front group's so-called experts deem chemicals posing serious health hazards safe - including arsenic, mercury, phthalates and formaldehyde. The Institute even laments that the notorious killer asbestos might be among the first "casualties" of the new law, which gives the EPA new power to review and regulate the most dangerous chemicals.
If people like Ebell, who is not a scientist, are put in charge of the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, there's no telling how the science will be twisted to serve the chemical industry. And if the EPA gets it wrong with these first 10 chemicals, there could be serious consequences.
Several of the chemicals on the list are found in consumer products:
- 1,4-dioxane is a likely carcinogen, can lead to irritation in the respiratory tract, and cause damage to the kidneys, liver and brain. It's used in dyes, varnishes and waxes. The chemical can also contaminate cosmetics and cleaners because it is created as a byproduct of chemicals sometimes used in those products. In fact, there are more than 9,000 cosmetics in EWG's Skin Deep(r) database with chemicals that may produce 1,4-dioxane as a byproduct. While technology exists to strip out 1,4-dioxane contamination, there is no requirement to do so or mandatory reporting, making it nearly impossible to know which companies have taken action.
- 1-bromopropane, is "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen," and is linked to reproductive and developmental harms. It is especially risky for women who are pregnant or of child-bearing age because even short-term exposure can harm a developing fetus. It is a powerful solvent used in degreasers, aerosol spray adhesives, aerosol spot removers, and aerosol cleaners and degreasers. 1-bromopropane is also sometimes used in dry cleaning.
- Tetrachloroethylene, better known as PERC, is a solvent used in dry cleaning fluid by approximately 28,000 U.S. dry cleaners. It is also used in household products like water repellents, spot removers, wood cleaners, adhesives and silicone lubricants. The EPA considers PERC a probable human carcinogen and it is on California's list of known carcinogens. It has also been linked to harmful effects on the nervous system and reproductive system, and can affect fetuses.
These chemicals and the others on the EPA's list pose serious risks to consumers, workers and the environment. The new law should be an opportunity for the EPA to finally restrict these toxic chemicals and ensure that consumers are safe. But if the EPA's top spots are packed with pro-industry officials, Americans may never have the safety protections in place that we deserve.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.