From The New York Times:

In their quest to rid cleaning products of toxic chemicals, consumer advocates have now set their sights on Tide, the best-selling laundry detergent.

Last fall, the environmental groupWomen’s Voices for the Earth commissioned laboratory tests on 20 cleaning products and found what it described as problematic levels of 1,4 dioxane, a solvent, in Tide Free & Gentle (fragrance free) and Tide Original Scent, said Erin Switalksi, the group’s executive director. Smaller amounts of the chemical were found in Bounce Free & Sensitive (fragrance free), dryer sheets that are used to reduce static.

Small amounts of 1,4 dioxane are formed during the manufacturer of detergents, shampoos and certain drugs. The Environmental Protection Agency considers the chemical a probable carcinogen.

Ms. Switalski said her group had relayed its concerns to Procter & Gamble, the manufacturer, and that a group of advocacy organizations had done so as well, demanding action. “Tide Free and Gentle is marketed to moms as a healthier choice for babies,” she said, adding, “Our perspective is that it doesn’t need to be in there.”

But Procter & Gamble officials say that the levels of 1,4 dioxane in their products are minuscule and well within generally accepted safety guidelines. “We are many, many levels of magnitude below the levels that are considered any level of safety risk,” said Tim Long, a toxicologist for the company.

Procter & Gamble does not plan to reformulate the products based on the recent testing. However, Mr. Long said the company has been working for decades to reduce or eliminate even trace elements of 1,4 dioxane and other toxic chemicals in its products and continue to do so.

One difficulty is that the federal government has not published a definite limit for what constitutes a safe level of 1,4 dioxane in consumer products. In March, the Environmental Protection Agency identified 83 chemicals for further assessment under the Toxic Substances Control Act, and 1,4 dioxane was on the list.

In addition, the E.P.A. allows no more than 100 parts per million of 1,4 dioxane for a product to be eligible for its Design for the Environmentprogram, a labeling program intended to highlight safe cleaning and household programs.

The Women’s Voices for the Earth’s lab testing found 89 parts per million of 1,4 dioxane in Tide Free & Gentle, 63 parts per million in Tide Original Scent and less than 1 part per million in the Bounce product, Ms. Switalksi said.

Procter & Gamble official said the amounts were so low that they had not warranted the government’s full attention. They pointed out, for instance, that while the Food and Drug Administration has not set a limit for 1,4 dioxane, it considers current levels in cosmetics are permissible.

But Ms. Switalski said the uncertainty underscores why Procter & Gamble should remove the chemical from its products. “We don’t fully understand how much 1,4 dioxane is needed to give someone cancer,” she said, arguing that the levels might be different for infants and people who are sick. “For us, the bottom line is that Tide and Tide Free and Gentle are contaminated products.”

In the last several years, independent laboratory tests have become a common tool for consumer groups seeking to pressure the companies to reformulate consumer products.

In 2010, Procter & Gamble reformulated its Herbal Essence line of shampoos so that they carried no more than 10 parts per million of 1,4 dioxane, which company official said was part of an overall effort to reduce or eliminate the chemical from its products.

And last year, Johnson & Johnson said it was reformulating its baby productsto remove phthalates and to reduce 1,4-dioxane in baby shampoos.

We will keep you updated of any regulatory changes.

From Heartland.org:

Efforts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act could end up harming human health by stifling innovation and keeping perfectly safe and beneficial products from reaching consumers, concludes a just-released study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Changes Would Stifle Innovation

“Changes to TSCA are highly unlikely to have any measurable positive effect on public health, given the scant evidence that the trace-level substances that TSCA regulates have any significant health impacts,” said Angela Logomasini, director of risk studies at CEI, in a press release accompanying the study.“Rather, a stronger TSCA law may harm human well-being by leading to bans on many valuable products, undermining innovation, and diverting resources from valuable enterprises to meet burdensome regulatory mandates.”

TCSA Balances Costs, Benefits

Enacted in 1976, TSCA is designed to regulate chemicals not covered by other environmental statutes. TSCA also differs from other environmental laws in setting a risk-based standard for allowing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate chemicals.

TSCA “also demands that the agency consider both cost-benefit considerations and potentially adverse outcomes of its regulatory actions,” noted Logomasini. “Under TSCA, EPA is allowed to regulate when the agency finds that a chemical poses ‘an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.’ Once that determination has been made, EPA must apply such restrictions ‘to the extent necessary to protect adequately against such risk, using the least burdensome requirements.’”

Precise Language Drives Success

The CEI study, “The Real Meaning of TSCA ‘Modernization’: The Shift from Science-based Standards to Over-Precaution,” warns “reforming” TSCA may transform the law into the antithesis of what it was created to do.

Because TSCA has a risk-based approach to regulation, the carefully crafted language of TSCA has generally avoided creating controversies like those that have surrounded the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other more loosely worded laws. Weakening the statute’s scientific safeguards could bestow EPA with far-reaching discretionary power to regulate as it sees fit, the study warns, which will dramatically change the intended nature of the law.

“Contrary to many claims,” the study explains, “the EPA has managed to use [the TSCA] to impose thousands of regulations, collect substantial data under both mandatory and voluntary programs, and demand testing of chemicals.”

Activists Seek Presumption of Guilt

Ironically, it is the clear and carefully tailored language of the TSCA that has frustrated environmental activists and prompted them to pressure the Obama administration to call for “modernizing” the statute. Richard Dennison of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), for example, advocates a “presumed guilty until proven innocent” approach to a restructured TSCA.

On the legislative front, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced a bill in 2009 to, in his words, “put the burden of chemical safety where it belongs: on the chemical companies.” Lautenberg’s bill was not enacted, but that hasn’t kept environmental activists from urging Congress to scrap TSCA’s current risk-based standard for a more speculative “precautionary” approach.

“Some would model the new rule after the ‘reasonable certainty of no harm’ standard set in the Food Quality Protection Act, which has produced a host of unnecessary bans and regulations on valuable products that are used to ensure affordable food production and control of dangerous pests,” Logomasini explained.

Where Is the Need?

“Where is the evidence that we, the people, need to be protected from environmental exposure to tiny amounts of chemicals?” asks Gilbert Ross, M.D., medical director of the New York-based American Council for Science and Health.

“The cries for ‘reform’ emanate from the same environmental activist groups that oppose so many other beneficial chemicals and technologies,” Ross continued. “These well-funded groups, whose raison d’etre is to foment regulation and litigation, say the law is creaking at age 36, and only a handful of chemicals have been regulated under its auspices. Talk about circular logic—the chemicals assessed have been found to be safe, so they say something must be wrong with the law!”

We will keep you informed about any changes to the TSCA.

From Health Canada:

This recall involves the “HD Life Style Hairspray Extreme” brand of hairsprays. This hair care product is sold in a 500 mL black aerosol container. The UPC on the product is 8022033004659.

The recalled product contains methylene chloride (dichloromethane), which is banned as an ingredient in pressurized products. This chemical compound is a potential human carcinogen. It poses an inhalation hazard and may form carbon monoxide in the blood.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and dispose of it as per Municipal Hazardous Waste Guidelines. Consumers are asked to contact their municipality for instructions on disposing aerosol containers.

For more information, consumers may contact NATURADIF Inc. at (514) 271-7011,Monday to Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM EST.

The product also lacks the symbol and warnings required for potentially flammable and explosive products under Canadian law. This lack of labelling information could result in misuse of the product and lead to serious injury.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these hairsprays.

We will keep you updated with regard to future consumer product recalls.

From Health Canada:

This recall involves the following consumer chemical products sold under the brand name “Mighty Maid” by The Soap Stop.

Mighty Maid Scale and Mineral Remover is an acid-based, viscous liquid that that removes soap scum and scale buildup in sinks, toilets, showers and bathtubs. It is greenish-blue in colour, has a wintergreen fragrance, and is sold in 1L and 4L containers.

Mighty Maid Orange Oil Cleaner is a degreaser used in the removal of glue, tape and fabric stains. It is an orange translucent liquid, has a natural orange fragrance, and is sold in 500mL, 4L and 20L containers.

Health Canada’s auditing process has revealed that the Mighty Maid Scale/Mineral Remover does not meet the labelling and child-resistant closure requirements for consumer chemical products under Canadian law.

The same auditing process revealed that the Mighty Maid Orange Oil Cleaner poses an aspiration hazard and subsequently does not meet the labelling and child-resistant closure requirements for consumer chemical products.

Aspiration occurs when a chemical product is ingested and then is introduced into the lungs through coughing and/or vomiting. It can result in severe adverse health effects including: pulmonary injury, chemical pneumonia and death.

Neither The Soap Stop nor Health Canada has received any reports of incidents or illnesses related to the use of these products.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and return it to the place of purchase for a refund. Consumers who do not wish to return the product should dispose of it according to Municipal Hazardous Waste Guidelines.

For more information, consumers may contact The Soap Stop Customer Service at780-672-1780.

We will keep you updated regarding any future consumer product recalls.

From the Environmental Working Group:

The federal Environmental Protection Agency has announced a plan to conduct comprehensive safety reviews of 83 chemicals common in consumer goods and manufacturing and to give top priority to seven chemicals considered the most serious risks to human health and the environment.

“The list of chemicals EPA has targeted reads like a rogue’s gallery of carcinogens, neurotoxic substances and chemicals that could cause serious organ damage,” said Jane Houlihan, Senior Vice President for Research at the Environmental Working Group. “Congress hasn’t come up with a legislative fix to help shield the public from toxic substances. But the Obama EPA under Administrator Lisa Jackson continues to do what it’s supposed to do: protect people and the environment.”

We will keep you updated with any new developments from the EPA.

From firemarshals.org:

The National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM), whose members are the senior state fire officials in the U.S. and the District of Columbia, is pleased to provide this comment on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Fire Pots and Gel Fuel (76 Fed. Reg. 80832, Dec. 27, 2011). NASFM’s primary mission, and that of individual State Fire Marshals, is to

We will keep you informed of any developments from the CPSC.

From southcoasttoday.com:

The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) commends last week’s decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to reject a second sweeping petition to ban lead nationally in all fishing tackle. According to the ASA, the petition, which was submitted on Nov. 16, 2011, by the Center for Biological Diversity and two other groups, requested that the EPA study and ultimately ban lead in fishing tackle on all U.S. waters under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

This most recent attempt to federally ban lead fishing tackle came on the heels of the EPA’s November 2010 decision to dismiss a similar petition submitted by the same groups. That decision is currently being challenged in court by the petitioners. Sweeping regulation of lead fishing tackle would have a significant, negative impact on recreational anglers and the sportfishing industry with minimal benefit to the environment, says the ASA.

In dismissing this most recent petition, the EPA stated that the petitioners did not provide a basis for finding that the risk presented is an unreasonable risk for which federal action is necessary. The EPA also cited state-specific actions and the increasing education and outreach activities being undertaken. The EPA’s decision falls in line with sound fish and wildlife management practices and several scientific studies which demonstrate that waterfowl populations are not negatively impacted by the use of lead fishing tackle.

“The sportfishing industry applauds the EPA’s dismissal of this most recent petition,” said ASA Vice President Gordon Robertson. “Sweeping regulations on lead fishing tackle would have a tremendous impact on the sportfishing industry and change the face, and cost, of recreational fishing for the angling public. Unjustified bans will only serve to harm the economy and reduce participation in traditional outdoor sports.”

We will keep you informed of any future developments.

From physorg.com:

From prweb.com:

OSHA’s revised hazard communication standard passed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review. The updated standard incorporates the principles of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) which aims to standardize the classification and labeling of chemicals and related hazard communication. Benefits of OSHA’s updated HCS include reduced time and costs involved in meeting multiple regulations for hazard communication, improved comprehension and understanding of health and environmental hazards, facilitation of trade by removing barriers created by various health and safety requirements, and reduction of duplicate material testing.

The OMB approved the standard through the final ruling stage as “consistent with change.” The consistent with change status signifies that the draft rule had been modified in the course of the review, but was determined to be consistent with the executive order and all applicable requirements. However, it is not yet known the extent of the changes, whether they are substantive or inconsequential. Now in the Final Rule stage, the last step is for the rule to be published officially in the Federal Register thus setting the effective date for the transition period. The timing of publication to the register is not known at this time.

We will keep you informed of future GHS developments.