From National Council of Churches News:

The National Council of Churches expressed disappointment in the Food and Drug Administration’s conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to ban bisphenol-a (BPA), a chemical found in many aluminum cans and some infant formula containers.

The chemical is linked to health concerns in numerous studies that identify such problems as early puberty in girls, prostate and breast cancer, obesity and type II diabetes, heart disease, infertility and neurological issues.

“The faith community is clear on the need to care for the health of our neighbors and to prevent suffering,” said Chloe Schwabe,Environmental Health Program Manager for the NCC’s EcoJustice programs.

“With a scientific body of evidence that continues to produce studies showing harm, we believe the F.D.A. made the wrong decision to allow BPA, a chemical linked to prevalent health conditions, to remain in aluminum cans and infant formula.” Schwabe said.

The full statement is below:

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to allow bisphenol-a (BPA) to continue to be used in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula cans, and food cans in the face of numerous studies that link BPA exposures at low-doses to prevalent health concerns such as cancer, early puberty in girls, and type II diabetes is a violation of our call as Christians to protect the health of God’s children, low-income communities, and all life on Earth.

In the hard economic times, more families prepare meals with canned food and a recent study from Boston University School of Public Health used data from the National Institute of Health and found that low-income communities who receive emergency food assistance have higher levels of BPA in their bodies. People living in poverty should not be unduly exposed to BPA or any chemical with mounting evidence of harm to people and God’s Creation.

As 11 states, Canada, France, Denmark, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, and the EU Commission pass stringent restrictions on this chemical, and the chemical industry and product manufacturers move forward to replace BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, and aluminum cans, the FDA falls short of guaranteeing a healthy future for all God’s children in the United States.”

We will keep you updated regarding ongoing changes to BPA regulations.

From Fox News:

Hunters are up in arms over an Arizona-based conservation group latest bid to get the federal government to ban lead bullets, which the environmentalists claim contaminates the food chain.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which claims 220,000 members, has sent a petition  to the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of nearly 100 groups in 35 states asking the agency to regulate lead right out of ammunition. It’s the second time the group has attempted to get the EPA to take up the cause, and the group is currently suing the federal agency for rejecting the previous bid.

Hunting groups scoff at the Center’s claims that lead left in the carcasses of animals they shoot but don’t collect harms the food chain and that spent casings can contaminate groundwater. They say the group has long sought to curb their rights to hunt and own firearms.

“They are like a woodpecker without any wood. They just keep pecking away,” Lawrence Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation told FoxNews.com. “It’s clear that their motivation is to end hunting in the United States.”

The environmental group claims the EPA has jurisdiction over bullets through the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. But an EPA spokesman told FoxNews.com the agency denied the previous petition because the agency does not share the opinion it has legal authority over bullets and shotgun pellets.

Keane, who noted that the environmental group’s original petition did not exempt police officers or military personnel from using lead bullets, applauded the EPA for understanding its role.

“Regulating ammunition for hunting is simply not in the EPA’s sandbox,” said Keane

Officials at the Center for Biological Diversity, a 501(c)3 organization that took in just under $8 million in 2010, declined to comment to FoxNews.com. But earlier this week, spokesman Jeff Miller released a statement outlining the group’s case.

“The unnecessary poisoning of eagles, condors and other wildlife is a national tragedy that the EPA can easily put an end to,” Miller said. “There are safe, available alternatives to lead ammo for all hunting and shooting sports, so there’s no reason for this poisoning to go on.

“This isn’t about hunting — it’s about switching to nontoxic materials to stop preventable lead poisoning,” Miller said.

Keane disputed the claim that lead bullets are a threat to anything other than what they are fired at.

“There’s no sound science that show lead ammunition having an impact on wildlife population,” said Keane, adding that the firearms industry pays a federal excise tax of 11 percent on ammunition, which goes to wildlife conservation programs.

Last month, Rep.Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) has recently authored a bill called the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012 which places protections on hunting, fishing and shooting. The bill would clarify that materials commonly used in hunting and fishing fall outside the scope of the EPA’s enforcement of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

“Most of our fish and wildlife habitat can be attributed to the taxes paid by the firearms, ammunition and sport fishing tackle industries through sportsmen,” Miller told FoxNews.com. “Ammunition prices are already on the rise and imposing a ban on traditional ammunition and fishing tackle would result in considerable reductions in the number of sportsmen participating in the outdoors, and funding the future of our fish and wildlife habitat.”

We will keep you informed with future updates.

From ECHA:

For the first time, ECHA is publishing information on articles on the EU market that contain SVHCs included on the Candidate List. The data gathered is based on information provided by companies to ECHA in notification and registration dossiers.

The majority of notifications received so far relate to four phthalates that are on the Candidate List due to their toxicity to reproduction. These can typically be found in plastic articles. Examples of such notified articles are cables, bags, packaging material, waterproof garments and PVC flooring. The second most common notification is for the brominated flame retardant (HBCDD), which is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. This substance can be found in articles used by the construction and building sectors such as plastic panels for the thermal insulation of buildings. It has also been notified in polystyrene foam used for packaging and in the plastic housing of electronic appliances.

This does not mean that all articles of these types contain the substance, just that they may. Similarly, not finding an article in the list does not mean that it does not contain an SVHC.

ECHA is providing this information to add to the general increase in knowledge on the use and presence of hazardous substances in consumer articles. It is also to remind importers and producers of their legal obligations, under certain conditions, to notify when their articles contain substances on the Candidate List. Finally, consumers are reminded that they have the right to know when substances on the Candidate List are present in articles that they want to buy. They have the right to ask the retailer this and to receive an answer within 45 days.

From April to December 2011, the Agency received only 203 notifications. This is a new obligation for producers and importers of articles and many may yet be unaware of their responsibility to notify. Consequently, the information does not provide a full picture of substances of very high concern in articles on the EU market. Companies are therefore encouraged to check that they have implemented their legal obligations in this regard.

The deadline for producers and importers of articles to notify ECHA of the presence in articles of the 20 SVHCs that were included in the Candidate List in December 2011 is in June 2012.

The data is available on the ECHA website and is updated every six months.

For more information click here.

From: California Department of Pesticide Regulation

On January 11, 2011, U.S. EPA released a document entitled, “Determining if a Cleaning Product is a Pesticide Under FIFRA.” U.S. EPA provided examples of cleaning claims it considers to be non-pesticidal, including “cleans or removes stains from algae, mold, mildew or other non-public health organisms.” Products with such claims do not require registration with U.S. EPA.

Effectively immediately, DPR considers labeling claims to control, prevent, mitigate, clean and/or remove (or words meaning the same thing) “mold,” mildew,” “algae,” “fungus” or other organisms to be pesticidal claims. Products with such claims require registration with both U.S. EPA and DPR.

Product labeling claims to control or prevent, (or words meaning the same thing) “mold stains,” “mildew stains,” “algae stains,” “fungal stains” or stains from other organisms are also pesticidal. Products with such claims must be registered with both U.S. EPA and DPR prior to sale and use. The use of the word “control” implies growth which can only take place if the organism itself is present. Similarly, a stain can only be “prevented” by controlling the organism that causes the stain.

Click on the above link for a document outlining the new DPR policy.

From The Euorpean Chemicals Agency:

For the first time, ECHA is publishing information on articles on the EU market that contain SVHCs included on the Candidate List. The data gathered is based on information provided by companies to ECHA in notification and registration dossiers.

The majority of notifications received so far relate to four phthalates that are on the Candidate List due to their toxicity to reproduction. These can typically be found in plastic articles. Examples of such notified articles are cables, bags, packaging material, waterproof garments and PVC flooring. The second most common notification is for the brominated flame retardant (HBCDD), which is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. This substance can be found in articles used by the construction and building sectors such as plastic panels for the thermal insulation of buildings. It has also been notified in polystyrene foam used for packaging and in the plastic housing of electronic appliances.

This does not mean that all articles of these types contain the substance, just that they may. Similarly, not finding an article in the list does not mean that it does not contain an SVHC.

ECHA is providing this information to add to the general increase in knowledge on the use and presence of hazardous substances in consumer articles. It is also to remind importers and producers of their legal obligations, under certain conditions, to notify when their articles contain substances on the Candidate List. Finally, consumers are reminded that they have the right to know when substances on the Candidate List are present in articles that they want to buy. They have the right to ask the retailer this and to receive an answer within 45 days.

From April to December 2011, the Agency received only 203 notifications. This is a new obligation for producers and importers of articles and many may yet be unaware of their responsibility to notify. Consequently, the information does not provide a full picture of substances of very high concern in articles on the EU market. Companies are therefore encouraged to check that they have implemented their legal obligations in this regard.

The deadline for producers and importers of articles to notify ECHA of the presence in articles of the 20 SVHCs that were included in the Candidate List in December 2011 is in June 2012.

The data is available on the ECHA website and is updated every six months.

We will keep you updated with any future developments.

From the EPA:

Sanders Wood Products Company in Liberal, Oregon was found to have a series of PCB leaks and other violations of federal PCB laws at its lumber mill, according to a settlement reached with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The company will pay over $108,000 in penalties.

“There are clear standards for how to manage toxic chemicals like PCBs so they don’t harm people or the environment,” said Scott Downey, Manager of the Pesticides and PCBs Unit in EPA’s Seattle office. “This dangerous family of chemicals accumulates in the body and can be extremely difficult and expensive to clean up.”

During an inspection in 2009, an EPA inspector identified leaks in three PCB-containing transformers. Federal law requires repair, containment or replacement of leaking transformers containing polychlorinated biphenyls, commonly known as PCBs. In addition, the transformers were not properly maintained and lacked necessary labels.

PCBs are known carcinogens and can harm the immune, reproductive, nervous and endocrine systems. Congress banned PCBs in 1979, but they may be present in products and materials produced before the ban including electrical transformers, capacitors, oil used in motors, oil-based paint, plastics and insulation.

As part of the settlement, the company confirmed it has removed the leaking transformers from the facility. The areas where the PCBs leaked have also been cleaned up. The company has also certified it is currently in compliance with all applicable requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act at each of its facilities.

More information on PCBs can be found here.

From: Health Canada

Health Canada is advising Canadians not to buy an unregistered, highly toxic pesticide product being imported from China and sold in various retail outlets as “insecticide chalk.” The product is sold under names such as “Miraculous Insecticide Chalk,” “Insecticide Chalk,” and “Cockroach Chalk.”

Insecticide chalk is not registered for use in Canada. Samples tested contain deltamethrin, a pesticide that can cause serious health effects when used inappropriately. Children are especially at risk from insecticide chalk because they can easily mistake the product for blackboard or sidewalk chalk and play with it or put it in their mouths.

Overexposure to some chemicals found in insecticidal chalk can cause vomiting, stomach pains, convulsions, tremors and loss of consciousness. Serious allergic reactions are also possible.

Click on the above link for more information on this warning.

From care2.com:

In recent years, many research and news organizations have published reports about the toxicity of Bisphenol A (commonly called BPA). If you’ve kept up on this topic, you know BPA is in many food and beverage containers (including in the lining of metal cans that hold vegetables, soups and beans) and that it’s a potent endocrine disruptor that acts as a hormone in the human body.

In a recent interview published by Yale Environment 360, BPA researcher Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri’s Endocrine Disruptor Group provides some no-nonsense information about BPA and harshly criticizes government oversight of this powerful chemical. Here are some quick facts from the interview.

BPA is derived from petroleum. It was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for use as a food contact material in 1963. There are more than 100,000 chemicals in commerce, but the U.S. government only has regulatory authority over a percentage of those. In the 1970s, it “grandfathered” in 62,000 chemicals—including BPA—through the Toxic Substances Control Act. That means there is basically no regulatory oversight of this chemical. The Food and Drug Administration came out in 2010 and said it agreed with many researchers that BPA is a concern, but that it doesn’t have the authority to ban or regulate it.

BPA has been linked to early puberty, many types of cancer, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, impaired memory, asthma, allergies and low sperm counts. It damages every part of the human reproductive system.

The common rationalization you hear about BPA being in contact with our foods and beverages is that it’s at such a low level, we don’t need to worry. However, vom Saal explained that his team used human breast cancer cells to study estrogen chemicals for their potency, and BPA lit up like a Christmas tree. He says even at extremely low levels, BPA is anything but weak. The chemical industry threatened vom Saal and his research team, asking them not to publish their findings on BPA.

Of studies funded by the chemical industry, 100 percent say that BPA is safe. However, when you look at the entire body of research studies on BPA, 90 percent of non-industry-funded studies find that BPA is harmful to humans.

The clear message I took away from this interview is that we have to protect and educate ourselves and each other. No government agency is going to make sure the products on grocery store shelves are safe. Please pass this information on.

To learn more about BPA, check out the following resources (the first link is the complete interview with vom Saal):

• Is There Poison in Our Food? Concerns About BPA
• Eating Fresh Food Drastically Reduces BPA Levels, Study Finds
• Plastics: What’s Dangerous, What’s Not
• China Leaps Ahead of U.S. With BPA Ban

We will keep you informed of any developments.

From iWatch news:

About 21 months ago, a proposed list of widely used chemicals that may pose health risks landed at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget for review.

It’s still there.

An attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency to create a “chemicals of concern” list — part of the agency’s larger plans to improve what administrator Lisa Jackson has called an outdated and dysfunctional system for regulating toxic substances — remains stuck in the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

The proposal has sparked heavy resistance among industry groups, some of which have met with White House officials and argued that releasing the list could harm the economy. By executive order, OIRA should finish such reviews within 90 days — or, in some cases, 120. Instead, it’s had the EPA list for 638 days — and counting.

“The reason is political pandering,” said Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland and president of the Center for Progressive Reform. “OIRA is a politicized place where rules go to die.”

OMB spokeswoman Meg Reilly said in an emailed statement that the office doesn’t comment on regulations under review, but “it’s not uncommon for review periods to be extended for regulatory actions that require additional time for consideration of public comment and analysis by OMB and all the affected agencies.”

Since OIRA received the proposal on May 12, 2010, it has hosted eight meetings about the list — six of them with companies and industry groups. By comparison, OIRA officials have met once with public health and environmental groups and once with staffers for Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Sheldon Whitehouse, sponsors of legislation to reform regulation of toxic chemicals.

Big chemical companies seem most worried. ExxonMobil, for instance, argued that two of its chemicals used to make plastics flexible and durable shouldn’t be on the list. Other chemical industry powerhouses — from Dow Chemical Company to BASF Corp. and SABIC — have weighed in.

In a statement, the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s main trade group, said: “We are concerned that EPA is creating a list of ‘chemicals of concern’ for potential regulatory action, without establishing consistent, transparent criteria by which these chemicals are selected. … It is OMB’s job to closely review the proposed action and consider any negative economic impact; we appreciate that officials are taking the time they need to fully study the matter. Failure to fully review such agency proposals undermines public and private sector confidence in the regulatory process and can seriously harm American innovation and jobs.”

Though OIRA hasn’t released the EPA list, the office has indicated that it includes Bisphenol A, found in many plastic products and believed to interfere with the hormone system; a group of eightphthalates, found in many plastics and cosmetics and believed to alter development of the male reproductive system; and certain polybrominated diphenyl ethers, used as flame retardants in many products and believed to cause thyroid problems and hamper brain development.

An EPA spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

The rule itself would do little more than alert the public that the EPA believes certain chemicals may pose health risks and is trying to gather more information. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce complained in a letter to OIRA that the regulation would amount to “blacklisting” of these substances, which could lead to “market disruptions and litigation.”

The Chamber also argued that even creating a list was “a tectonic shift in EPA policy” and should be suspended until EPA lays out specific grounds for evaluating whether a chemical “may present an unreasonable risk” — the standard for inclusion on the list.

Steinzor noted, however, that the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act specifically grants the EPA the authority to create a list of troubling compounds. Companies are “screaming bloody murder,” she said, because they fear a backlash from concerned consumers and worry further regulation of named chemicals could follow.

In the more than 35 years since Congress passed the law, known as TSCA, the EPA hasn’t used its power to flag chemicals of concern. The current proposal is part of the agency’s attempt to make the most of its authority under TSCA, which has faced fierce criticism from environmental groups and some in Congress as out of date and ill equipped to address risks from the vast array of industrial chemicals now in use. Perennial attempts in Congress to overhaul the law have failed.

Soon after taking over as EPA administrator, Jackson signaled that the agency would focus on improving regulation of toxic substances. “Assuring chemical safety in a rapidly changing world, and restoring public confidence that EPA is protecting the American people is a top priority for me, my leadership team, and this Administration,” she said in a 2009 speech.

But many of the agency’s efforts, such as the “chemicals of concern” list, have encountered resistance — including from within the administration. “A very disturbing pattern has developed with OIRA’s review of EPA proposals to better ensure chemical safety:  Long delays — far in excess of the mandated 90 days — have become routine,” Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement.

When OIRA does release the list, it still won’t be official. The public will get to weigh in, and the EPA can fine-tune the rule. Then it goes back to OIRA for another review.

We will keep you informed of any updates from the EPA.

From: Bureau Veritas

On 26 January 2012, the European Commission published implementing Decision 2012/48/EU on the extension of the temporary ban on Dimethylfumarate (CAS 624-49-7) which will come into force on 15 March 2012. The limit is still set as 0.1 mg/kg which applies for each component part of the article. No transition period has been deemed necessary since a ban on DMFu already has existed since 2009.

DMFu is a biocide and has antifungal properties. It can be used to prevent mould growth and has been found to cause skin sensitizations (contact dermatitis) even at very low concentrations. As a result, several reports were published in the EU’s rapid alert system for dangerous consumer products (RAPEX). Therefore in 2009, the EU temporarily banned all types of consumer articles containing DMFu under Regulation 2009/251/EC.

Follow the links for more information.