From: Public Radio International

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is in the middle of a lengthy review of the chemical triclosan — a product that’s in countless consumer products like toothpaste and soap. There’s a movement to try and get the product more stringently regulated in the United States — or banned outright. And they might have just gotten a boost from Canada.

Triclosan has been around for 40 years. For nearly all that time U.S. officials have been investigating the chemical’s safety and effectiveness. Now the Canadian government has just declared the antibacterial agent an environmental toxin, and has proposed regulations to curtail its use in Canada.

The FDA review is supposed to be completed by winter 2012.

For more information see the above link.

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 the office of the Federal Register:

The US EPA has published 19 premanufacture notices (PMNs) and ten notices of commencement (NOCs) for new chemicals. Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory (TSCA Inventory)) to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN) or an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), and to publish in the Federal Register periodic status reports on the new chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement (NOC) to manufacture those chemicals. This document, which covers the period from February 20, 2012 to February 29, 2012, and provides the required notice and status report, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the NOC to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

For more information click here.

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 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 Environment Maine:

Reflecting a bipartisan consensus, Maine legislative leaders introduced a joint resolution today calling on Congress to modernize the federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. Maine moms, dads, businesses, and health care providers have heightened their call for reform of the chemical safety law that they say is obsolete and fails to assure parents that the products they use and purchase are free from dangerous chemicals that threaten the health of their families.

“We’re thrilled that Maine leaders have united to send this life-saving message to Congress,” said Mike Belliveau, President of the Environmental Health Strategy Center. “They chose to stand with Maine moms and doctors working to pass the Safe Chemicals Act, not the chemical industry that’s opposed. We need Senators Snowe and Collins to forge a bipartisan fix to our broken chemical safety system.”

President Kevin Raye sponsored the joint resolution (SP 679) with bipartisan support from legislative leadership, including Senate Minority Leader Barry Hobbins, Speaker Robert Nutting, House Minority Leader Emily Cain, and top members of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee. The joint resolution follows editorial support from five state newspapers calling on Senators Snowe and Collins to co-sponsor the Safe Chemicals Act (S. 847). The federal bill will be voted on in Committee at the end of April, and on the floor of the U.S. Senate soon thereafter.

A new poll released today sought to discover what likely Maine voters want in a U.S. Senate candidate when it comes to the environment and public health. Ninety two percent said it was important for the U.S. government to require safer chemicals in consumer products. The NRDC Action Fund and Environment Maine sponsored the poll of 841 likely Maine voters, which was conducted March 27-28 by Public Policy Polling, a research firm based in North Carolina.

Emily Figdor, Director of Environment Maine, remarked: “There’s overwhelming public and political support in Maine for safer products. The consumer product companies want federal reform too; the only ones standing in the way are corporations like Dow Chemical and ExxonMobil Chemical. We need Senators Snowe and Collins to stand up to the chemical companies and be heroes in the U.S. Senate.”

The Safe Chemicals Act would require chemical companies to demonstrate the safety of their products, while filling gaps in health and safety information provided to the public. The Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to use the best available science to protect pregnant women and children from all sources of exposure to a toxic chemical. The legislation also rewards businesses that innovate to develop safer chemicals and products, which supporters say would be good for Maine’s economy.

Additional details can be found here.

From the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety:

Top 5 questions about GHS answered

After years of anticipation, the implementation of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) is one step closer to reality in the United States (U.S.). This change has implications for Canadians and Americans alike, and raises many questions. Here are the top five questions – and the answers – that CCOHS is asked about the GHS.

1. What are Canada’s timelines for implementing the GHS in WHMIS?

This is the most common GHS question that CCOHS is asked and, unfortunately, the answer is that the implementation timelines for Canada are still unknown. Federal WHMIS regulators are working on finalizing their proposed changes to WHMIS to implement the GHS. Health Canada is expected to post detailed information on their website about how WHMIS may change, for public consultation. In addition to public consultation, Health Canada has identified these remaining steps:

• an economic analysis
• revision of the federal legislation, including the Hazardous Products Act and the Controlled Product Regulations
• revision of WHMIS regulations by the provincial and territorial governments

With Canadian laws often taking one or two years to be updated, CCOHS estimates that there won’t be new WHMIS laws until 2013 or later. Then it is expected that there will be a “transition period” for suppliers and employers to switch from old-to-new WHMIS requirements (possibly a two or three year transition period).

2. Are GHS safety data sheets (SDSs) accepted in Canada today?

Yes, they are, with a few important considerations.

For some time now the WHMIS program has had a policy to accept a number of different MSDS formats, including the 16-section GHS SDS format, in place of the 9-heading format required by the Controlled Products Regulations. However, it is very important to note that the MSDS/SDS must contain all of the WHMIS required content as specified in the Controlled Products Regulations (Schedule I, Column III). It is also important to note that the GHS hazard classification may not always be the same as the WHMIS classification and there are differences in terminology between the two systems. Therefore, care should to be taken to communicate messages that are consistent with the WHMIS hazard communication system.

3. Are GHS labels accepted in Canada today?

No, they are not. The National Office of WHMIS does not have a policy to accept GHS labels. There are some important differences in the label requirements of the two systems. For example, the WHMIS regulations require:

• the use of applicable WHMIS symbols – the GHS requires pictograms, but the pictograms are not identical to the WHMIS symbols;
• the use of a hatched border – the GHS does not require a specific label border; and
• reference to the material safety data sheet – there is no similar requirement in the GHS.

Note: It remains to be seen if the hatched border and reference to the SDS will be retained after the GHS is implemented in Canada.

4. I am a Canadian manufacturer shipping hazardous products to the U.S. How will changes to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard affect me?

This is a good question. As an exporter of hazardous products to the U.S., you will have to comply with the new “GHS” requirements of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard when they become law. Keep in mind that a multi-year transition period is expected, so you will have time to reclassify your products and prepare OSHA GHS compliant SDSs and labels. However, depending on factors such the number of raw materials/ingredients used in your products, and the number of SDSs and labels that you must produce or update, you may want to get started sooner rather than later.

On the other hand, if you are a U.S. company shipping hazardous products into Canada, you will have to continue complying with WHMIS laws until the GHS is implemented in Canada.

5. Should I be training on the GHS now?

The primary goal of training is that all target audiences know how to recognize and interpret label and/or SDS information, and take appropriate precautions. Until the new laws come into force, you should continue to train on your existing hazard communication system (Canadian WHMIS or OSHA HazCom).

If you are an American supplier, employer, or worker, you should check the OSHA website for current information regarding implementation of the GHS in the U.S., and the new Hazard Communication Standard requirements. Training resources will likely be published very soon.

If you are a Canadian supplier, employer, or worker, the CCOHS “WHMIS after GHS” courses will help increase your awareness about potential changes. However, company-wide training is not a good idea until the possible requirements for GHS implementation into WHMIS are published.

We will keep you informed with regard to any Canadian GHS updates.

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 the Office of the Federal Registrar:

OSHA is modifying its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to conform to the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).  OSHA has determined that the modifications will significantly reduce costs and burdens while also improving the quality and consistency of information provided to employers and employees regarding chemical hazards and associated protective measures. Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 13563, which calls for assessment and, where appropriate, modification and improvement of existing rules, the Agency has concluded this improved information will enhance the effectiveness of the HCS in ensuring that employees are apprised of the chemical hazards to which they may be exposed, and in reducing the incidence of chemical-related occupational illnesses and injuries.