California Looks To Lead Chemicals Laws
About 100 leaders of the chemicals industry (from giants such as Dow to small biotech firms) gathered in Los Angeles in May 2006 to debate California’s mission - namely a ’call to action’ to help craft a state strategy for regulating chemicals.
"Almost a dozen bills to regulate chemicals are before the Legislature and many scientists are voicing concerns over various compounds in everyday products," said a spokesperson.
Almost 80,000 chemicals are registered in the USA, and roughly 15,000 are in general use. Federal Law to date has not required chemical companies to even review potential hazards.
Michael Wilson, lead author of a University of California report advising the state to adopt a comprehensive policy ’because the public is inadequately protected from toxic compounds’, said that the report is the first in the nation that offers a framework for government to promote ’Green Chemistry’.
Bruce Jennings, principal consultant to the Senate Committee said legislators and environmentalists have tried to ban or restrict many compounds individually but failed. Last year there were 35 bills alone, but almost all failed, because they tried to tackle an isolated issue.
Tom Jacob of Dupont said the chemical industry was facing an ’evolution of public consciousness’ about the risks. Industries are grappling with new technologies that enable chemicals to be detected in the human body. Meanwhile the powerful national group the American Chemistry Council is taking a different stance and saying that there is sufficient protection already, and California should not act on its own. There are powerful forces at work!
Californians Sue Sunscreen Makers
USA Today (June 16th 2006) reports that a San Diego law firm has filed a claim on behalf of ten residents against firms making sunscreens, such as Hawaiian Tropic, Coppertone, Banana Boat and Neutrogena.
The suit claims that the manufacturers have made fraudulent label claims.
The background to these claims: In 1999 the FDA said stricter rules for sunscreen testing and labeling would take effect in 2001, but this was put ’on hold’ indefinitely. In Autumn 2005, Congress ordered the FDA to produce revised regulations within six months, but nothing happened.
Sunscreens are generally effective at filtering out UVB, the ultraviolet frequency that causes burning, but are less effective with UVA, the frequency that causes wrinkles and skin cancer. UVA penetrates more deeply.
Furthermore, because most people believe that sunscreens ’work’, they stay out in the sun longer and increase their risks. The fact that sunscreens only provide partial protection is the basis for Congress and individuals’ concerns (Dr. Mercola)
(Ed: Of course, this is only half the story. On one hand the sun has the ability to generate vitamin D in your body and be highly protective against cancer. On the other, authorities consistently ignore research studies on other factors like the increased levels of chemicals including oestrogen mimics in our bodies and even in some sunscreens).
Nanoparticles Not Fully Researched
Nanoparticles are the latest revolution in skin creams, make-up, anti-wrinkle creams and even toothpaste. But some scientists are extremely worried. The tiny particles are more easily absorbed into the skin, improving the cosmetic benefits, but putting us all into areas of uncharted risk. Recent research at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that nanoparticles caused long-term neurological damage in mice. Titanium oxide, one ingredient, caused short-term protection, but then longerterm damage in the mice brain cells.
Super-Sized Beef In Cancer Link
The EU already ban using hormones in cattle to produce larger cattle and greater milk yields, as is commonplace in the USA. The British Veterinary Association concurs with this ban.
You may not be surprised to learn that the US Government, with the support of Tony Blair, is trying to get an import ban to the UK and its cattle lifted. The Government’s Veterinary Committee seem about to produce a report saying beefed up cattle and their milk is actually fine after all. In turn that would allow farmers in the UK to start using the hormones - including oestradiol and testosterone.
However the pharmaceutical chemist appointed to the Government Committee to represent consumer interests, has done just that. He has published his own report on the dangers of consuming products pumped up with these hormones. The Food Standards Agency has stated that it wants a full report on the safety issues, but then reports have a habit of washing over consumer concerns in the UK. Various objectors have sited the higher rates of cancer in the USA (97 versus 67 per 100,000 for breast; and 96 versus 37 per 100,000 for prostate), compared with European studies on the early onset of puberty linked to ingested hormones, and even the effects on pregnant women.
(Ed: Hormones are incredibly powerful chemicals and can act effectively at one part in a billion. Most regulation sets targets at one part in a million, or 1,000 times the level at which these hormones can act. We know oestradiol is dangerous, we provide scientific studies in most issues. If this ban is lifted it really is a case of politics overriding good science and common sense).