environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-10--Federal Lawsuit Could Limit Fluoride in Drinking Water

A landmark federal lawsuit that went to trial this week in California could change the longstanding practice of adding fluoride to the drinking water supplies for 200 million Americans .
The lawsuit , brought against the Environmental Protection Agency by groups including the Fluoride Action Network , Food and Water Watch and Moms Against Fluoridation , would compel the agency to require local water utilities to stop adding fluoride to tap water .
The suit claims fluoridated drinking water presents an unreasonable risk to public health and can harm the developing brain of young children and babies , causing an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health , have raised concerns about fluoride neurotoxicity and questioned the safety of fluoride-contaminated drinking water .
The U.S. first began adding fluoride to drinking water in the 1940s in an attempt to combat widespread tooth decay .
In 2011 , responding to a lawsuit by Fluoride Action Network , EWG and Beyond Pesticides , the Department of Health and Human Services recommended that water utilities reduce the amount of fluoride added to tap water by almost half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or ppm , to 0.7 ppm .
This new recommendation took effect in 2015 .
The levels of fluoride added to tap water supplies can vary , but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has established 0.7 ppm as a health advisory limit .
EWG analysis of test data for community water systems across the country found roughly 30 million Americans are likely drinking water with fluoride levels higher than the CDC ’ s recommendation , as the news site Fair Warning reported Monday .
The CDC says if infant formula is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s teeth might be affected by dental fluorosis , which appears as white spot markings on the teeth .
EWG recommends that baby formula be mixed with fluoride-free water , especially for an infant whose diet consists exclusively of powdered baby formula .
Excess fluoride exposure poses health risks , including discolored teeth , changes in the bones , and harm to the brain and nervous system .
In 2017 , a groundbreaking study by a team of researchers in Mexico found that exposure to fluoride during pregnancy can harm IQ and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were found in a recent Canadian study .
The case is being argued before federal District Court Judge Edward M. Chen under the Toxic Substances Control Act , which gives the EPA the authority to limit or ban toxic chemicals in the nation ’ s municipal drinking water supply .

A landmark federal lawsuit that went to trial this week in California could change the longstanding practice of adding fluoride to the drinking water supplies for 200 million Americans.
The lawsuit, brought against the Environmental Protection Agency by groups including the Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch and Moms Against Fluoridation, would compel the agency to require local water utilities to stop adding fluoride to tap water.
The suit claims fluoridated drinking water presents an unreasonable risk to public health and can harm the developing brain of young children and babies, causing an IQ deficit. Renowned public health experts, such as Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, have raised concerns about fluoride neurotoxicity and questioned the safety of fluoride-contaminated drinking water.
The U.S. first began adding fluoride to drinking water in the 1940s in an attempt to combat widespread tooth decay.
In 2011, responding to a lawsuit by Fluoride Action Network, EWG and Beyond Pesticides, the Department of Health and Human Services recommended that water utilities reduce the amount of fluoride added to tap water by almost half, from 1.2 parts per million, or ppm, to 0.7 ppm. This new recommendation took effect in 2015.
The levels of fluoride added to tap water supplies can vary, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has established 0.7 ppm as a health advisory limit. EWG analysis of test data for community water systems across the country found roughly 30 million Americans are likely drinking water with fluoride levels higher than the CDC’s recommendation, as the news site Fair Warning reported Monday.
The CDC says if infant formula is mixed with fluoridated water, the baby’s teeth might be affected by dental fluorosis, which appears as white spot markings on the teeth. EWG recommends that baby formula be mixed with fluoride-free water, especially for an infant whose diet consists exclusively of powdered baby formula.
Excess fluoride exposure poses health risks, including discolored teeth, changes in the bones, and harm to the brain and nervous system. In 2017, a groundbreaking study by a team of researchers in Mexico found that exposure to fluoride during pregnancy can harm IQ and cognitive development in children. Similar results were found in a recent Canadian study.
The case is being argued before federal District Court Judge Edward M. Chen under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which gives the EPA the authority to limit or ban toxic chemicals in the nation’s municipal drinking water supply.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-10--EWG Comments on EPA’s Decision to Regulate PFOA and PFOS in Drinking Water

EWG Comments on EPA ’ s Decision to Regulate PFOA and PFOS in Drinking Water Attached are EWG comments on @ @ @ @ @ regulate PFOA and PFOS in drinking water .

The snap of a coffee lid, the pop of a chip bag opening, the crinkle of an empty wrapper – all ways that we use plastic before discarding and forgetting about it. But we’re reminded of the pollution...


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-10--Escaping Quarantine? Watch Out for Toxic Algae

With summer beginning and millions of Americans experiencing what feels like the thousandth week of quarantine , enjoying the outdoors is one of the few ways many of us can escape the claustrophobia and drudgery of the COVID-19 pandemic .
But the return of warmer weather brings another public health threat – toxic algae blooms .
People who plan to spend time visiting ponds , lakes , rivers , streams or even the ocean this summer need to be on the lookout for these hazardous outbreaks .
Blue-green algae , which are actually tiny organisms called cyanobacteria , can produce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and longer-term impacts like liver failure and cancer when people are exposed through recreational contact or consume the toxins through drinking water .
Simple things we all enjoy doing in the summer – swimming , boating , sitting on a beach or even walking near an infected body of water – can make people sick .
Algae outbreaks are triggered by nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer and manure that run off farm fields and get into bodies of water .
Heat makes the problem worse : As water heats up throughout the summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get bigger .
And outbreaks don ’ t just make people sick – they can also kill dogs and have severe impacts on wildlife .
New algae bloom appearances have already been increasing across the country over the past few weeks , even though it ’ s early in the season .
In May , a dog died in Minneapolis after it was exposed to an outbreak in Cedar Lake .
Algae blooms also appeared in May in two Minneapolis lakes , Lake of the Isles and Lake Nokomis .
If you see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like pea soup , in a lake or other body of water where you hadn ’ t seen a bloom before , inform the local health department and ask it to test the algae for toxins .
You can also contact local media and try to get coverage of the issue .
Lakes that have had annual algae outbreaks in recent years have already started seeing them this year .
Blooms started appearing in April in several lakes in Washington state ; Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana ; and Lake Okeechobee in Florida .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ EWG uses news reports as a proxy to track the problem .
We created an interactive map that shows the locations of algae blooms reported in the media since 2010 .
The number of news reports about algae outbreaks has increased every year since we began tracking them .
In 2019 , there were news reports about 530 U.S. outbreaks – a 17 percent increase from the 452 stories published in 2018 .
With higher-than-normal temperatures predicted this summer for much of the country , we expect a similar trend in 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rise EWG will track news reports of blooms all summer .
To find out whether there ’ s an algae outbreak in a body of water you plan to visit , contact your local health department and continue to check our analysis .

With summer beginning and millions of Americans experiencing what feels like the thousandth week of quarantine, enjoying the outdoors is one of the few ways many of us can escape the claustrophobia and drudgery of the COVID-19 pandemic.
But the return of warmer weather brings another public health threat – toxic algae blooms. People who plan to spend time visiting ponds, lakes, rivers, streams or even the ocean this summer need to be on the lookout for these hazardous outbreaks.
Blue-green algae, which are actually tiny organisms called cyanobacteria, can produce dangerous toxins that cause nausea, vomiting and longer-term impacts like liver failure and cancer when people are exposed through recreational contact or consume the toxins through drinking water. Simple things we all enjoy doing in the summer – swimming, boating, sitting on a beach or even walking near an infected body of water – can make people sick.
Algae outbreaks are triggered by nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer and manure that run off farm fields and get into bodies of water. Heat makes the problem worse: As water heats up throughout the summer, algae blooms occur more frequently and get bigger. And outbreaks don’t just make people sick – they can also kill dogs and have severe impacts on wildlife.
New algae bloom appearances have already been increasing across the country over the past few weeks, even though it’s early in the season. In May, a dog died in Minneapolis after it was exposed to an outbreak in Cedar Lake. Algae blooms also appeared in May in two Minneapolis lakes, Lake of the Isles and Lake Nokomis.
If you see algae that is bluish-green, or looks like pea soup, in a lake or other body of water where you hadn’t seen a bloom before, inform the local health department and ask it to test the algae for toxins. You can also contact local media and try to get coverage of the issue.
Lakes that have had annual algae outbreaks in recent years have already started seeing them this year. Blooms started appearing in April in several lakes in Washington state; Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana; and Lake Okeechobee in Florida.
Because no federal agency tracks outbreaks, EWG uses news reports as a proxy to track the problem. We created an interactive map that shows the locations of algae blooms reported in the media since 2010.
The number of news reports about algae outbreaks has increased every year since we began tracking them. In 2019, there were news reports about 530 U.S. outbreaks – a 17 percent increase from the 452 stories published in 2018. With higher-than-normal temperatures predicted this summer for much of the country, we expect a similar trend in 2020.
Reports of Algae Blooms Are on the Rise
EWG will track news reports of blooms all summer. To find out whether there’s an algae outbreak in a body of water you plan to visit, contact your local health department and continue to check our analysis.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-10--Everything You Need to Know About California’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act

A piece of legislation winding its way through the California legislature could be the biggest influence on U.S. cosmetics safety for close to a century .
The bill would ban a dozen of the most concerning ingredients commonly found in cosmetics sold in California .
EWG breaks down why this new legislation is great news , whether you live in California or elsewhere in the U.S .
The U.S. cosmetics industry is notoriously underregulated .
Ingredients that research has shown to be unsafe are legally permitted in the cosmetics sold online , at your local drugstore or department store – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Legislation pending in California could change that – not just in the Golden State but in the rest of the U.S. , too .
Women and men of all ages , and even children , use products on a daily basis that contain ingredients which can increase the risk of cancer , disrupt the fine-tuned hormonal balance and harm the immune system .
Cosmetics companies can legally use these ingredients , and they don ’ t provide consumers with any information about the potential impacts of certain ingredients on human health .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act , also called Assembly Bill 2762 , is a landmark piece of legislation .
If passed , it would for the first time clearly prohibit the sale of cosmetics containing certain toxic ingredients .
A.B .
2762 passed out of its first policy committee and the appropriations committee .
There will be a vote of the entire Assembly on June 11 .
The bill was introduced by Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi ( D-Torrance ) , Bill Quirk ( D-Hayward ) and Buffy Wicks ( D-Oakland ) .
What would A.B .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , A.B .
2762 will prohibit the sale in California of cosmetics that contain any one of 12 highly toxic chemicals .
All 12 of these chemicals have already been banned by the European Union from use in cosmetics because of their toxicity and harmful impacts on health such as cancer , birth defects , damage to the reproductive system , organ system toxicity and endocrine disruption .
Ten of the 12 chemicals banned by A.B .
2762 are linked to breast cancer , and nine are linked to a compromised immune system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and slow recovery from , illness .
The 12 chemicals banned by AB 2762 are : • Formaldehyde , a known carcinogen .
It harms the skin , lungs and respiratory system as well as the immune system .
• Quaternium-15 , which releases formaldehyde , and can cause allergic contact dermatitis .
• Dibutyl and diethyl hexyl phthalates , which disrupt hormones and harm the reproductive system .
• Isobutyl and isopropyl parabens , which disrupt hormones and harm the reproductive system .
• The family of toxic chemicals known as PFAS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hormonal disruption , harm to the reproductive system and suppressed immune activity .
• M- and o-phenylenediamine , used in hair dyes , which irritate and sensitize the skin , damage DNA and can cause cancer .
Why is A.B .
2762 so important ?
Personal care and beauty products sold in California and the U.S. are largely unregulated .
To formulate them , manufacturers can and do use virtually any chemical , including those with known links to cancer , reproductive harm or birth defects .
Neither federal nor state laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before they reach store shelves .
Regulatory agencies don ’ t require companies to show that their products are safe , either .
Of more than 10,000 chemicals used to formulate cosmetics , just 11 have ever been banned or restricted by the federal Food and Drug Administration .
By contrast , the EU prohibits or restricts the use of more than 1,400 chemicals in cosmetics , and many other countries closely regulate cosmetics .
More than 40 nations have stricter cosmetic safety regulations than the U.S .
But A.B .
2762 affects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the U.S. ?
According to the California Safe Cosmetics Program , at least 88 different carcinogens and reproductive toxicants are intentionally added to cosmetics sold in California .
A state agency also found mercury in 25 percent of skin-lightening creams that were tested for it .
Labels show that PFAS as well as hormone disruptors , such as parabens , are commonly present in Californians ’ cosmetics .
Men , women and children of all ages regularly use many personal care products and beauty products , and by doing so are regularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contain .
Women on average use up to 12 products each day , and teenagers use as many as 17 .
Studies show that human bodies absorb the chemicals in these products .
Californians need and deserve the same protection from harmful cosmetics that consumers in the EU and many other countries have .
Who is backing the legislation ?
In a sign of its significance , the Personal Care Products Council – the trade association for the large cosmetics industry – has put its weight behind the bill .
It is getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
In addition , besides EWG , three key advocacy groups also sponsor A.B .
2762 : CalPIRG , Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Black Women for Wellness .
Other backers include public health , environmental , consumer protection , and community and faith-based organizations , as well as public sanitation agencies and green cosmetics companies .
What about cosmetics sold in the rest of the country ?
Several proposals pending in Congress would improve the safety of cosmetics sold across the country .
One of them , the Cosmetics Safety Enhancement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : • Require the FDA to review chemicals of concern .
• Require companies to alert the FDA about risky products .
• Give the FDA the power to stop production and recall risky products .
This bill was written by Rep. Frank Pallone ( D-N.J. ) , chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee , and has passed a key House subcommittee .
Another proposal , the bipartisan Personal Care Products Safety Act , was introduced by Sens .
Dianne Feinstein ( D-Calif. ) and Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California has long been considered a bellwether state , leading the way for the rest of the country in many areas of health and safety .
If California were its own country , it would rank as the sixth largest economy in the world .
So the state and its consumer market is hugely influential .
If a manufacturer is required to satisfy California standards , it will likely adhere to the same high standard with the products it sends to the rest of the country .

A piece of legislation winding its way through the California legislature could be the biggest influence on U.S. cosmetics safety for close to a century. The bill would ban a dozen of the most concerning ingredients commonly found in cosmetics sold in California.
EWG breaks down why this new legislation is great news, whether you live in California or elsewhere in the U.S.
What is California’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act?
The U.S. cosmetics industry is notoriously underregulated. Ingredients that research has shown to be unsafe are legally permitted in the cosmetics sold online, at your local drugstore or department store – or anywhere else in the U.S. Legislation pending in California could change that – not just in the Golden State but in the rest of the U.S., too.
Women and men of all ages, and even children, use products on a daily basis that contain ingredients which can increase the risk of cancer, disrupt the fine-tuned hormonal balance and harm the immune system. Cosmetics companies can legally use these ingredients, and they don’t provide consumers with any information about the potential impacts of certain ingredients on human health.
This may be about to change. The Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, also called Assembly Bill 2762, is a landmark piece of legislation. If passed, it would for the first time clearly prohibit the sale of cosmetics containing certain toxic ingredients.
The state of play
A.B. 2762 was introduced by Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), Bill Quirk (D-Hayward) and Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland).
The bill passed out of the California Assembly on June 11.
The legislation will now move to the state Senate, where it will be heard by policy and fiscal committees. All bills must be passed out of the California legislature by the end of August.
What would A.B. 2762 do?
If passed into law, A.B. 2762 will prohibit the sale in California of cosmetics that contain any one of 12 highly toxic chemicals. All 12 of these chemicals have already been banned by the European Union from use in cosmetics because of their toxicity and harmful impacts on health such as cancer, birth defects, damage to the reproductive system, organ system toxicity and endocrine disruption.
Ten of the 12 chemicals banned by A.B. 2762 are linked to breast cancer, and nine are linked to a compromised immune system, which can increase susceptibility to, and slow recovery from, illness.
The 12 chemicals banned by AB 2762 are:
Formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. It harms the skin, lungs and respiratory system as well as the immune system.
Paraformaldehyde, a type of formaldehyde.
Methylene glycol, a type of formaldehyde.
Quaternium-15, which releases formaldehyde, and can cause allergic contact dermatitis.
Mercury, a potent neurotoxicant especially harmful to children.
Dibutyl and diethyl hexyl phthalates, which disrupt hormones and harm the reproductive system.
Isobutyl and isopropyl parabens, which disrupt hormones and harm the reproductive system.
The family of toxic chemicals known as PFAS, which have been linked to cancer, hormonal disruption, harm to the reproductive system and suppressed immune activity.
M- and o-phenylenediamine, used in hair dyes, which irritate and sensitize the skin, damage DNA and can cause cancer.
Why is A.B. 2762 so important?
Personal care and beauty products sold in California and the U.S. are largely unregulated. To formulate them, manufacturers can and do use virtually any chemical, including those with known links to cancer, reproductive harm or birth defects.
Neither federal nor state laws require cosmetics manufacturers to test their products before they reach store shelves. Regulatory agencies don’t require companies to show that their products are safe, either. Of more than 10,000 chemicals used to formulate cosmetics, just 11 have ever been banned or restricted by the federal Food and Drug Administration.
By contrast, the EU prohibits or restricts the use of more than 1,400 chemicals in cosmetics, and many other countries closely regulate cosmetics. More than 40 nations have stricter cosmetic safety regulations than the U.S.
But A.B. 2762 affects California only. What about the rest of the U.S.?
According to the California Safe Cosmetics Program, at least 88 different carcinogens and reproductive toxicants are intentionally added to cosmetics sold in California. A state agency also found mercury in 25 percent of skin-lightening creams that were tested for it. Labels show that PFAS as well as hormone disruptors, such as parabens, are commonly present in Californians’ cosmetics.
Men, women and children of all ages regularly use many personal care products and beauty products, and by doing so are regularly exposed to the potentially toxic chemicals they contain. Women on average use up to 12 products each day, and teenagers use as many as 17. Studies show that human bodies absorb the chemicals in these products.
Californians need and deserve the same protection from harmful cosmetics that consumers in the EU and many other countries have.
Who is backing the legislation?
A.B. 2762 has gotten broad support.
In a sign of its significance, the Personal Care Products Council – the trade association for the large cosmetics industry – has put its weight behind the bill.
It is getting critical backing from the assemblymembers who introduced it. In addition, besides EWG, three key advocacy groups also sponsor A.B. 2762: CalPIRG, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Black Women for Wellness.
Other backers include public health, environmental, consumer protection, and community and faith-based organizations, as well as public sanitation agencies and green cosmetics companies.
What about cosmetics sold in the rest of the country?
Several proposals pending in Congress would improve the safety of cosmetics sold across the country.
One of them, the Cosmetics Safety Enhancement Act, H.R. 5279, would:
Require the FDA to review chemicals of concern.
Require companies to police foreign supply chains.
Require companies to alert the FDA about risky products.
Give the FDA the power to stop production and recall risky products.
Expand ingredient disclosure about fragrance allergens.
This bill was written by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and has passed a key House subcommittee. Another proposal, the bipartisan Personal Care Products Safety Act, was introduced by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) and includes many of the same provisions.
California has long been considered a bellwether state, leading the way for the rest of the country in many areas of health and safety. If California were its own country, it would rank as the sixth largest economy in the world. So the state and its consumer market is hugely influential. If a manufacturer is required to satisfy California standards, it will likely adhere to the same high standard with the products it sends to the rest of the country.
UPDATE, June 11: The California Assembly passed the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act by a bipartisan vote of 54-0.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-11--California Assembly Approves Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act in Historic Bipartisan Vote

SACRAMENTO , Calif. – Today , the California Assembly passed the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act , A.B .
2762 , by a resounding bipartisan vote of 54-0 .
If enacted , the law would be the first in the nation to ban 12 toxic ingredients , including mercury and formaldehyde , from the beauty and personal care products Californians use every day .
All of these chemicals are currently banned from cosmetics products sold in the European Union but are still used in these personal care products sold in California and throughout the U.S. Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi , Bill Quirk and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landmark legislation .
The bill will now move to the state Senate , where it will be heard by policy and fiscal committees .
All bills must be passed out of the legislature by the end of August .
“ I want my daughter growing up in a state where I don ’ t have to examine the label , and be an expert toxicologist , to know the soaps , face creams and toothpastes that are safe for her to use , ” said Assemblymember Muratsuchi ( D-Torrance ) , lead author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s why I introduced AB 2762 to get the most toxic chemicals out of the products we use on a daily basis.
” Assemblymember Wicks ( D-Oakland ) , joint author , also expressed why this bill is so vital .
“ As a mom , and as a soon to be new mom again , I have enough to worry about without having to be concerned that my daughter ’ s bubble bath might be exposing her to a known human carcinogen , or a hormonally active chemical , that could put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or even later life disease , ” she said on the Assembly floor .
“ These are chemicals where the science is undisputed as to the harm they cause to human health.
” Assemblymember Quirk ( D-Hayward ) , a scientist and joint author , said : “ Passage of this bill is an important step to protect public health .
Nine of the chemicals we are proposing to ban in AB 2762 are linked to a compromised immune system which can increase susceptibility to , and negatively impact recovery from , COVID-19.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Black Women for Wellness are co-sponsors of the bill .
“ Known toxic chemicals like mercury and formaldehyde have no place in products we rub into our skin on a daily basis , ” said CALPIRG ’ s Public Health Advocate Laura Deehan .
“ For too long , the cosmetics industry has sold products to all of us that contain ingredients known to cause cancer , infertility and a suppressed immune response .
We hope the legislature continues to support strong action as the bill heads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked on these issues for years pointed out that this action in California was long overdue .
“ More than 40 nations , including the European Union ’ s member states , have enacted strong prohibitions on the use of harmful chemicals in cosmetics , ” noted Susan Little , senior advocate for the Environmental Working Group .
“ Californians deserve to be protected against unsafe products too .
AB 2762 would make sure that personal care products sold in California do not contain some of the most toxic chemicals that are already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The stakes couldn ’ t be higher , especially for women today , according to supporters of the bill .
“ Ten out of the 12 chemicals addressed by AB 2762 are linked to breast cancer , ” said Janet Nudelman , director of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners ’ Campaign for Safe Cosmetics .
“ One in eight women will develop breast cancer , which is a 40 percent increase since the 1970s .
This important bill takes us one step closer to preventing breast cancer before it starts by removing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposure to some of the most toxic substances on the planet.
” A National Institutes for Health study released last year found a direct correlation between women dying their hair or using hair straightener , and an increased risk of breast cancer .
The report concluded that black women are most adversely affected .
“ Some of the most toxic ingredients are being aggressively marketed to black women , ” said Nourbese Flint , policy director for the Los Angeles-based Black Women for Wellness .
“ Levels of formaldehyde that could be used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in hair straighteners and black women who dye their hair are 60 percent more likely to develop breast cancer .
That ’ s why we demand safe cosmetics now .
The legislature should pass AB 2762 so that we can finally protect women from the toxic exposures they currently face on every trip to the salon.
” Black Women for Wellness is committed to the health and well-being of Black women and girls through health education , empowerment and advocacy .
Learn more at www.bwwla.org/ Breast Cancer Prevention Partners is the leading national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on preventing breast cancer by eliminating our exposure to toxic chemicals and radiation .
Learn more at www.bcpp.org .
CALPIRG , the California Public Interest Research Group , is a statewide non-profit organization that works to protect public health and consumers .
Learn more at https : //calpirg.org/ The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit , non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment .
Through research , advocacy and unique education tools , EWG drives consumer choice and civic action .
https : //www.ewg.org/californiacosmetics

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Today, the California Assembly passed the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, A.B. 2762, by a resounding bipartisan vote of 54-0. If enacted, the law would be the first in the nation to ban 12 toxic ingredients, including mercury and formaldehyde, from the beauty and personal care products Californians use every day.
All of these chemicals are currently banned from cosmetics products sold in the European Union but are still used in these personal care products sold in California and throughout the U.S.
Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi, Bill Quirk and Buffy Wicks are joint authors of the landmark legislation. The bill will now move to the state Senate, where it will be heard by policy and fiscal committees. All bills must be passed out of the legislature by the end of August.
“I want my daughter growing up in a state where I don’t have to examine the label, and be an expert toxicologist, to know the soaps, face creams and toothpastes that are safe for her to use,” said Assemblymember Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), lead author of the legislation. “That’s why I introduced AB 2762 to get the most toxic chemicals out of the products we use on a daily basis.”
Assemblymember Wicks (D-Oakland), joint author, also expressed why this bill is so vital.
“As a mom, and as a soon to be new mom again, I have enough to worry about without having to be concerned that my daughter’s bubble bath might be exposing her to a known human carcinogen, or a hormonally active chemical, that could put her on the path to early puberty or even later life disease,” she said on the Assembly floor. “These are chemicals where the science is undisputed as to the harm they cause to human health.”
Assemblymember Quirk (D-Hayward), a scientist and joint author, said: “Passage of this bill is an important step to protect public health. Nine of the chemicals we are proposing to ban in AB 2762 are linked to a compromised immune system which can increase susceptibility to, and negatively impact recovery from, COVID-19.”
The Environmental Working Group, CALPIRG, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Black Women for Wellness are co-sponsors of the bill.
“Known toxic chemicals like mercury and formaldehyde have no place in products we rub into our skin on a daily basis,” said CALPIRG’s Public Health Advocate Laura Deehan. “For too long, the cosmetics industry has sold products to all of us that contain ingredients known to cause cancer, infertility and a suppressed immune response. We hope the legislature continues to support strong action as the bill heads to the senate.”
Experts who have worked on these issues for years pointed out that this action in California was long overdue.
“More than 40 nations, including the European Union’s member states, have enacted strong prohibitions on the use of harmful chemicals in cosmetics,” noted Susan Little, senior advocate for the Environmental Working Group. “Californians deserve to be protected against unsafe products too. AB 2762 would make sure that personal care products sold in California do not contain some of the most toxic chemicals that are already banned from cosmetics sold in other countries.”
The stakes couldn’t be higher, especially for women today, according to supporters of the bill.
“Ten out of the 12 chemicals addressed by AB 2762 are linked to breast cancer,” said Janet Nudelman, director of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners’ Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “One in eight women will develop breast cancer, which is a 40 percent increase since the 1970s. This important bill takes us one step closer to preventing breast cancer before it starts by removing a major source of women’s ongoing exposure to some of the most toxic substances on the planet.”
A National Institutes for Health study released last year found a direct correlation between women dying their hair or using hair straightener, and an increased risk of breast cancer. The report concluded that black women are most adversely affected.
“Some of the most toxic ingredients are being aggressively marketed to black women,” said Nourbese Flint, policy director for the Los Angeles-based Black Women for Wellness. “Levels of formaldehyde that could be used to embalm a body are being used in hair straighteners and black women who dye their hair are 60 percent more likely to develop breast cancer. That’s why we demand safe cosmetics now. The legislature should pass AB 2762 so that we can finally protect women from the toxic exposures they currently face on every trip to the salon.”
###
Black Women for Wellness is committed to the health and well-being of Black women and girls through health education, empowerment and advocacy. Learn more at www.bwwla.org/
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners is the leading national science-based, policy and advocacy organization focused on preventing breast cancer by eliminating our exposure to toxic chemicals and radiation. Learn more at www.bcpp.org.
CALPIRG, the California Public Interest Research Group, is a statewide non-profit organization that works to protect public health and consumers. Learn more at https://calpirg.org/
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. https://www.ewg.org/californiacosmetics


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-12--EWG News Roundup (6/12): Landmark California Cosmetics Bill Clears Hurdle, COVID-19 Afflicts Food Pr

EWG News Roundup (6/12): Landmark California Cosmetics Bill Clears Hurdle, COVID-19 Afflicts Food Processors and More

This week lawmakers in California passed AB 2762 , the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act , out of the Assembly with a resounding 54-0 vote .
The bill would ban 12 toxic ingredients , including mercury and formaldehyde , from the beauty and personal care products that Californians use every day .
“ More than 40 nations , including the European Union ’ s member states , have enacted strong prohibitions on the use of harmful chemicals in cosmetics , ” noted Susan Little , senior advocate for the Environmental Working Group .
“ Californians deserve to be protected against unsafe products @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that personal care products sold in California do not contain some of the most toxic chemicals that are already banned from cosmetics sold in other countries.
” As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on , EWG took a look at food processing facilities and found that almost 1,200 workers at 60 plants across the nation have been infected by the coronavirus .
Temperatures are ramping up across the nation , and so are reports of toxic algae blooms .
Stir-crazy Americans seeking time outdoors in or near ponds , lakes , rivers , streams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health threat .
And finally , EWG broke down a landmark federal lawsuit that went to trial this week that challenges the longstanding practice of adding fluoride to the drinking water supplies of 200 million Americans .
Here ’ s some news you can use going into the weekend .
Business Insider-Reviews : I use this gentle baby balm to ease my toddler 's skin irritation when her eczema flares up On top of that , all of their products carry the Environmental Working Group 's EWG Verified guarantee that they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Top Deet-Free Bug Sprays That Work To Keep Kids Bite-Free According to the Environmental Working Group , a bug spray containing between 5-10 % concentration of picaridin can protect against ticks and mosquitoes for anywhere from five to 12 hours , while a spray with a 20 % concentration can provide protection all day .
Motherhood Moment : Healthy Habits : 5 Facts to Know Before Buying Sunscreen for Your Baby It ’ s also a form of synthetic estrogen , and according to the Environmental Working Group causes a disruption in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Best Kid-Friendly Sunscreens for Summer 2020 Tropic Sport has also scored # 2 on the EWG , making it a sunscreen that has a lower hazard ranking !
The Environmental Working Group , CALPIRG , Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Black Women for Wellness are co-sponsors of the bill .
Bloomberg News : More Food Shortages Loom With Outbreaks at 60 U.S Plants At least 60 food-processing facilities outside the meatpacking industry have seen outbreaks , with more than 1,000 workers diagnosed with the virus , according to a new study from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.K. ) : Food shortages loom as more than 1,000 workers in at least 60 processing plants have been diagnosed with coronavirus According to new data compiled by the Environmental Working Group , coronavirus outbreaks in food processing plants are not yet as pervasive as they are in meatpacking facilities but are still on the rise .
The Environmental Working Group reports that 1,200 workers at 60 food processing plants outside meatpacking have been infected by the virus since mid-March .
Memphis Commercial Appeal ( Tenn. ) : If COVID-19 sickens Kroger workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Their lives matter Now , according to the Environmental Working Group , the coronavirus is spreading among other food workers .
Powder Bulk and Solids : How COVID-19 Impacts the Food Processing Workforce A new report released this week by the Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) states that some 1,200 food processing workers in the United States have contracted the virus at 60 plants .
The New York Times : Farmers Get Billions in Virus Aid , and Democrats Are Wary The Environmental Working Group , a consumer watchdog organization , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsidy programs : The biggest farms receive most of the money .
The Counter : Gulf fishers brace for a “ dead zone ” the size of Connecticut and Delaware “ We ’ re really seeing dead zones , and algae blooms in general , become bigger and bigger as time goes on , and I think that has a lot to do with climate change , ” says Anne Weir Schechinger , an economist with Environmental Working Group , a Washington , D.C.-based nonprofit and lobby that tracks algae blooms across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and More Beauty Brands are Moving Away from Using Talc in Products “ Consumers face the risk of carcinogenic exposure when using talc contaminated with asbestos , ” says Carla Burns , research and data analyst at Environmental Working Group Skin Deep Cosmetics Database ( EWG ) .
Travel and Leisure : The 9 Best Bug Sprays for a Bite-free Outdoor Adventure The CDC , Environmental Protection Agency , World Health Organization , and Environmental Working Group all recommend DEET-based products for heavy-duty protection against a wide range of pests .
Salon : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ furniture may be affecting human sperm Environmental Working Group , a nonprofit science foundation , studied the blood of 38 mothers and children and found that all 38 had PBB-153 in their blood .
New York Post : Reviews-This UV-C wand kills 99.9 percent of bacteria in just seconds According to the Environmental Working Group ’ s ( EWG ) investigation into more than 2,000 cleaning supplies , it found that many contain substances linked to serious health problems in otherwise healthy individuals For starters , research cleaning products on a site like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This nonprofit evaluated more than 2,500 cleaning products and rated them on a scale of A to F according to an extensive methodology scale .
Rhode Island Monthly : Squeaky Clean : The Ultimate Guide to Cleansing Your Home Definitions according to the Environmental Working Group , ewg.org .
Recently , Koshy sat down with Nneka Leiba , VP of Healthy Living Science at the Environmental Working Group , for a candid convo about just how important it is to take a peek at ingredients labels before you commit to a product .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Skincare Products—Here 's What They Do According to the Environmental Working Group , carbomers are considered to be a very safe ingredient .
Medium : The Future Of Beauty : “ Clean Beauty ” With Agatha Luczo & Kim Walls of Furtuna Skin In the non-profit sector , Kim has served as leader of the Retail Advisory Committee for the Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) .
These ingredients are 100 % clean , have gone through stringent efficacy tests , and have a transparent supply chain with an EWG rating between 1–3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 35 Black-Owned Wellness Brands to Shop and Support The brand is Leaping Bunny–certified and has favorable ratings from the Environmental Working Group .
InStyle : 9 Zero-Waste Beauty Brands To Shop Now and Always And in addition to being one of the founding members of the EWG Verified program , the brand donates 1.5 % of its sales to support the work of the Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) .
MindBodyGreen : 12 Best Natural & Clean Mascaras — Gorgeous Lashes In One Swipe A newer clean brand on the market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to an ideal blend of organic non-GMO shea butter and responsibly sourced beeswax .
Yahoo !
Lifestyle : The best ocean-inspired skincare to hydrate your skin - for under $ 90 Their EWG-Certified , broad-spectrum Squalene + Zinc Sheer Mineral Sunscreen is a powerful source of hydration for even the most sensitive skin , leaving no white cast behind .
An analysis by the Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) found that counties with meatpacking plants , or within a 15-mile radius , reported 373 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 residents , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 199 cases per 100,000 .
City Pages ( Minneapolis ) : The water pollution problem in Minnesota is also a manure problem Between 1995 and 2018 , the average nitrate contamination in Minnesota 's 72 agricultural counties ’ drinking water had shot up by 61 percent on average , according to the Environmental Working Group .
“ I continue to be shocked that people charged with keeping our water clean have been among the most vocal opponents of getting PFAS out of our water , and are in many respects just as bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are charged with cleaning up , ” said Scott Faber , senior vice president for government affairs with the Environmental Working Group , a nonprofit advocacy organization .
Sanders asks Wheeler if he considers PFAS contamination to be a public health crisis , noting the Environmental Working Group estimates that over 110 million Americans may be currently drinking water that contains toxic levels of PFAS .
Baltimore Sun : Maryland to begin testing drinking water , Chesapeake Bay oysters for harmful ‘ forever chemicals ’ known as PFAS The Environmental Working Group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and drinking water , detected chemicals at a concentration of 17.8 parts per trillion in Prince George ’ s County , below the EPA health guidance level but above what the group recommends as safe , a level of 1 part per trillion .
But advocacy organizations like the Environmental Working Group argue it 's the utilities ' responsibility to filter out contaminants in drinking water and that it 's unlikely EPA will seek cleanup costs for PFAS contamination .
Environmental Science and Engineering Magazine : U.S. water utilities to spend $ 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report finds The U.S. Environmental Working Group has found 28 bases with PFAS in drinking water at levels above those set by some state regulators .
Alt Health Works : Latest “ Clean Fifteen ” List for 2020 Warns Consumers On Three Little Known GMO Foods to Buy Organic Whenever Possible The annual “ Clean Fifteen ” and “ Dirty Dozen ” list produced by the Environmental Working Group is one of the most sought-after resources for people who want to avoid eating foods that are sprayed heavily with pesticides that have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Each year , the Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) uses that data to rank fresh produce based on a collection of metrics , such as the percent of samples with detected pesticides , average number of pesticides found , and average concentration of pesticide .
According to the Environmental Working Group , the side effects include disruption of brain development and problems with behavior .
He also worked with Washington , D.C.-based nonprofit Environmental Working Group to set a mandated federal standard for genetically modified foods .
The Healthy : 12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their Money On But the nutrition varies greatly between foods and while it may be worth it to buy organic for foods on the Environmental Working Group 's `` Dirty Dozen '' list , there are plenty of foods where conventional is just as good as organic , Kostro Miller says .
Texarkana Gazette : Three easy ways to reduce your exposure to environmental toxins According to the Environmental Working Group , the side effects include disruption of brain development and problems with behavior .
`` I am outdoors daily and purchased this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safer sunscreens according to the Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) . ''
Good Housekeeping : What the Proposed New FDA Sunscreen Rules Could Mean for You The Environmental Working Group has advocated against one chemical ingredient particular .
`` For a decade , EWG has worked to raise concerns about sunscreens with oxybenzone , which is found in nearly all Americans , detected in breast milk , and potentially causing endocrine disruption , '' David Andrews , Ph.D. , senior scientist at EWG , said in a statement .
Huff Post Canada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For The Whole Family As well as sampling a variety of products firsthand , we consulted the Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) consumer guide , for information in relation to their toxicity levels and company transparency .
MindBodyGreen : The 10 Best Mineral Sunscreens For Your Face — Options For Every Skin Tone Top rated by the EWG for a decade and running , this lotion is for your intense outdoor days ( think : hiking , running , and so forth ) .
Fair Warning : Courtroom Battle Could Lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis by the Environmental Working Group , a research and advocacy organization , found that about 30 million people receive tap water with fluoride levels higher than the CDC recommendation .
Healthline : Is Bottled or Tap Water Better for Your Health ?
According to the Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) , U.S. water regulations haven ’ t been updated in almost 20 years .

This week lawmakers in California passed AB 2762, the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, out of the Assembly with a resounding 54-0 vote. The bill would ban 12 toxic ingredients, including mercury and formaldehyde, from the beauty and personal care products that Californians use every day.
“More than 40 nations, including the European Union’s member states, have enacted strong prohibitions on the use of harmful chemicals in cosmetics,” noted Susan Little, senior advocate for the Environmental Working Group. “Californians deserve to be protected against unsafe products too. AB 2762 would make sure that personal care products sold in California do not contain some of the most toxic chemicals that are already banned from cosmetics sold in other countries.”
As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on, EWG took a look at food processing facilities and found that almost 1,200 workers at 60 plants across the nation have been infected by the coronavirus.
Temperatures are ramping up across the nation, and so are reports of toxic algae blooms. Stir-crazy Americans seeking time outdoors in or near ponds, lakes, rivers, streams and beaches should watch out for this public health threat.
And finally, EWG broke down a landmark federal lawsuit that went to trial this week that challenges the longstanding practice of adding fluoride to the drinking water supplies of 200 million Americans.
Here’s some news you can use going into the weekend.
Children’s Health
Business Insider-Reviews: I use this gentle baby balm to ease my toddler's skin irritation when her eczema flares up
On top of that, all of their products carry the Environmental Working Group's EWG Verified guarantee that they do not contain potentially harmful ingredients.
Moms.com: Top Deet-Free Bug Sprays That Work To Keep Kids Bite-Free
According to the Environmental Working Group, a bug spray containing between 5-10% concentration of picaridin can protect against ticks and mosquitoes for anywhere from five to 12 hours, while a spray with a 20% concentration can provide protection all day.
Motherhood Moment: Healthy Habits: 5 Facts to Know Before Buying Sunscreen for Your Baby
It’s also a form of synthetic estrogen, and according to the Environmental Working Group causes a disruption in your hormones.
New York Family: The Best Kid-Friendly Sunscreens for Summer 2020
Tropic Sport has also scored #2 on the EWG, making it a sunscreen that has a lower hazard ranking!
AB 2762: California Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act
Happi: California Assembly Approves Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act
The Environmental Working Group, CALPIRG, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Black Women for Wellness are co-sponsors of the bill.
EWG’s COVID-19 and Food Processing Facilities Report
Bloomberg News: More Food Shortages Loom With Outbreaks at 60 U.S Plants
At least 60 food-processing facilities outside the meatpacking industry have seen outbreaks, with more than 1,000 workers diagnosed with the virus, according to a new study from Environmental Working Group.
Daily Mail (U.K.): Food shortages loom as more than 1,000 workers in at least 60 processing plants have been diagnosed with coronavirus
According to new data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, coronavirus outbreaks in food processing plants are not yet as pervasive as they are in meatpacking facilities but are still on the rise.
Agri-Pulse: Daybreak June 10: Two years of depressed farm profits forecast
The Environmental Working Group reports that 1,200 workers at 60 food processing plants outside meatpacking have been infected by the virus since mid-March.
Memphis Commercial Appeal (Tenn.): If COVID-19 sickens Kroger workers, many of us will go hungry. Their lives matter
Now, according to the Environmental Working Group, the coronavirus is spreading among other food workers.
Powder Bulk and Solids: How COVID-19 Impacts the Food Processing Workforce
A new report released this week by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) states that some 1,200 food processing workers in the United States have contracted the virus at 60 plants.
Trump Administration Farm Bailout
The New York Times: Farmers Get Billions in Virus Aid, and Democrats Are Wary
The Environmental Working Group, a consumer watchdog organization, raised yet another problem endemic to many subsidy programs: The biggest farms receive most of the money.
Algae Blooms
The Counter: Gulf fishers brace for a “dead zone” the size of Connecticut and Delaware
“We’re really seeing dead zones, and algae blooms in general, become bigger and bigger as time goes on, and I think that has a lot to do with climate change,” says Anne Weir Schechinger, an economist with Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit and lobby that tracks algae blooms across the country.
Asbestos in Talc-Based Cosmetics
Well + Good: More and More Beauty Brands are Moving Away from Using Talc in Products
“Consumers face the risk of carcinogenic exposure when using talc contaminated with asbestos,” says Carla Burns, research and data analyst at Environmental Working Group Skin Deep Cosmetics Database (EWG).
Bug Repellents
Travel and Leisure: The 9 Best Bug Sprays for a Bite-free Outdoor Adventure
The CDC, Environmental Protection Agency, World Health Organization, and Environmental Working Group all recommend DEET-based products for heavy-duty protection against a wide range of pests.
Cleaning Products
Salon: A flame retardant commonly found in vintage furniture may be affecting human sperm
Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit science foundation, studied the blood of 38 mothers and children and found that all 38 had PBB-153 in their blood.
New York Post: Reviews-This UV-C wand kills 99.9 percent of bacteria in just seconds
According to the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) investigation into more than 2,000 cleaning supplies, it found that many contain substances linked to serious health problems in otherwise healthy individuals
Licking County Concerned Citizens (Ohio): 5 Green Cleaning Products for Tackling Messy Homes
For starters, research cleaning products on a site like Environmental Working Group (EWG). This nonprofit evaluated more than 2,500 cleaning products and rated them on a scale of A to F according to an extensive methodology scale.
Rhode Island Monthly: Squeaky Clean: The Ultimate Guide to Cleansing Your Home
Definitions according to the Environmental Working Group, ewg.org.
Skin Deep® Cosmetics Database
Cosmopolitan: Liza Koshy Talks Clean Beauty, Quarantine Breakouts, Sunscreen, and More
Recently, Koshy sat down with Nneka Leiba, VP of Healthy Living Science at the Environmental Working Group, for a candid convo about just how important it is to take a peek at ingredients labels before you commit to a product.
Byrdie: Carbomers Are in Thousands of Skincare Products—Here's What They Do
According to the Environmental Working Group, carbomers are considered to be a very safe ingredient.
Medium: The Future Of Beauty: “Clean Beauty” With Agatha Luczo & Kim Walls of Furtuna Skin
In the non-profit sector, Kim has served as leader of the Retail Advisory Committee for the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
Thrive Global: “Use a Selfie To Create Hyper-Customized Skin Care Products” With Candice Georgiadis & Navneet Kaur
These ingredients are 100% clean, have gone through stringent efficacy tests, and have a transparent supply chain with an EWG rating between 1–3.
Who What Wear – The Thirty: 35 Black-Owned Wellness Brands to Shop and Support
The brand is Leaping Bunny–certified and has favorable ratings from the Environmental Working Group.
EWG VERIFIED®
InStyle: 9 Zero-Waste Beauty Brands To Shop Now and Always
And in addition to being one of the founding members of the EWG Verified program, the brand donates 1.5% of its sales to support the work of the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
MindBodyGreen: 12 Best Natural & Clean Mascaras — Gorgeous Lashes In One Swipe
A newer clean brand on the market, this EWG-verified mascara has build-ability thanks to an ideal blend of organic non-GMO shea butter and responsibly sourced beeswax.
Yahoo! Lifestyle: The best ocean-inspired skincare to hydrate your skin - for under $90
Their EWG-Certified, broad-spectrum Squalene + Zinc Sheer Mineral Sunscreen is a powerful source of hydration for even the most sensitive skin, leaving no white cast behind.
EWG’s Meatpacking Plants and COVID-19 Map
USSA News: Carbon Cowboys Versus CAFOs
An analysis by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that counties with meatpacking plants, or within a 15-mile radius, reported 373 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 residents, which is close to double the U.S. average of 199 cases per 100,000.
EWG’s Minnesota CAFO Report
City Pages (Minneapolis): The water pollution problem in Minnesota is also a manure problem
Between 1995 and 2018, the average nitrate contamination in Minnesota's 72 agricultural counties’ drinking water had shot up by 61 percent on average, according to the Environmental Working Group.
PFAS Tap Water Contamination
Bloomberg Law: PFAS Cleanup Backers Face Unexpected Foe: Water Utilities
“I continue to be shocked that people charged with keeping our water clean have been among the most vocal opponents of getting PFAS out of our water, and are in many respects just as bad as many of the polluters whose mess they are charged with cleaning up,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs with the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit advocacy organization.
Inside EPA: Environment Panel Senators Press Wheeler On High-Profile Water Issues
Sanders asks Wheeler if he considers PFAS contamination to be a public health crisis, noting the Environmental Working Group estimates that over 110 million Americans may be currently drinking water that contains toxic levels of PFAS.
Baltimore Sun: Maryland to begin testing drinking water, Chesapeake Bay oysters for harmful ‘forever chemicals’ known as PFAS
The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit focused on toxic chemicals and drinking water, detected chemicals at a concentration of 17.8 parts per trillion in Prince George’s County, below the EPA health guidance level but above what the group recommends as safe, a level of 1 part per trillion.
E&E News: Intense PFAS lobbying pits greens against water utilities
But advocacy organizations like the Environmental Working Group argue it's the utilities' responsibility to filter out contaminants in drinking water and that it's unlikely EPA will seek cleanup costs for PFAS contamination.
Environmental Science and Engineering Magazine: U.S. water utilities to spend $3 billion on PFAS reduction by 2030, report finds
The U.S. Environmental Working Group has found 28 bases with PFAS in drinking water at levels above those set by some state regulators.
Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™
Alt Health Works: Latest “Clean Fifteen” List for 2020 Warns Consumers On Three Little Known GMO Foods to Buy Organic Whenever Possible
The annual “Clean Fifteen” and “Dirty Dozen” list produced by the Environmental Working Group is one of the most sought-after resources for people who want to avoid eating foods that are sprayed heavily with pesticides that have been linked to large numbers of health problems.
Dr. Fuhrman: High pesticide residue levels on raisins
Each year, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) uses that data to rank fresh produce based on a collection of metrics, such as the percent of samples with detected pesticides, average number of pesticides found, and average concentration of pesticide.
The Garden City Telegram: You Docs
According to the Environmental Working Group, the side effects include disruption of brain development and problems with behavior.
Gwinnett Daily Post (Lawrenceville, Ga.): Daniel Blackman cruises to Democratic nod for Georgia Public Service Commission
He also worked with Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Environmental Working Group to set a mandated federal standard for genetically modified foods.
The Healthy: 12 Organic Foods Nutritionists Don’t Waste Their Money On
But the nutrition varies greatly between foods and while it may be worth it to buy organic for foods on the Environmental Working Group's "Dirty Dozen" list, there are plenty of foods where conventional is just as good as organic, Kostro Miller says.
Texarkana Gazette: Three easy ways to reduce your exposure to environmental toxins
According to the Environmental Working Group, the side effects include disruption of brain development and problems with behavior.
EWG Guide to Sunscreens
Business Insider: The best sport sunscreen
"I am outdoors daily and purchased this product because it is one of the safer sunscreens according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG)."
Good Housekeeping: What the Proposed New FDA Sunscreen Rules Could Mean for You
The Environmental Working Group has advocated against one chemical ingredient particular. "For a decade, EWG has worked to raise concerns about sunscreens with oxybenzone, which is found in nearly all Americans, detected in breast milk, and potentially causing endocrine disruption," David Andrews, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG, said in a statement.
Huff Post Canada: The Best Natural And Mineral Sunscreens For The Whole Family
As well as sampling a variety of products firsthand, we consulted the Environmental Working Group (EWG) consumer guide, for information in relation to their toxicity levels and company transparency.
MindBodyGreen: The 10 Best Mineral Sunscreens For Your Face — Options For Every Skin Tone
Top rated by the EWG for a decade and running, this lotion is for your intense outdoor days (think: hiking, running, and so forth).
Tap Water Database
Fair Warning: Courtroom Battle Could Lead to Limits on Fluoridation of Drinking Water
An analysis by the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy organization, found that about 30 million people receive tap water with fluoride levels higher than the CDC recommendation.
Healthline: Is Bottled or Tap Water Better for Your Health?
According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), U.S. water regulations haven’t been updated in almost 20 years.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-15--5 Sunscreen Myths Debunked

5 Sunscreen Myths Debunked

Since EWG released its first Guide to Sunscreens more than a decade ago , many things about the products have changed .
But myths about sunscreens persist .
Even if you ’ ll be indoors more than usual this summer , sun safety is still important , whether you ’ re sitting in a park , enjoying a backyard BBQ , or going for a walk .
Here are five of the most common – and persistent – sunscreen myths .
Fact : Many sunscreens currently on the U.S. market can help prevent sunburn – caused mostly by UVB rays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not provide adequate UVA protection .
Both UVA and UVB rays play a role in the development of skin cancer .
But UVA rays penetrate more deeply and play a greater role in skin aging and wrinkles , whereas UVB rays are responsible primarily for sunburns and skin inflammation .
So exposure to UVA rays can have more long-term consequences .
The Food and Drug Administration defines “ broad spectrum ” as providing protection from both types of rays .
However , the standard for using that term on a label is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that participants who used a poor quality broad spectrum sunscreen for two days on a tropical beach got the same UVA exposure as those visiting a tanning salon once .
Other countries , particularly those in the EU , require much higher UV protection .
Europe requires proportional UVA and UVB protection – a standard that about 70 percent of products in this year ’ s Guide would not meet .
Myth : The higher the SPF value , the better .
Fact : It ’ s better to stick to products between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or sun protection factor , mainly measures skin redness protection from UVB rays .
Higher-rated SPF products can give consumers a false sense of security – they may think that the higher the SPF , the more protected they are from all forms of skin damage .
However , the FDA has found that high SPF sunscreens may overexpose consumers to UVA rays and raise their risk of cancer , because higher SPF doesn ’ t guarantee the sunscreen offers equally high UVA protection .
Recently , the FDA proposed a cap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoiding sunscreens with SPF over 50+ .
Myth : Vitamin A is used in skincare products , so it must be good in sunscreen .
Fact : Vitamin A may accelerate skin tumor and lesion growth when in the presence of sunlight , and it should be avoided on sun-exposed skin .
Also known as retinyl palmitate , retinyl acetate , retinyl linoleate and retinol , vitamin A is an antioxidant commonly used in skincare products and a popular additive in sunscreens , in particular .
It ’ s believed to slow signs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results of government tests , it speeds the development of skin tumors and lesions on sun-exposed skin .
EWG recommends consumers avoid vitamin A in all daytime products , and especially sunscreens .
Myth : Sunscreen causes vitamin D deficiency , so people with darker skin tones shouldn ’ t wear sunscreen .
Fact : Sun protection is important for everyone .
Vitamin D , a hormone that supports strong bones and a healthy immune system , is produced when the skin is exposed to sunlight , specifically UVB rays .
Certain foods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vitamin D. Sunscreen protects the skin from high levels of UV exposure , and our Sunscreen Guide team has received inquiries on whether or not vitamin D deficiency is directly linked to consistent sunscreen use .
Many Americans , especially those with darker skin , older people and those living farther from the equator , don ’ t get enough vitamin D in their daily lives .
There ’ s no known level of UV exposure that maximizes vitamin D synthesis without increasing skin cancer risk , so EWG recommends consulting your health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re at risk of deficiency .
If so , you may be told to take vitamin D supplements or eat foods rich in vitamin D , or both , and to avoid spending time in the sun unprotected .
Myth : You don ’ t need to wear sunscreen indoors .
Fact : Depending on your routine , you may want to wear sunscreen indoors .
With many people now working from home or just venturing outside less frequently , sunscreen may seem like an unnecessary precaution .
However , according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out UVB rays , but UVA rays still penetrate through glass .
So if you often sit near a window , you may be at risk .
You should use sunscreen daily and reapply every two hours .
Your window may not be the only reason to wear sunscreen .
Smartphones , computers , TVs and other devices emit significant levels of blue light , also known as high-energy visible light .
Long-term exposure to blue light – from staring at a laptop screen , for instance – can cause potential skin damage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributes to skin aging similar to UVA , but more research is needed to understand the full effects of blue light exposure and how best to protect your skin from high-energy visible light .
Check out our 2020 Guide to Sunscreens to see the best sunscreens , moisturizers with SPF , and lip balms with SPF for indoor and outdoor use .
Finally , it ’ s important to remember that sunscreens aren ’ t the only , or even the best , way to protect yourself from the sun ’ s harmful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include a hat and clothing , avoiding the mid-day sun , and staying in the shade – or making your own – whenever possible .

Since EWG released its first Guide to Sunscreens more than a decade ago, many things about the products have changed. But myths about sunscreens persist.
Even if you’ll be indoors more than usual this summer, sun safety is still important, whether you’re sitting in a park, enjoying a backyard BBQ, or going for a walk. Here are five of the most common – and persistent – sunscreen myths.
Myth: All sunscreens provide adequate UV protection.
Fact: Many sunscreens currently on the U.S. market can help prevent sunburn – caused mostly by UVB rays – when used appropriately, but they may not provide adequate UVA protection.
Both UVA and UVB rays play a role in the development of skin cancer. But UVA rays penetrate more deeply and play a greater role in skin aging and wrinkles, whereas UVB rays are responsible primarily for sunburns and skin inflammation. So exposure to UVA rays can have more long-term consequences.
The Food and Drug Administration defines “broad spectrum” as providing protection from both types of rays. However, the standard for using that term on a label is not very strict – one study found that participants who used a poor quality broad spectrum sunscreen for two days on a tropical beach got the same UVA exposure as those visiting a tanning salon once.
Other countries, particularly those in the EU, require much higher UV protection. Europe requires proportional UVA and UVB protection – a standard that about 70 percent of products in this year’s Guide would not meet.
Myth: The higher the SPF value, the better.
Fact: It’s better to stick to products between SPF 15 and SPF 50+.
SPF, or sun protection factor, mainly measures skin redness protection from UVB rays. Higher-rated SPF products can give consumers a false sense of security – they may think that the higher the SPF, the more protected they are from all forms of skin damage. However, the FDA has found that high SPF sunscreens may overexpose consumers to UVA rays and raise their risk of cancer, because higher SPF doesn’t guarantee the sunscreen offers equally high UVA protection.
Recently, the FDA proposed a cap of SPF 60+, and EWG recommends avoiding sunscreens with SPF over 50+.
Myth: Vitamin A is used in skincare products, so it must be good in sunscreen.
Fact: Vitamin A may accelerate skin tumor and lesion growth when in the presence of sunlight, and it should be avoided on sun-exposed skin.
Also known as retinyl palmitate, retinyl acetate, retinyl linoleate and retinol, vitamin A is an antioxidant commonly used in skincare products and a popular additive in sunscreens, in particular. It’s believed to slow signs of aging, but according to the results of government tests, it speeds the development of skin tumors and lesions on sun-exposed skin. EWG recommends consumers avoid vitamin A in all daytime products, and especially sunscreens.
Myth: Sunscreen causes vitamin D deficiency, so people with darker skin tones shouldn’t wear sunscreen.
Fact: Sun protection is important for everyone.
Vitamin D, a hormone that supports strong bones and a healthy immune system, is produced when the skin is exposed to sunlight, specifically UVB rays. Certain foods and supplements are also a source of vitamin D. Sunscreen protects the skin from high levels of UV exposure, and our Sunscreen Guide team has received inquiries on whether or not vitamin D deficiency is directly linked to consistent sunscreen use.
Many Americans, especially those with darker skin, older people and those living farther from the equator, don’t get enough vitamin D in their daily lives.
There’s no known level of UV exposure that maximizes vitamin D synthesis without increasing skin cancer risk, so EWG recommends consulting your health care provider to see whether you’re at risk of deficiency. If so, you may be told to take vitamin D supplements or eat foods rich in vitamin D, or both, and to avoid spending time in the sun unprotected.
Myth: You don’t need to wear sunscreen indoors.
Fact: Depending on your routine, you may want to wear sunscreen indoors.
With many people now working from home or just venturing outside less frequently, sunscreen may seem like an unnecessary precaution. However, according to the American Cancer Society, most windows block out UVB rays, but UVA rays still penetrate through glass. So if you often sit near a window, you may be at risk. You should use sunscreen daily and reapply every two hours.
Your window may not be the only reason to wear sunscreen. Smartphones, computers, TVs and other devices emit significant levels of blue light, also known as high-energy visible light. Long-term exposure to blue light – from staring at a laptop screen, for instance – can cause potential skin damage. Recent research suggests that blue light contributes to skin aging similar to UVA, but more research is needed to understand the full effects of blue light exposure and how best to protect your skin from high-energy visible light.
Check out our 2020 Guide to Sunscreens to see the best sunscreens, moisturizers with SPF, and lip balms with SPF for indoor and outdoor use.
Finally, it’s important to remember that sunscreens aren’t the only, or even the best, way to protect yourself from the sun’s harmful rays. Other protections from sun exposure include a hat and clothing, avoiding the mid-day sun, and staying in the shade – or making your own – whenever possible.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-16--How Trump’s Consumer Safety Nominee Weakened Regulation of ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Consumer Products

There are many reasons for the Senate to oppose President Trump ’ s nominee to chair the Consumer Products Safety Commission , Nancy Beck .
Since 1980 , the use of methylene chloride in paint strippers has killed scores of people .
But while in a top position at the Environmental Protection Agency ’ s Office of Chemical Safety , Beck delayed a proposed ban of methylene chloride in paint strippers .
People died .
Beck also stymied a proposed ban of some uses of the known carcinogen TCE , which contaminates hundreds of military bases , and played down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Beck twisted federal law to frustrate EPA ’ s efforts to finally ban asbestos – an interpretation recently deemed illegal .
But it ’ s Beck ’ s efforts to weaken consumer protections from the toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS – also called “ forever ” chemicals because they never break down and build up in our blood – that should give senators the most serious pause .
Records released by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee show that Beck succeeded in weakening a regulation that requires companies to notify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they start using so-called long-chain PFAS like PFOA – the most notorious of the PFAS chemicals , linked to cancer and other serious health effects – in consumer products ranging from carpets to wiring to clothing .
In 2015 , the EPA proposed a Significant New Use Rule , or SNUR , for long-chain PFAS that applied to many products .
What that means is that manufacturers of everyday products would not only have to let the EPA know they were planning to use PFOA or other long-chain PFAS but would also have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2017 , when Beck took a senior position in the EPA ’ s chemical safety office , she sought to exploit a provision in a new toxic chemical law to weaken the SNUR for PFAS .
After she left the EPA to work at the White House , records show , Beck continued her crusade against PFAS regulation .
Earlier this year , Beck succeeded in her quest to narrow the scope of the rule by limiting it to the surface coatings of products .
As a result of her efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a product without getting the EPA ’ s permission – even though many products degrade over time or wind up being disposed of in a landfill or incinerator .
Since PFAS never break down , it ’ s only a matter of when , not whether , people will be exposed to PFAS in products .
But Beck has imposed her baseless view on the EPA that using PFOA and other long-chain PFAS inside products does not create “ reasonable potential for exposure.
” This is bad science – combined with bad intentions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But if left unchanged , many new uses of long-chain PFAS , like PFOA in consumer products , will escape the EPA ’ s oversight and regulation .
Ultimately , PFAS will end up in our food , or our drinking water – and in us .
If confirmed to chair the Consumer Products Safety Commission , Beck would be in the position of deciding whether to ban toxic flame retardants in children ’ s products and other consumer products .
While Beck directed science policy at the American Chemistry Council , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a ban .
Is someone who delayed a ban of a paint-stripping chemical that kills workers and consumers and weakened regulation of toxic forever chemicals in consumer products the right person to chair the agency charged with protecting consumers from unsafe products ?
Retired Marine Corps Master Sgt .
Jerry Ensminger , who lost his nine-year-old daughter to leukemia after she was exposed to TCE pollution at Camp LeJeune , said Beck “ has shown us exactly who she is .
Over and over again .
She is not somebody who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to protect people from toxic chemicals , from dangerous products , or from careless companies .
That is not who Nancy Beck is.
” He 's right .
We know who Nancy Beck is .

There are many reasons for the Senate to oppose President Trump’s nominee to chair the Consumer Products Safety Commission, Nancy Beck.
Since 1980, the use of methylene chloride in paint strippers has killed scores of people. But while in a top position at the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Chemical Safety, Beck delayed a proposed ban of methylene chloride in paint strippers. People died.
Beck also stymied a proposed ban of some uses of the known carcinogen TCE, which contaminates hundreds of military bases, and played down the impact of TCE on fetal hearts. Beck twisted federal law to frustrate EPA’s efforts to finally ban asbestos – an interpretation recently deemed illegal.
But it’s Beck’s efforts to weaken consumer protections from the toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS – also called “forever” chemicals because they never break down and build up in our blood – that should give senators the most serious pause.
Records released by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee show that Beck succeeded in weakening a regulation that requires companies to notify and get permission from the EPA before they start using so-called long-chain PFAS like PFOA – the most notorious of the PFAS chemicals, linked to cancer and other serious health effects – in consumer products ranging from carpets to wiring to clothing.
In 2015, the EPA proposed a Significant New Use Rule, or SNUR, for long-chain PFAS that applied to many products. What that means is that manufacturers of everyday products would not only have to let the EPA know they were planning to use PFOA or other long-chain PFAS but would also have to seek the agency’s approval.
In 2017, when Beck took a senior position in the EPA’s chemical safety office, she sought to exploit a provision in a new toxic chemical law to weaken the SNUR for PFAS. After she left the EPA to work at the White House, records show, Beck continued her crusade against PFAS regulation.
Earlier this year, Beck succeeded in her quest to narrow the scope of the rule by limiting it to the surface coatings of products. As a result of her efforts, a company could use PFOA inside a product without getting the EPA’s permission – even though many products degrade over time or wind up being disposed of in a landfill or incinerator.
Since PFAS never break down, it’s only a matter of when, not whether, people will be exposed to PFAS in products. But Beck has imposed her baseless view on the EPA that using PFOA and other long-chain PFAS inside products does not create “reasonable potential for exposure.” This is bad science – combined with bad intentions.
The PFAS rule is not final. But if left unchanged, many new uses of long-chain PFAS, like PFOA in consumer products, will escape the EPA’s oversight and regulation. Ultimately, PFAS will end up in our food, or our drinking water – and in us.
If confirmed to chair the Consumer Products Safety Commission, Beck would be in the position of deciding whether to ban toxic flame retardants in children’s products and other consumer products. While Beck directed science policy at the American Chemistry Council, the powerful chemical manufacturers’ lobby opposed such a ban.
Is someone who delayed a ban of a paint-stripping chemical that kills workers and consumers and weakened regulation of toxic forever chemicals in consumer products the right person to chair the agency charged with protecting consumers from unsafe products?
Retired Marine Corps Master Sgt. Jerry Ensminger, who lost his nine-year-old daughter to leukemia after she was exposed to TCE pollution at Camp LeJeune, said Beck “has shown us exactly who she is. Over and over again. She is not somebody who is ever going to use her authority or power to protect people from toxic chemicals, from dangerous products, or from careless companies. That is not who Nancy Beck is.”
He's right. We know who Nancy Beck is.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-17--Citing PFAS, Key Senators Oppose Trump’s Consumer Safety Nominee

WASHINGTON – Pointing to her efforts to limit regulation of PFAS in consumer products , Sens .
Shelley Moore Capito ( R-W.V . )
and Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) today announced they would oppose President Trump 's nominee to chair the Consumer Products Safety Commission , Nancy Beck .
“ EWG applauds Senator Capito and Senator Collins for opposing Nancy Beck , who has sought to weaken regulation of toxic chemicals like PFAS , ” said Scott Faber , EWG ’ s Senior Vice President for Government Affairs .
PFAS are a large family of toxic fluorinated chemicals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancer and other serious health effects .
While in a top position at the Environmental Protection Agency ’ s Office of Chemical Safety , Beck delayed a proposed ban of deadly methylene chloride in paint strippers .
Beck also stymied a proposed ban of some uses of the known carcinogen TCE , which contaminates hundreds of military bases , and played down the impact of TCE on fetal hearts .
Beck also twisted federal law to frustrate EPA ’ s efforts to finally ban asbestos – an interpretation recently deemed illegal .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weaken consumer protections from PFAS – also called “ forever ” chemicals because they never break down and build up in our blood – that both senators cited in their statements of opposition .
Records released by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works show that Beck succeeded in weakening a regulation that requires companies to notify and get permission from the EPA before they start using so-called long-chain PFAS like PFOA , the most notorious of the PFAS chemicals , in consumer products ranging from carpets to wiring to clothing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Significant New Use Rule , or SNUR , for long-chain PFAS that applied to many products .
What that means is that manufacturers of everyday products would not only have to let the EPA know they were planning to use PFOA or other long-chain PFAS but would also have to seek the agency ’ s approval .
In 2017 , when Beck took a senior position in the EPA ’ s chemical safety office , she sought to exploit a provision in a new toxic chemical law to weaken the SNUR for PFAS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work at the White House , records show , Beck continued her crusade against PFAS regulation .
Earlier this year , Beck succeeded in her quest to narrow the scope of the rule by limiting it to the surface coatings of products .
As a result of her efforts , a company could use PFOA inside a product without getting the EPA ’ s permission – even though many products degrade over time or wind up being disposed of in a landfill or incinerator .
“ Since PFAS never break down , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not whether , people will be exposed to PFAS in products , ” Faber said .
“ But Beck has imposed her baseless view on the EPA that using PFOA and other long-chain PFAS inside products does not create ‘ reasonable potential for exposure.
’ This is bad science – combined with bad intentions.
” If left unchanged , many new uses of long-chain PFAS , like PFOA in consumer products , will escape the EPA ’ s oversight and regulation .
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit , non-partisan organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a healthier environment .
Through research , advocacy and unique education tools , EWG drives consumer choice and civic action .

WASHINGTON – Pointing to her efforts to limit regulation of PFAS in consumer products, Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) today announced they would oppose President Trump's nominee to chair the Consumer Products Safety Commission, Nancy Beck.
“EWG applauds Senator Capito and Senator Collins for opposing Nancy Beck, who has sought to weaken regulation of toxic chemicals like PFAS,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s Senior Vice President for Government Affairs. PFAS are a large family of toxic fluorinated chemicals, some of which have been linked to cancer and other serious health effects.
While in a top position at the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Chemical Safety, Beck delayed a proposed ban of deadly methylene chloride in paint strippers. Beck also stymied a proposed ban of some uses of the known carcinogen TCE, which contaminates hundreds of military bases, and played down the impact of TCE on fetal hearts. Beck also twisted federal law to frustrate EPA’s efforts to finally ban asbestos – an interpretation recently deemed illegal.
But it was Beck’s efforts to weaken consumer protections from PFAS – also called “forever” chemicals because they never break down and build up in our blood – that both senators cited in their statements of opposition.
Records released by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works show that Beck succeeded in weakening a regulation that requires companies to notify and get permission from the EPA before they start using so-called long-chain PFAS like PFOA, the most notorious of the PFAS chemicals, in consumer products ranging from carpets to wiring to clothing.
In 2015, the EPA proposed a Significant New Use Rule, or SNUR, for long-chain PFAS that applied to many products. What that means is that manufacturers of everyday products would not only have to let the EPA know they were planning to use PFOA or other long-chain PFAS but would also have to seek the agency’s approval.
In 2017, when Beck took a senior position in the EPA’s chemical safety office, she sought to exploit a provision in a new toxic chemical law to weaken the SNUR for PFAS. After she left the EPA to work at the White House, records show, Beck continued her crusade against PFAS regulation.
Earlier this year, Beck succeeded in her quest to narrow the scope of the rule by limiting it to the surface coatings of products. As a result of her efforts, a company could use PFOA inside a product without getting the EPA’s permission – even though many products degrade over time or wind up being disposed of in a landfill or incinerator.
“Since PFAS never break down, it’s only a matter of when, not whether, people will be exposed to PFAS in products,” Faber said. “But Beck has imposed her baseless view on the EPA that using PFOA and other long-chain PFAS inside products does not create ‘reasonable potential for exposure.’ This is bad science – combined with bad intentions.”
If left unchanged, many new uses of long-chain PFAS, like PFOA in consumer products, will escape the EPA’s oversight and regulation.
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-17--Trump’s Energy Regulators Are Undercutting Growth of Renewables

Federal regulators ’ rule changes to prop up coal and natural gas power plants could severely disrupt progress toward a clean , renewable energy future – and cost 65 million mid-Atlantic and Midwest consumers tens of billions of dollars .
In December , the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission , or FERC , expanded the scope of a rule setting the minimum price of electricity in the PJM regional power grid – the nation ’ s largest , taking in all or part of 13 states stretching from the Atlantic seaboard to the Chicago metro area .
The Minimum Offer Price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prevent large utilities , which primarily operate fossil fuel plants , from manipulating prices for power sold to other companies on the wholesale market .
But FERC – whose four members were all appointed by President Trump – ruled that the MOPR will now also apply to all energy sources the commission says are subsidized by the states .
That means primarily wind and solar power , for which customers often receive state rebates .
This will significantly raise the price of renewable energy , which is already cheaper than fossil fuels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A study by researchers at Grid Strategies LLC estimated that the rule could cost PJM customers up to $ 24 billon over the next decade .
Strong criticism of the new rule came from all quarters – including one of Trump ’ s FERC appointees .
• In a dissenting opinion , FERC Commissioner Richard Glick wrote : “ From the beginning , this proceeding has been about two things : Dramatically increasing the price of [ energy ] in PJM ... and slowing the region ’ s transition to a clean energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an unfortunate and unnecessary transformation of a limited rule designed to prevent market manipulation into a price support scheme for existing coal and natural gas power plants , '' said a statement from Jeff Dennis , general counsel and managing director at Advanced Energy Economy , a national association of business leaders promoting renewables .
• “ The very last thing the federal government should be doing right now is taking an economic engine like offshore wind or solar and making them artificially more expensive to rev up for our communities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maryland state legislators to file comments to FERC objecting to the rule , said in a statement reported by Utility Dive .
“ As we face a pending recession , we need to be able to protect our ratepayers and embrace the jobs that can be created in the renewable sector.
” In April , renewables advocates and industry groups filed what Utility Dive called “ a flurry of lawsuits ” against the new rule .
Maryland and New Jersey are considering leaving the PJM market altogether because they fear it will undercut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meanwhile , FERC is considering a petition from what appears to be a utility front group that could discourage homeowners from installing solar panels .
In April , the New England Ratepayers Association , or NERA , filed a petition at FERC to derail state net metering laws .
These laws require utilities to credit customers for excess electricity generated by their solar panels and fed back into the grid .
NERA refuses to disclose its membership but , in its filing , makes arguments that mirror the attacks electric utility companies have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ari Peskoe , director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program , told Utility Dive , “ The attorneys that are on this petition are typically working with big utilities and other energy companies.
” If NERA wins , it could cut in half the compensation for power shipped to the grid from residential solar arrays .
GreenTech Media says it may seem unlikely that FERC would “ wade into the murky waters ” of state-versus-federal authority , but the MOPR ruling could be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to assert preemption over state rulemaking.
” More than 30 advocacy groups , state regulatory agencies , utilities and renewable trade organizations have intervened in the proceeding .
In an effort organized by the Center for Biological Diversity ’ s Energy Justice program , EWG signed onto a letter with more than 400 national and state advocacy organizations , urging FERC to rule against NERA .
The letter said :

Federal regulators’ rule changes to prop up coal and natural gas power plants could severely disrupt progress toward a clean, renewable energy future – and cost 65 million mid-Atlantic and Midwest consumers tens of billions of dollars.
In December, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, expanded the scope of a rule setting the minimum price of electricity in the PJM regional power grid – the nation’s largest, taking in all or part of 13 states stretching from the Atlantic seaboard to the Chicago metro area. The Minimum Offer Price Rule, or MOPR, was designed to prevent large utilities, which primarily operate fossil fuel plants, from manipulating prices for power sold to other companies on the wholesale market.
But FERC – whose four members were all appointed by President Trump – ruled that the MOPR will now also apply to all energy sources the commission says are subsidized by the states. That means primarily wind and solar power, for which customers often receive state rebates. This will significantly raise the price of renewable energy, which is already cheaper than fossil fuels and getting cheaper all the time. A study by researchers at Grid Strategies LLC estimated that the rule could cost PJM customers up to $24 billon over the next decade.
Strong criticism of the new rule came from all quarters – including one of Trump’s FERC appointees.
In a dissenting opinion, FERC Commissioner Richard Glick wrote: “From the beginning, this proceeding has been about two things: Dramatically increasing the price of [energy] in PJM ... and slowing the region’s transition to a clean energy future.”
"FERC's order is an unfortunate and unnecessary transformation of a limited rule designed to prevent market manipulation into a price support scheme for existing coal and natural gas power plants," said a statement from Jeff Dennis, general counsel and managing director at Advanced Energy Economy, a national association of business leaders promoting renewables.
“The very last thing the federal government should be doing right now is taking an economic engine like offshore wind or solar and making them artificially more expensive to rev up for our communities,” Dereck Davis, one of 18 Maryland state legislators to file comments to FERC objecting to the rule, said in a statement reported by Utility Dive. “As we face a pending recession, we need to be able to protect our ratepayers and embrace the jobs that can be created in the renewable sector.”
In April, renewables advocates and industry groups filed what Utility Dive called “a flurry of lawsuits” against the new rule. Maryland and New Jersey are considering leaving the PJM market altogether because they fear it will undercut their climate and renewable energy goals.
Meanwhile, FERC is considering a petition from what appears to be a utility front group that could discourage homeowners from installing solar panels.
In April, the New England Ratepayers Association, or NERA, filed a petition at FERC to derail state net metering laws. These laws require utilities to credit customers for excess electricity generated by their solar panels and fed back into the grid.
NERA refuses to disclose its membership but, in its filing, makes arguments that mirror the attacks electric utility companies have mounted against net metering for years. Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program, told Utility Dive, “The attorneys that are on this petition are typically working with big utilities and other energy companies.”
If NERA wins, it could cut in half the compensation for power shipped to the grid from residential solar arrays. GreenTech Media says it may seem unlikely that FERC would “wade into the murky waters” of state-versus-federal authority, but the MOPR ruling could be a sign that the Trump-appointed commission is “willing to assert preemption over state rulemaking.”
More than 30 advocacy groups, state regulatory agencies, utilities and renewable trade organizations have intervened in the proceeding. In an effort organized by the Center for Biological Diversity’s Energy Justice program, EWG signed onto a letter with more than 400 national and state advocacy organizations, urging FERC to rule against NERA. The letter said: