environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-10-16--New EWG Healthy Living App Includes Healthy Cleaners

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Working Group has added information about healthy cleaners to its Healthy Living App , putting ratings at shoppers ’ fingertips for more than 122,000 foods , personal care products and now healthy cleaners .
EWG developed the Healthy Living App to help consumers find products that meet the organization ’ s rigorous standards for health and safety .
The new app combines three of EWG ’ s most popular resources , Skin Deep® , Food Scores and the Guide to Healthy Cleaners .
Shoppers can scan the bar codes of products and foods to see how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The app ’ s improved user interface makes it easier for shoppers to find healthier products .
Consumers who want to limit their exposure to harmful ingredients can now create , manage and share lists of their favorite products .
The app allows users to search more than 2,500 cleaning products , including the first EWG VERIFIED™ cleaners .
The updated app also now includes links to EWG ’ s popular Shopper ’ s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™ .
And a new feature allows users to submit photos of products not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to add new products to the databases .
“ We ’ ve streamlined the app experience , ” said Helen Lucey , EWG ’ s senior digital marketing manager .
“ In addition to adding all these new products , we ’ ve improved existing features , like the scanner , to make it more user-friendly.
” EWG ’ s Healthy Living Science team is led by Nneka Leiba and includes researchers who continually review the latest groundbreaking scientific research , and update the criteria used to determine how products are rated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ draws on the most recent information to provide consumers with details about products and ingredients , so they can make more informed purchasing decisions .
“ EWG has revolutionized the way consumers choose the products they use every day by providing easily accessible information that helps keep them up to date about potential ingredient harms and concerns , ” Leiba said .
“ This app update is just the latest example of how we are working to empower people to make better choices.
” “ Skin Deep picks up where the government and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and database analyst Carla Burns .
“ It provides easy-to-navigate ratings , as well as the science behind those ratings , so consumers know they can trust the information.
” Since its creation , EWG ’ s Healthy Living App has been installed 2.55 million times .
This year alone , it ’ s had 623,000 users , and 2.33 million sessions .
“ Finding healthier cleaning products should be smooth and effortless , but far too often , the process is exactly the opposite , ” said Samara Geller , EWG senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s why the addition of cleaners to the app has been so highly anticipated .
It puts thousands of ratings into the hands of consumers wherever they go , making it easier than ever to find practical solutions to protect themselves and their families.
” The update is available for iPhone only .
Stay tuned for an update for other smart devices .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civic action .
https : //www.ewg.org/apps/

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Working Group has added information about healthy cleaners to its Healthy Living App, putting ratings at shoppers’ fingertips for more than 122,000 foods, personal care products and now healthy cleaners.
EWG developed the Healthy Living App to help consumers find products that meet the organization’s rigorous standards for health and safety. The new app combines three of EWG’s most popular resources, Skin Deep®, Food Scores and the Guide to Healthy Cleaners. Shoppers can scan the bar codes of products and foods to see how they rate in EWG’s databases.
The app’s improved user interface makes it easier for shoppers to find healthier products. Consumers who want to limit their exposure to harmful ingredients can now create, manage and share lists of their favorite products. The app allows users to search more than 2,500 cleaning products, including the first EWG VERIFIED™ cleaners.
The updated app also now includes links to EWG’s popular Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™. And a new feature allows users to submit photos of products not found, which EWG can then use to add new products to the databases.
“We’ve streamlined the app experience,” said Helen Lucey, EWG’s senior digital marketing manager. “In addition to adding all these new products, we’ve improved existing features, like the scanner, to make it more user-friendly.”
EWG’s Healthy Living Science team is led by Nneka Leiba and includes researchers who continually review the latest groundbreaking scientific research, and update the criteria used to determine how products are rated in the databases. The Healthy Living app draws on the most recent information to provide consumers with details about products and ingredients, so they can make more informed purchasing decisions.
“EWG has revolutionized the way consumers choose the products they use every day by providing easily accessible information that helps keep them up to date about potential ingredient harms and concerns,” Leiba said. “This app update is just the latest example of how we are working to empower people to make better choices.”
“Skin Deep picks up where the government and industry leave off,” said research and database analyst Carla Burns. “It provides easy-to-navigate ratings, as well as the science behind those ratings, so consumers know they can trust the information.”
Since its creation, EWG’s Healthy Living App has been installed 2.55 million times. This year alone, it’s had 623,000 users, and 2.33 million sessions.
“Finding healthier cleaning products should be smooth and effortless, but far too often, the process is exactly the opposite,” said Samara Geller, EWG senior Healthy Living Science analyst. “That’s why the addition of cleaners to the app has been so highly anticipated. It puts thousands of ratings into the hands of consumers wherever they go, making it easier than ever to find practical solutions to protect themselves and their families.”
The update is available for iPhone only. Stay tuned for an update for other smart devices.
###
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/apps/


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-10-21--The End of Environmental Law as We Know It

The Senate will almost certainly vote next week to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court .
Because of the way she sees the role of government , her confirmation could mark the end of modern environmental law as we know it .
Several justices already on the Supreme Court have shown they are eager to constrict the power of the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory agencies .
Confirming Coney Barrett will solidify the anti-regulatory stance of the court , making it much more likely to vote to uphold the Trump administration ’ s environmental rollbacks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future public health regulations .
Here are five ways Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation could weaken environmental law .
1 .
Reviving the nondelegation doctrine to wipe out environmental laws Perhaps the most significant threat is the potential expansion of the “ nondelegation ” doctrine , which two University of Michigan law professors call “ one of the most dangerous ideas in American law.
” This is the theory that the Constitution forbids Congress from delegating important policy decisions to any other person or institution – including agencies like the EPA or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this doctrine would fundamentally change how most law-making happens .
The Clean Air Act , Clean Water Act and other laws grant the EPA general authority and allow agency experts to determine how to regulate individual pollutants .
Reversing this longstanding practice would shift that responsibility back to Congress , which lacks the necessary expertise .
State courts have already shown how the nondelegation doctrine can be weaponized to derail democratically passed laws and regulations .
The Republican majority of the Michigan Supreme Court recently applied the nondelegation doctrine to strike down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 .
Neither the Constitution nor texts of original constitutional debates describe any principle of nondelegation .
The Supreme Court has not used the nondelegation doctrine to overturn a law since 1935 .
But there is a real threat that an anti-regulation majority could invoke the doctrine to handicap agencies like the EPA .
Last year , Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissent advocating that the court revisit the doctrine and was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts .
A recent analysis by Georgetown Law professor Lisa Heinzerling found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thomas , Samuel Alito , Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh – have all voiced support for reviving the nondelegation doctrine to scrutinize regulations on industry behavior .
Those justices would almost certainly find an ally in Coney Barrett .
An expanded nondelegation doctrine would be a disaster for environmental law .
Whole portions of environmental laws could be invalidated if the court were to determine that Congress gave EPA too much power .
Nondelegation could overturn agency actions implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act , or TSCA , which Congress overhauled in 2016 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ propose its first restrictions on 10 chemicals under the new law .
The law also gave the EPA expanded authority to require industry to conduct more health and safety studies on chemicals .
Nondelegation could be used to strike down forthcoming regulations .
If future EPA regulations to limit industrial discharges of toxic PFAS chemicals were determined to be unlawful delegation , those regulations could be struck down .
Nondelegation could also be used to strike down new rules limiting methane pollution or greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles designed to mitigate climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a 1984 Supreme Court decision involving a challenge to the EPA ’ s definition of “ sources ” of air pollutants .
Chevron established the bedrock principle that courts will defer to agency interpretation of the law when statutory language is ambiguous .
Agencies like the EPA and the FDA are given deference because they employ career subject matter experts .
EPA rules , like limits on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants , are released only after years of study by teams of expert scientists and lawyers .
Chevron deference has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal movement .
House Republicans in 2016 and 2017 twice passed legislation to limit agency deference , but those bills were never taken up by the Senate .
And several sitting justices have shown eagerness to scale back deference .
When Gorsuch was on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals , he argued in a concurring opinion that Chevron should be reconsidered , saying , “ The time has come to face the behemoth.
” Roberts joined Alito in a dissent in the 2013 case City of Arlington , Tex .
v. FCC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stating , “ A court should not defer to an agency until the court decides , on its own , that the agency is entitled to deference.
” Absent new authority from Congress , the EPA will have to rely on its existing authorities under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to curb air and water pollution and mitigate climate change .
A deregulatory-focused court would threaten the EPA ’ s ability to use those authorities to protect public health and the environment .
The EPA will also soon determine whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , TCE and formaldehyde under the updated TSCA .
EPA has also begun the long process of initiating regulations on PFAS in drinking water .
Limiting deference could undermine agency decisions on how to protect consumers from those chemicals .
A shift to the right at the Supreme Court imperils well-established environmental law precedents .
The principle of stare decisis establishes that lower courts must follow higher court decisions and that the Supreme Court is generally bound by its earlier decisions .
Stare decisis is a defining feature of America ’ s common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually rare and not a decision that judges take lightly .
Nonetheless , Coney Barrett has taken the radical position that she would support overturning precedents if she believed those cases were wrongly decided .
In 2013 , she wrote in a law review article : “ I tend to agree with those who say that a justice ’ s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal scholar , would be “ chaos and instability in constitutional law.
” Much attention has been paid to how this would affect reproductive rights under Roe v. Wade , but Coney Barrett ’ s judicial philosophy also endangers important environmental precedents .
For example , Massachusetts v. EPA established that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act .
A strongly worded dissent in Massachusetts v. EPA was penned by the late Justice Antonin Scalia , and Coney Barrett is likely to agree .
Coney Barrett clerked for Scalia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that he has had an “ incalculable influence ” on her .
At least two justices already on the bench have already expressed interest in scaling back the EPA ’ s power to regulate greenhouse gases .
Thomas and Alito have hinted at their skepticism and interest in revisiting Massachusetts v. EPA in a 2011 concurring opinion and again in a 2014 concurring opinion .
Another important environmental precedent at risk is Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services , a landmark opinion by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups .
4 .
Limiting access to courts through a narrow application of “ standing ” A Supreme Court reversal of the Laidlaw case would make it much harder for environmental groups to have their day in court .
Even if the Supreme Court did not overturn Laidlaw , Coney Barrett would likely support new limits on access to courts , based on her opinions in the 7th Circuit .
In order to sue the government , a group or individual must first establish “ standing , ” which means that someone can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not like a new law or regulation , but instead they must be directly harmed .
The Laidlaw opinion established that plaintiffs , including environmental groups , do not have to show actual harm to have standing , but that a reasonable fear of harm is sufficient .
Scalia dissented , arguing that plaintiffs need to specify harms .
Scalia ’ s proposed approach would make it harder for community and environmental groups to access courts , because specific harms from pollution like cancer can take years to manifest .
Laidlaw was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts more accessible to groups that care about public health and the environment .
But as a 7th Circuit judge , Coney Barrett has already shown support for more limited access to courts .
In Protect Our Parks , Inc. v. Chicago Park District , she found that a park preservation group did not have standing to sue to block a construction project in Chicago ’ s Jackson Park .
Access to courts is an important part of holding government accountable .
For example , this week the community group Alaska Community Action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risks from three flame retardants .
Several environmental groups have also sued the EPA over its lax and secretive approach to new chemicals regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act .
Other groups have sued over an EPA rule failing to protect workers from a deadly paint-stripping chemical .
Limiting standing would make it easier to dismiss these kinds of cases on procedural grounds without even addressing the substance of the legal challenges .
The Supreme Court has long recognized constitutional limits on state laws if they interfere with interstate commerce .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirements for mudguards on trucks and trailers or refuse garbage from cities in neighboring states , if those requirements would be overly burdensome to commerce .
An anti-regulatory Supreme Court could also use this doctrine , known as the “ dormant commerce clause , ” to invalidate state environmental laws and regulations .
As the Trump administration has worked to aggressively roll back regulations over the past four years , states have been leading the way on climate change and chemical regulations .
They have been particularly important in the fight against PFAS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government .
For example , the EPA has not yet regulated PFAS in drinking water , but five states have set their own drinking water standards .
Several states have also banned PFAS in firefighting foam and food packaging .
States also play an important role in limiting discharges from individual facilities through permitting requirements .
The Supreme Court may decide an energy case based on the dormant commerce clause this term .
The court is currently deciding whether to take up a case challenging Washington state ’ s denial of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coal export facility .
Two states , Wyoming and Montana , have asked the Supreme Court to review Washington ’ s decision , arguing that it denies their coal producers access to Asian markets and burdens interstate commerce .
Justices Thomas and Scalia previously used the dormant commerce clause to reject state laws regulating the environment .
The anti-regulatory leanings of the court ’ s current conservative justices suggest that they might also be willing to invoke the dormant commerce clause to limit state actions .
A ruling against Washington state could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and make other state actions more vulnerable to legal challenges .
Justice Kavanaugh , the last justice appointed by the Trump administration , has a long judicial record of supporting polluters and limiting environmental protections .
Confirming Coney Barrett will shift the court even further to the right and create a larger margin of support for anti-regulatory , anti-environment decisions .
That shift has the potential to seriously handicap the ability of the EPA and the states to protect our air and water for a generation .

The Senate will almost certainly vote next week to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Because of the way she sees the role of government, her confirmation could mark the end of modern environmental law as we know it.
Several justices already on the Supreme Court have shown they are eager to constrict the power of the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory agencies. Confirming Coney Barrett will solidify the anti-regulatory stance of the court, making it much more likely to vote to uphold the Trump administration’s environmental rollbacks, weaken existing environmental protections and strike down future public health regulations.
Here are five ways Coney Barrett’s confirmation could weaken environmental law.
1. Reviving the nondelegation doctrine to wipe out environmental laws
Perhaps the most significant threat is the potential expansion of the “nondelegation” doctrine, which two University of Michigan law professors call “one of the most dangerous ideas in American law.” This is the theory that the Constitution forbids Congress from delegating important policy decisions to any other person or institution – including agencies like the EPA or the Food and Drug Administration.
Aggressive application of this doctrine would fundamentally change how most law-making happens. The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other laws grant the EPA general authority and allow agency experts to determine how to regulate individual pollutants. Reversing this longstanding practice would shift that responsibility back to Congress, which lacks the necessary expertise.
State courts have already shown how the nondelegation doctrine can be weaponized to derail democratically passed laws and regulations. The Republican majority of the Michigan Supreme Court recently applied the nondelegation doctrine to strike down emergency actions to slow the spread of COVID-19.
Neither the Constitution nor texts of original constitutional debates describe any principle of nondelegation. The Supreme Court has not used the nondelegation doctrine to overturn a law since 1935. But there is a real threat that an anti-regulation majority could invoke the doctrine to handicap agencies like the EPA.
Last year, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissent advocating that the court revisit the doctrine and was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts. A recent analysis by Georgetown Law professor Lisa Heinzerling found that five current justices – Gorsuch, Thomas, Samuel Alito, Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh – have all voiced support for reviving the nondelegation doctrine to scrutinize regulations on industry behavior. Those justices would almost certainly find an ally in Coney Barrett.
An expanded nondelegation doctrine would be a disaster for environmental law. Whole portions of environmental laws could be invalidated if the court were to determine that Congress gave EPA too much power.
Nondelegation could overturn agency actions implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, which Congress overhauled in 2016. For example, the EPA will soon propose its first restrictions on 10 chemicals under the new law. The law also gave the EPA expanded authority to require industry to conduct more health and safety studies on chemicals.
Nondelegation could be used to strike down forthcoming regulations. If future EPA regulations to limit industrial discharges of toxic PFAS chemicals were determined to be unlawful delegation, those regulations could be struck down. Nondelegation could also be used to strike down new rules limiting methane pollution or greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles designed to mitigate climate change.
2. Undermining EPA experts by limiting Chevron deference
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council is a 1984 Supreme Court decision involving a challenge to the EPA’s definition of “sources” of air pollutants. Chevron established the bedrock principle that courts will defer to agency interpretation of the law when statutory language is ambiguous. Agencies like the EPA and the FDA are given deference because they employ career subject matter experts. EPA rules, like limits on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, are released only after years of study by teams of expert scientists and lawyers.
Chevron deference has long been a target of the anti-regulatory legal movement. House Republicans in 2016 and 2017 twice passed legislation to limit agency deference, but those bills were never taken up by the Senate. And several sitting justices have shown eagerness to scale back deference.
When Gorsuch was on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, he argued in a concurring opinion that Chevron should be reconsidered, saying, “The time has come to face the behemoth.” Roberts joined Alito in a dissent in the 2013 case City of Arlington, Tex. v. FCC, arguing for limits on Chevron, stating, “A court should not defer to an agency until the court decides, on its own, that the agency is entitled to deference.”
Absent new authority from Congress, the EPA will have to rely on its existing authorities under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to curb air and water pollution and mitigate climate change. A deregulatory-focused court would threaten the EPA’s ability to use those authorities to protect public health and the environment. The EPA will also soon determine whether to ban uses of chemicals like asbestos, TCE and formaldehyde under the updated TSCA. EPA has also begun the long process of initiating regulations on PFAS in drinking water. Limiting deference could undermine agency decisions on how to protect consumers from those chemicals.
3. Overturning well-established environmental precedents
A shift to the right at the Supreme Court imperils well-established environmental law precedents. The principle of stare decisis establishes that lower courts must follow higher court decisions and that the Supreme Court is generally bound by its earlier decisions. Stare decisis is a defining feature of America’s common law legal system. Overturning precedent is usually rare and not a decision that judges take lightly.
Nonetheless, Coney Barrett has taken the radical position that she would support overturning precedents if she believed those cases were wrongly decided. In 2013, she wrote in a law review article: “I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.” The result, according to one legal scholar, would be “chaos and instability in constitutional law.”
Much attention has been paid to how this would affect reproductive rights under Roe v. Wade, but Coney Barrett’s judicial philosophy also endangers important environmental precedents.
For example, Massachusetts v. EPA established that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A strongly worded dissent in Massachusetts v. EPA was penned by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and Coney Barrett is likely to agree. Coney Barrett clerked for Scalia, shares his judicial philosophy and has said that he has had an “incalculable influence” on her.
At least two justices already on the bench have already expressed interest in scaling back the EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gases. Thomas and Alito have hinted at their skepticism and interest in revisiting Massachusetts v. EPA in a 2011 concurring opinion and again in a 2014 concurring opinion.
Another important environmental precedent at risk is Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, a landmark opinion by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that greatly expanded access to courts by environmental groups.
4. Limiting access to courts through a narrow application of “standing”
A Supreme Court reversal of the Laidlaw case would make it much harder for environmental groups to have their day in court. Even if the Supreme Court did not overturn Laidlaw, Coney Barrett would likely support new limits on access to courts, based on her opinions in the 7th Circuit.
In order to sue the government, a group or individual must first establish “standing,” which means that someone cannot sue the government simply because they do not like a new law or regulation, but instead they must be directly harmed.
The Laidlaw opinion established that plaintiffs, including environmental groups, do not have to show actual harm to have standing, but that a reasonable fear of harm is sufficient. Scalia dissented, arguing that plaintiffs need to specify harms. Scalia’s proposed approach would make it harder for community and environmental groups to access courts, because specific harms from pollution like cancer can take years to manifest.
Laidlaw was a groundbreaking case, because it made courts more accessible to groups that care about public health and the environment. But as a 7th Circuit judge, Coney Barrett has already shown support for more limited access to courts. In Protect Our Parks, Inc. v. Chicago Park District, she found that a park preservation group did not have standing to sue to block a construction project in Chicago’s Jackson Park.
Access to courts is an important part of holding government accountable. For example, this week the community group Alaska Community Action on Toxics sued the EPA for underestimating risks from three flame retardants. Several environmental groups have also sued the EPA over its lax and secretive approach to new chemicals regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Other groups have sued over an EPA rule failing to protect workers from a deadly paint-stripping chemical. Limiting standing would make it easier to dismiss these kinds of cases on procedural grounds without even addressing the substance of the legal challenges.
5. Undercutting state regulations through the “dormant commerce clause”
The Supreme Court has long recognized constitutional limits on state laws if they interfere with interstate commerce. For example, states cannot have different requirements for mudguards on trucks and trailers or refuse garbage from cities in neighboring states, if those requirements would be overly burdensome to commerce. An anti-regulatory Supreme Court could also use this doctrine, known as the “dormant commerce clause,” to invalidate state environmental laws and regulations.
As the Trump administration has worked to aggressively roll back regulations over the past four years, states have been leading the way on climate change and chemical regulations.
They have been particularly important in the fight against PFAS chemicals, which remain largely unregulated by the federal government. For example, the EPA has not yet regulated PFAS in drinking water, but five states have set their own drinking water standards. Several states have also banned PFAS in firefighting foam and food packaging. States also play an important role in limiting discharges from individual facilities through permitting requirements.
The Supreme Court may decide an energy case based on the dormant commerce clause this term.
The court is currently deciding whether to take up a case challenging Washington state’s denial of a Clean Water Act permit for a coal export facility. Two states, Wyoming and Montana, have asked the Supreme Court to review Washington’s decision, arguing that it denies their coal producers access to Asian markets and burdens interstate commerce.
Justices Thomas and Scalia previously used the dormant commerce clause to reject state laws regulating the environment. The anti-regulatory leanings of the court’s current conservative justices suggest that they might also be willing to invoke the dormant commerce clause to limit state actions. A ruling against Washington state could have a chilling effect on state environmental permitting and make other state actions more vulnerable to legal challenges.
Conclusion
Justice Kavanaugh, the last justice appointed by the Trump administration, has a long judicial record of supporting polluters and limiting environmental protections. Confirming Coney Barrett will shift the court even further to the right and create a larger margin of support for anti-regulatory, anti-environment decisions. That shift has the potential to seriously handicap the ability of the EPA and the states to protect our air and water for a generation.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-10-21--‘Let’s Just Ban the Damn Ingredient’: Inside FDA Scientists’ Failed Attempt To Ban Formaldehyde in H

‘Let’s Just Ban the Damn Ingredient’: Inside FDA Scientists’ Failed Attempt To Ban Formaldehyde in Hair Treatments

As reported by The New York Times today , newly released emails show that in 2015 and 2016 , Food and Drug Administration scientists urged the agency to ban toxic formaldehyde in hair-smoothing products , often referred to as “ Brazilian blowout ” treatments .
The communications , obtained by EWG , also document increasing frustration among FDA scientists about the agency ’ s efforts to regulate toxic chemicals in cosmetics .
A July 2016 email shows that the scientists succeeded in convincing the FDA that a ban was justified .
However , more than four years later , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken no public steps toward a ban .
Brazilian blowout treatments smooth hair and intensify shine by bonding methylene glycol , a liquid form of formaldehyde , to the hair cuticle and then heating it .
The heat converts the methylene glycol into formaldehyde gas , creating fumes that are inhaled by stylists and salon patrons .
The health risks from formaldehyde exposure are well-documented .
The National Toxicology Program classifies formaldehyde as a known carcinogen .
Short-term exposure is associated with eye , nose , and throat irritation , shortness of breath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sensitizer and is thought to increase the risk of asthma for some groups .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned that “ working with formaldehyde may increase your chances of having fertility problems or a miscarriage.
” In April 2011 , EWG petitioned the FDA to take action on formaldehyde in hair-straightening products .
The FDA issued a partial response in 2017 , promising only to continue looking into the issue .
In fact , the FDA has taken few public actions on formaldehyde , aside from sending warning letters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acknowledging that the products violate the Food , Drug and Cosmetics Act .
The emails obtained by EWG tell a different version of what went on behind the scenes at the FDA .
Records reveal that by 2015 , FDA scientists were working on a comprehensive safety assessment and were concerned by the lack of existing regulations .
Nakissa Sadrieh , Ph.D. , director of the cosmetics division of the FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors said in a February 2015 e-mail , “ I ’ m glad that OSHA ” – the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has some requirements .
We sure don ’ t. ” The emails show that a draft scientific risk assessment of formaldehyde was completed in early 2016 and went through additional edits throughout the year .
In July 2016 , the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition , the FDA office that oversees the Office of Cosmetics and Colors , approved pursuing a ban on formaldehyde .
On July 26 , Sadrieh wrote : “ [ T ] he center is proposing to develop regulations to ban the use of formaldehyde in hair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal for us , and for the public.
” By August 2016 , the Office of Regulations , Policy and Social Science was discussing regulatory options with the Office of Cosmetics and Colors .
Of the attorney assigned to the case , Sadrieh wrote : “ She comes from an NGO [ nonprofit organization ] background .
Finally , someone who cares about the public.
” However , by October 2016 , scientists felt their efforts were being ignored and stymied by the agency .
In an email to Kapal Dewan , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colors , about delays in purchasing Brazilian blowout samples for testing , Sadrieh complained : I have learned that it is impossible to fight with incompetence , laziness and arrogance .
We have to take whatever we can get , and for everything we get , we must fight .
To top it off , after we get something , not only will we get chastised in some way , but if there is anything good to be obtained from what we fought for , it will be taken from us , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because that is the only way they can survive .
In December 2016 , EWG and Women ’ s Voices for the Earth , an organization that advocates for salon workers , sued the FDA for unreasonable delay in responding to the 2011 petition .
The FDA responded to the EWG Citizen Petition a few months later , in March 2017 .
The FDA granted the petition in part , and denied it in part by agreeing to review whether to ban formaldehyde but denying EWG ’ s request to require a warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 due to procedural issues .
The lawsuit sparked another push for a ban inside the agency .
Hours after the lawsuit was filed , Sadrieh said in an email to Dr. Linda Katz , director of the Office of Colors and Cosmetics , “ I am quite anxious to get formaldehyde banned ... .
Let ’ s just ban the damn ingredient and get on with our lives , right ?
” Sadrieh also criticized the FDA ’ s slow response to citizens ’ petitions from nonprofit organizations , saying , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CPs are coming back to haunt us , because we do n't respond to them .
I also feel bad that we are responding next week to the [ Personal Care Products Council ] CP , while we are neglecting the CPs from NGOs.
” Although the FDA determined internally that formaldehyde-based hair-smoothing treatments are unsafe more than four years ago , the agency has not taken any public steps toward a ban .
It has not issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking , held public meetings , released a draft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its regulatory agendas .
It ’ s unclear why the FDA has failed to act .
However , days after the EWG lawsuit was filed , it appears the attorney working on the formaldehyde regulation was reassigned , casting doubt on the fate of the regulation .
In a December 16 , 2016 , email , Sadrieh lamented , “ Well , to update you , [ the Office of Regulations , Policy and Social Science ] has changed the attorney on the formaldehyde reg development and I doubt that anything will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifetime.
” A few days later , on December 20 , 2016 , Sadrieh also expressed exasperation with Phil Chao , an FDA lawyer working on the rule , because he did not seem to grasp the issue or its urgency .
In an email to Katz , she wrote : Tyna Dao , another FDA toxicologist , also weighed in , writing to Sadrieh , “ Man , this is so frustrating .
Because you ’ ve already considered and addressed all these issues YEARS ago .
You ’ ve seen this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they keep thinking you ’ re an idiot .
Is this lawyers or just FDA , but wow they are out of the loop ?
” In January 2017 , President Trump took office with a vow to “ deconstruct the administrative state ” and a goal to cut regulations by 75 percent or more .
One of his first acts was to issue the “ one-in , two-out ” executive order requiring agencies to offset new regulations with cuts to existing regulations .
The FDA took this imperative seriously , seeking comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The FDA may have halted new regulations to avoid rescinding old ones .
In recent years , there has also been a well-documented chemical industry effort to suppress a decades-long EPA study of formaldehyde , which has largely succeeded .
It is possible that the battle over the EPA study spilled over into the FDA and stymied the agency ’ s proposed ban .
EWG has requested additional documents to better understand what has happened in the past four years , why the FDA still has not taken action , and whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration ’ s deregulatory agenda .
What we do know is that in the past four years , people have been harmed by Brazilian blowout treatments .
EWG requested “ adverse event ” reports from the FDA related to formaldehyde-based hair-smoothing treatments and received nearly 400 pages of complaints .
Both consumers and hair stylists complained of harm .
For example : • “ In 2012 , the FDA warned the makers of Keratin hair straighteners to remove formaldehyde from their products .
The makers of Keratin Complex by Coppola removed formaldehyde @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ingredients that when heated with the flat iron , which is required during this treatment , emits formaldehyde .
I was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia and I am convinced that it was from continuous use of this product during 6-7 time period.
” ( February 17 , 2017 ) • “ I went to have a Brazilian blowout thinking only in having a smooth frizz free hair .
However , the side effects of this product are horrible from headache back pain burning nose and throat .
Worst experience in my life.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ • “ I had a Brazilian blowout hair straightening treatment at a salon .
My eyes and throat were burning pretty bad during the treatment .
When I went home I was so dizzy and had a headache and went to sleep for maybe 12 hours .
I woke up the next day and I still have a headache and feel fatigue .
.
.
my nose is still burning too.
” ( August 22 , 2018 ) • “ My wife uses Brazilian Blowout at work .
After an especially long day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very sick .
Usually comes home with headaches and trouble breathing .
This time she vomited blood on two occasions .
It is of my understanding that Brazilian Blowout is unregulated .
The formaldehyde is killing my wife , I 'm sure of it .
Please ban this poison !
” ( November 18 , 2018 ) • “ I am a hair stylist .
I have had reactions which I believe were caused by Brazilian Blowout .
My doctors currently think that my inflamed liver has been a result of my inhalation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( July 31 , 2019 ) The frustration within the FDA over the slow pace of regulation is warranted .
The cosmetics industry and the FDA have long been aware of the risks from formaldehyde in hair-straightening treatments .
The Cosmetic Ingredient Review , or CIR , a research panel funded by the cosmetic industry ’ s largest trade association , found in 1984 that formaldehyde could not be considered safe “ in cosmetic products intended to be aerosolized.
” The FDA has known about the risks from Brazilian blowout since at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ products and sought comment from the agency for a story .
Records show that by March 2011 , the FDA had received more than 70 complaints about hair-smoothing treatments .
In September 2011 , a CIR panel concluded that formaldehyde-based hair straighteners are unsafe .
That it has taken the FDA so long to take action on a cosmetic ingredient that even industry agrees is unsafe underscores how broken the regulatory system is .
Few consumer products are less regulated than cosmetics .
The Food , Drug and Cosmetics Act devotes only a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Congress has not meaningfully updated the FDA ’ s authority in more than 80 years .
The FDA has banned or restricted only nine ingredients in cosmetics for safety reasons .
The Office of Cosmetics and Colors is one of the smallest and most underresourced offices at the FDA , which makes it difficult for cosmetics issues to get attention .
In a July 2016 email , Sadrieh complained to Katz that “ when the [ communications office ] people are excited about cosmetics , then things get going .
But when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloody amazing.
” The good news is that states have not waited for the FDA to act .
Last month , California passed a landmark cosmetics bill that would ban a dozen of the most harmful chemicals in cosmetics , including formaldehyde .
It was signed into law by Gov .
Gavin Newsom .

As reported by The New York Times today, newly released emails show that in 2015 and 2016, Food and Drug Administration scientists urged the agency to ban toxic formaldehyde in hair-smoothing products, often referred to as “Brazilian blowout” treatments. The communications, obtained by EWG, also document increasing frustration among FDA scientists about the agency’s efforts to regulate toxic chemicals in cosmetics.
A July 2016 email shows that the scientists succeeded in convincing the FDA that a ban was justified. However, more than four years later, the treatments remain available and the FDA has taken no public steps toward a ban.
Brazilian blowout treatments smooth hair and intensify shine by bonding methylene glycol, a liquid form of formaldehyde, to the hair cuticle and then heating it. The heat converts the methylene glycol into formaldehyde gas, creating fumes that are inhaled by stylists and salon patrons.
The health risks from formaldehyde exposure are well-documented. The National Toxicology Program classifies formaldehyde as a known carcinogen. Short-term exposure is associated with eye, nose, and throat irritation, shortness of breath and wheezing. Formaldehyde is a potent sensitizer and is thought to increase the risk of asthma for some groups. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned that “working with formaldehyde may increase your chances of having fertility problems or a miscarriage.”
In April 2011, EWG petitioned the FDA to take action on formaldehyde in hair-straightening products. The FDA issued a partial response in 2017, promising only to continue looking into the issue. In fact, the FDA has taken few public actions on formaldehyde, aside from sending warning letters in 2011 and 2015 to two manufacturers acknowledging that the products violate the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act.
The emails obtained by EWG tell a different version of what went on behind the scenes at the FDA.
Records reveal that by 2015, FDA scientists were working on a comprehensive safety assessment and were concerned by the lack of existing regulations. Nakissa Sadrieh, Ph.D., director of the cosmetics division of the FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors said in a February 2015 e-mail, “I’m glad that OSHA” – the Occupational Health and Safety Administration – “has some requirements. We sure don’t.”
The emails show that a draft scientific risk assessment of formaldehyde was completed in early 2016 and went through additional edits throughout the year. In July 2016, the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the FDA office that oversees the Office of Cosmetics and Colors, approved pursuing a ban on formaldehyde. On July 26, Sadrieh wrote: “[T]he center is proposing to develop regulations to ban the use of formaldehyde in hair smoothing products.… This is a very big deal for us, and for the public.”
By August 2016, the Office of Regulations, Policy and Social Science was discussing regulatory options with the Office of Cosmetics and Colors. Of the attorney assigned to the case, Sadrieh wrote: “She comes from an NGO [nonprofit organization] background. Finally, someone who cares about the public.”
However, by October 2016, scientists felt their efforts were being ignored and stymied by the agency. In an email to Kapal Dewan, a toxicologist in the Office of Cosmetics and Colors, about delays in purchasing Brazilian blowout samples for testing, Sadrieh complained:
I have learned that it is impossible to fight with incompetence, laziness and arrogance. We have to take whatever we can get, and for everything we get, we must fight. To top it off, after we get something, not only will we get chastised in some way, but if there is anything good to be obtained from what we fought for, it will be taken from us, and others will take the credit, simply because that is the only way they can survive.
In December 2016, EWG and Women’s Voices for the Earth, an organization that advocates for salon workers, sued the FDA for unreasonable delay in responding to the 2011 petition. The FDA responded to the EWG Citizen Petition a few months later, in March 2017. The FDA granted the petition in part, and denied it in part by agreeing to review whether to ban formaldehyde but denying EWG’s request to require a warning label. The case was dismissed in 2018 due to procedural issues.
The lawsuit sparked another push for a ban inside the agency. Hours after the lawsuit was filed, Sadrieh said in an email to Dr. Linda Katz, director of the Office of Colors and Cosmetics, “I am quite anxious to get formaldehyde banned.... Let’s just ban the damn ingredient and get on with our lives, right?”
Sadrieh also criticized the FDA’s slow response to citizens’ petitions from nonprofit organizations, saying, “I wanted to make you aware that the CPs are coming back to haunt us, because we don't respond to them. I also feel bad that we are responding next week to the [Personal Care Products Council] CP, while we are neglecting the CPs from NGOs.”
Although the FDA determined internally that formaldehyde-based hair-smoothing treatments are unsafe more than four years ago, the agency has not taken any public steps toward a ban. It has not issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, held public meetings, released a draft risk assessment or included a formaldehyde rule in its regulatory agendas.
It’s unclear why the FDA has failed to act. However, days after the EWG lawsuit was filed, it appears the attorney working on the formaldehyde regulation was reassigned, casting doubt on the fate of the regulation. In a December 16, 2016, email, Sadrieh lamented, “Well, to update you, [the Office of Regulations, Policy and Social Science] has changed the attorney on the formaldehyde reg development and I doubt that anything will now happen, at least in my lifetime.”
A few days later, on December 20, 2016, Sadrieh also expressed exasperation with Phil Chao, an FDA lawyer working on the rule, because he did not seem to grasp the issue or its urgency.
In an email to Katz, she wrote:
I am going to remain calm, but all the questions that Phil Chao had asked, and many many more, have been answered in the review.… How do I convey to Phil that he MUST read the review in its entirety. I did not spend so much of my time and the time of Tyna and Raj and others, to write this extremely comprehensive review. Phil has a history of not understanding what I send him.
Tyna Dao, another FDA toxicologist, also weighed in, writing to Sadrieh, “Man, this is so frustrating. Because you’ve already considered and addressed all these issues YEARS ago. You’ve seen this coming a long time ago, but they keep thinking you’re an idiot. Is this lawyers or just FDA, but wow they are out of the loop?”
In January 2017, President Trump took office with a vow to “deconstruct the administrative state” and a goal to cut regulations by 75 percent or more. One of his first acts was to issue the “one-in, two-out” executive order requiring agencies to offset new regulations with cuts to existing regulations.
The FDA took this imperative seriously, seeking comment in September 2017 on rules to cut. The FDA may have halted new regulations to avoid rescinding old ones. In recent years, there has also been a well-documented chemical industry effort to suppress a decades-long EPA study of formaldehyde, which has largely succeeded. It is possible that the battle over the EPA study spilled over into the FDA and stymied the agency’s proposed ban.
EWG has requested additional documents to better understand what has happened in the past four years, why the FDA still has not taken action, and whether the nascent regulation fell victim to the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda.
What we do know is that in the past four years, people have been harmed by Brazilian blowout treatments. EWG requested “adverse event” reports from the FDA related to formaldehyde-based hair-smoothing treatments and received nearly 400 pages of complaints. Both consumers and hair stylists complained of harm. For example:
“In 2012, the FDA warned the makers of Keratin hair straighteners to remove formaldehyde from their products. The makers of Keratin Complex by Coppola removed formaldehyde, and replaced it with other toxic ingredients that when heated with the flat iron, which is required during this treatment, emits formaldehyde. I was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia and I am convinced that it was from continuous use of this product during 6-7 time period.” (February 17, 2017)
“I went to have a Brazilian blowout thinking only in having a smooth frizz free hair. However, the side effects of this product are horrible from headache back pain burning nose and throat. Worst experience in my life.” (February 24, 2018)
“I had a Brazilian blowout hair straightening treatment at a salon. My eyes and throat were burning pretty bad during the treatment. When I went home I was so dizzy and had a headache and went to sleep for maybe 12 hours. I woke up the next day and I still have a headache and feel fatigue . . . my nose is still burning too.” (August 22, 2018)
“My wife uses Brazilian Blowout at work. After an especially long day at work, she came home feeling very sick. Usually comes home with headaches and trouble breathing. This time she vomited blood on two occasions. It is of my understanding that Brazilian Blowout is unregulated. The formaldehyde is killing my wife, I'm sure of it. Please ban this poison!” (November 18, 2018)
“I am a hair stylist. I have had reactions which I believe were caused by Brazilian Blowout. My doctors currently think that my inflamed liver has been a result of my inhalation of the formaldehyde fumes from this product.” (July 31, 2019)
The frustration within the FDA over the slow pace of regulation is warranted. The cosmetics industry and the FDA have long been aware of the risks from formaldehyde in hair-straightening treatments.
The Cosmetic Ingredient Review, or CIR, a research panel funded by the cosmetic industry’s largest trade association, found in 1984 that formaldehyde could not be considered safe “in cosmetic products intended to be aerosolized.” The FDA has known about the risks from Brazilian blowout since at least 2008, when Allure magazine tested products and sought comment from the agency for a story. Records show that by March 2011, the FDA had received more than 70 complaints about hair-smoothing treatments. In September 2011, a CIR panel concluded that formaldehyde-based hair straighteners are unsafe.
That it has taken the FDA so long to take action on a cosmetic ingredient that even industry agrees is unsafe underscores how broken the regulatory system is. Few consumer products are less regulated than cosmetics.
The Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act devotes only a couple of pages to cosmetics regulation, and Congress has not meaningfully updated the FDA’s authority in more than 80 years. The FDA has banned or restricted only nine ingredients in cosmetics for safety reasons.
The Office of Cosmetics and Colors is one of the smallest and most underresourced offices at the FDA, which makes it difficult for cosmetics issues to get attention. In a July 2016 email, Sadrieh complained to Katz that “when the [communications office] people are excited about cosmetics, then things get going. But when the scientists speak, nobody cares. Bloody amazing.”
The good news is that states have not waited for the FDA to act. Last month, California passed a landmark cosmetics bill that would ban a dozen of the most harmful chemicals in cosmetics, including formaldehyde. It was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-10-21--FDA Emails: Scientists Pushed To Ban Formaldehyde-Based Hair-Smoothing Treatments as Early as 2015

WASHINGTON – Emails obtained by the Environmental Working Group reveal that in 2015 and 2016 , scientists at the Food and Drug Administration urged the agency to ban formaldehyde in popular hair-smoothing treatments , also known as “ Brazilian blowouts.
” Four years later , these hazardous treatments remain legal .
Today The New York Times published a report that details how the FDA scientists grew frustrated with the slow pace of regulation .
The Times said : The Food and Drug Administration has allowed Brazilian Blowout and similar products , called keratin treatments , to remain on the market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to internal agency emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the advocacy group Environmental Working Group and shared with The New York Times .
.
.
.
The revelations of the intended ban come at a time when public trust in the F.D.A.
, the agency responsible for reviewing the safety of coronavirus therapies and vaccines , has been shaken .
Critics have questioned the agency ’ s emergency approval of Covid-19 treatments , and many Americans fear the agency is being pressured to prematurely authorize a coronavirus vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pace of regulating chemicals that are known to cause harm , ” said EWG Legislative Attorney Melanie Benesh .
“ FDA scientists knew exposure to formaldehyde from these hair treatments was linked to serious health issues .
They tried and failed to issue a formaldehyde ban – all the while continuing to receive reports of health harms from consumers and stylists.
” The National Toxicology Program classifies formaldehyde as a known carcinogen .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that working with formaldehyde “ may increase your chances of having fertility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , EWG published Flat-Out Risky , an investigation into the widespread use of cancer-causing formaldehyde in brands and salons across the country .
These popular treatments smooth hair and reduce frizz by using formaldehyde as a glue that holds hair straight .
Applying the product to hair releases formaldehyde gas , and heating the hair releases even more formaldehyde into the air .
Salon workers have reported that the application of these hair-straightening treatments causes difficulty breathing , eye irritation and nosebleeds .
These injuries – in addition to rashes , blisters and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposure .
In April 2011 , EWG petitioned the FDA to investigate deceptive labeling of keratin hair-straighteners , require warning labels and consider implementing a complete ban on formaldehyde-releasing chemicals in hair-straightening products .
EWG ’ s petition cited myriad instances of significant health impacts reported by consumers using these smoothing products dating as far back as 2009 , when the treatments were banned in Brazil .
In March 2017 , the FDA finally responded to the citizen petition , agreeing to review whether to ban formaldehyde but denying EWG ’ s request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ August , the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 2762 , the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act , which bans 12 harmful chemicals , including formaldehyde , from the personal care products sold to Californians .
It was signed into law by Gov .
Gavin Newsom .
“ Despite thousands of complaints and reports of the health hazards linked to formaldehyde exposure , the FDA has failed to protect consumers from this cancer-causing chemical , ” said Scott Faber , senior vice president for government affairs at EWG .
“ Congress has not updated its cosmetics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government has failed to protect Americans , it ’ s now up to states , like California , to regulate these treatments and protect their residents.
” 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 .

WASHINGTON – Emails obtained by the Environmental Working Group reveal that in 2015 and 2016, scientists at the Food and Drug Administration urged the agency to ban formaldehyde in popular hair-smoothing treatments, also known as “Brazilian blowouts.” Four years later, these hazardous treatments remain legal.
Today The New York Times published a report that details how the FDA scientists grew frustrated with the slow pace of regulation. The Times said:
The Food and Drug Administration has allowed Brazilian Blowout and similar products, called keratin treatments, to remain on the market despite the recommendations of its own scientists, according to internal agency emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the advocacy group Environmental Working Group and shared with The New York Times. . . . The revelations of the intended ban come at a time when public trust in the F.D.A., the agency responsible for reviewing the safety of coronavirus therapies and vaccines, has been shaken. Critics have questioned the agency’s emergency approval of Covid-19 treatments, and many Americans fear the agency is being pressured to prematurely authorize a coronavirus vaccine.
“These emails show the glacial pace of regulating chemicals that are known to cause harm,” said EWG Legislative Attorney Melanie Benesh. “FDA scientists knew exposure to formaldehyde from these hair treatments was linked to serious health issues. They tried and failed to issue a formaldehyde ban – all the while continuing to receive reports of health harms from consumers and stylists.”
The National Toxicology Program classifies formaldehyde as a known carcinogen. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that working with formaldehyde “may increase your chances of having fertility problems or a miscarriage.”
In 2011, EWG published Flat-Out Risky, an investigation into the widespread use of cancer-causing formaldehyde in brands and salons across the country. These popular treatments smooth hair and reduce frizz by using formaldehyde as a glue that holds hair straight. Applying the product to hair releases formaldehyde gas, and heating the hair releases even more formaldehyde into the air.
Salon workers have reported that the application of these hair-straightening treatments causes difficulty breathing, eye irritation and nosebleeds. These injuries – in addition to rashes, blisters and hair loss – are associated with formaldehyde exposure.
In April 2011, EWG petitioned the FDA to investigate deceptive labeling of keratin hair-straighteners, require warning labels and consider implementing a complete ban on formaldehyde-releasing chemicals in hair-straightening products. EWG’s petition cited myriad instances of significant health impacts reported by consumers using these smoothing products dating as far back as 2009, when the treatments were banned in Brazil.
In March 2017, the FDA finally responded to the citizen petition, agreeing to review whether to ban formaldehyde but denying EWG’s request to require a warning label.
In August, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 2762, the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, which bans 12 harmful chemicals, including formaldehyde, from the personal care products sold to Californians. It was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
“Despite thousands of complaints and reports of the health hazards linked to formaldehyde exposure, the FDA has failed to protect consumers from this cancer-causing chemical,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at EWG. “Congress has not updated its cosmetics law since 1938. Because the federal government has failed to protect Americans, it’s now up to states, like California, to regulate these treatments and protect their residents.”
###
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--2020-10-22--UPDATE: Little Progress from Trump’s EPA on Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’

It ’ s been 18 months since the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled its plan to address the crisis of the toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS , which a new peer-reviewed study by EWG scientists estimates have likely contaminated the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans .
But the EPA ’ s so-called action plan has met few of the milestones parents expect from an 18-month-old .
The Trump administration plan has barely crawled , much less walked .
On Facebook Live , EWG Legislative Attorney Melanie Benesh recently detailed how the EPA has failed to protect Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to suppression of the immune system and are associated with an elevated risk of cancer and reproductive and developmental harms , among other serious health concerns .
• Failed to set a legal limit for PFAS in drinking water .
The EPA promised it would set a drinking water standard for PFOA and PFOS , the two most notorious fluorinated compounds .
But although the EPA has issued a preliminary determination to set limits for PFOA and PFOS , actually enacting enforceable limits could take up to a decade – if not far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing PFAS pollution .
Despite a pledge by former EPA boss Scott Pruitt and staff efforts to develop a formal rule , the agency has so far failed to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances , which would kick-start the cleanup process at the most contaminated sites .
• Failed to reduce ongoing releases of PFAS .
Although more than 2,500 industrial facilities are likely discharging PFAS into the air and water , the EPA has done nothing to stop them .
• Failed to ban PFAS from everyday products .
Neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration has taken steps to ban the use of PFAS from household products ranging from carpets to cosmetics .
Instead , the EPA exempted many products from a rule governing new uses of PFAS .
• Approved new PFAS chemicals .
Meanwhile , the EPA has not only failed to finalize a rule to limit new uses of PFAS but has also continued to approve new PFAS chemicals – despite failing to test to determine whether they are any safer than the hundreds already on the market .
The EPA has a long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PFAS pollution .
In 1998 , EPA officials were first notified by 3M that PFAS chemicals were toxic .
In 2001 the agency received internal company studies documenting PFAS ’ health risks , and two years later received more animal studies .
But in 2006 , under pressure from the chemical industry , the EPA said it was unaware of studies linking PFOA , formerly used to make DuPont ’ s Teflon , to health harms – even though the agency had just fined DuPont for failing to report its health effects , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Advisory Board found that PFOA was a likely human carcinogen .
Not until 2009 did the EPA issue its first PFAS action plan and establish a non-enforceable provisional health advisory for PFOA and PFOS , an ingredient in 3M ’ s Scotchgard .
The second PFAS action plan , issued a year ago , contains many of the same recommendations and includes no deadlines .
Without irony , the EPA recently issued a statement touting the agency ’ s “ aggressive ” efforts to address PFAS pollution – just hours before the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would set deadlines for EPA action on PFAS .
Clearly , at 18 months old , the EPA ’ s PFAS action plan needs more adult supervision .

It’s been 18 months since the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled its plan to address the crisis of the toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS, which a new peer-reviewed study by EWG scientists estimates have likely contaminated the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans.
But the EPA’s so-called action plan has met few of the milestones parents expect from an 18-month-old. The Trump administration plan has barely crawled, much less walked.
On Facebook Live, EWG Legislative Attorney Melanie Benesh recently detailed how the EPA has failed to protect Americans from PFAS, which have been linked to suppression of the immune system and are associated with an elevated risk of cancer and reproductive and developmental harms, among other serious health concerns.
Briefly, Trump’s EPA has:
Failed to set a legal limit for PFAS in drinking water. The EPA promised it would set a drinking water standard for PFOA and PFOS, the two most notorious fluorinated compounds. But although the EPA has issued a preliminary determination to set limits for PFOA and PFOS, actually enacting enforceable limits could take up to a decade – if not far longer.
it would set a drinking water standard for PFOA and PFOS, the two most notorious fluorinated compounds. But although the EPA has issued a preliminary determination to set limits for PFOA and PFOS, actually enacting enforceable limits could take up to a decade – if not far longer. Failed to clean up existing PFAS pollution. Despite a pledge by former EPA boss Scott Pruitt and staff efforts to develop a formal rule, the agency has so far failed to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, which would kick-start the cleanup process at the most contaminated sites.
Failed to reduce ongoing releases of PFAS. Although more than 2,500 industrial facilities are likely discharging PFAS into the air and water, the EPA has done nothing to stop them.
Failed to ban PFAS from everyday products. Neither the EPA nor the Food and
Drug Administration has taken steps to ban the use of PFAS from household products ranging from carpets to cosmetics. Instead, the EPA exempted many products from a rule governing new uses of PFAS.
Drug Administration has taken steps to ban the use of PFAS from household products ranging from carpets to cosmetics. Instead, the EPA exempted many products from a rule governing new uses of PFAS. Approved new PFAS chemicals. Meanwhile, the EPA has not only failed to finalize a rule to limit new uses of PFAS but has also continued to approve new PFAS chemicals – despite failing to test to determine whether they are any safer than the hundreds already on the market.
The EPA has a long record of failing to protect us from PFAS pollution.
In 1998, EPA officials were first notified by 3M that PFAS chemicals were toxic. In 2001 the agency received internal company studies documenting PFAS’ health risks, and two years later received more animal studies. But in 2006, under pressure from the chemical industry, the EPA said it was unaware of studies linking PFOA, formerly used to make DuPont’s Teflon, to health harms – even though the agency had just fined DuPont for failing to report its health effects, and the EPA’s own Science Advisory Board found that PFOA was a likely human carcinogen.
Not until 2009 did the EPA issue its first PFAS action plan and establish a non-enforceable provisional health advisory for PFOA and PFOS, an ingredient in 3M’s Scotchgard. The second PFAS action plan, issued a year ago, contains many of the same recommendations and includes no deadlines.
Without irony, the EPA recently issued a statement touting the agency’s “aggressive” efforts to address PFAS pollution – just hours before the White House threatened to veto House legislation that would set deadlines for EPA action on PFAS.
Clearly, at 18 months old, the EPA’s PFAS action plan needs more adult supervision.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-10-23--EWG News Roundup (10/23): Inside the FDA’s Failure To Ban Toxic Hair Straighteners, How the Supreme

EWG News Roundup (10/23): Inside the FDA’s Failure To Ban Toxic Hair Straighteners, How the Supreme Court Could Dismantle Environmental Law and More

Drawing on internal government records provided by EWG , the New York Times published a bombshell report documenting the tug of war inside the Food and Drug Administration and how scientists at the agency tried and failed to ban formaldehyde in popular hair-smoothing treatments , also known as “ Brazilian blowouts.
” EWG obtained emails from scientists at the FDA in 2015 and 2016 that show increasing frustration about the agency ’ s efforts to regulate toxic chemicals in cosmetics – a step along the timeline of the FDA ’ s failure to address these hair treatments .
“ These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chemicals that are known to cause harm , ” said EWG Legislative Attorney Melanie Benesh .
“ FDA scientists knew exposure to formaldehyde from these hair treatments was linked to serious health issues .
They tried and failed to issue a formaldehyde ban – all the while continuing to receive reports of health harms from consumers and stylists.
” Next week , the Senate will almost certainly vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court .
With her confirmation and the current makeup of the court , the Environmental Protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly all major environmental laws severely hobbled and its ability to introduce future public health initiatives significantly diminished under a much more conservative court .
Eighteen month ago , the EPA announced a plan to address the crisis of the toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS .
So far , the plan has accounted for very little .
On Facebook Live , Benesh broke down this failure and the many other PFAS failures of the Trump administration .
And finally , EWG added information about healthy cleaning products to our Healthy Living App @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , personal care products and cleaners .
Here ’ s some news you can use going into the weekend .
Parents : Organic and Nontoxic Diapers : Finding the Best for Your Baby But disposable diapers are n't uniformly labeled , and they 're weakly regulated , meaning specific ingredients or materials can vary vastly from brand to brand , according to the Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) .
Babygaga : Artificial Sweeteners For Babies & Toddlers : What Parents Need to Consider First According to the Environmental Working Group , 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ artificial sweeteners , and of those children , 80 % of them consume them daily .
The first-of-their-kind baby wipes are certified by the Environmental Working Group and share a chemical-free experience for babies with sensitive skin .
New York Times : The F.D.A .
Wanted to Ban Some Hair Straighteners .
It Never Happened .
The Food and Drug Administration has allowed Brazilian Blowout and similar products , called keratin treatments , to remain on the market despite the recommendations of its own scientists , according to internal agency emails obtained under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocacy group Environmental Working Group and shared with The New York Times .
Business Insider : The FDA ignored its own scientists ' advice to ban 'toxic ' Brazilian blowdries , according to a report The Environmental Working Group , a non-profit that advocates for environmental and human health , requested any of the FDA 's internal correspondence on the matter , but the agency has n't fulfilled that request to this day .
The List : Here ’ s why you should think twice about hypoallergenic skincare If , however , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to avoid toxins , consider downloading the Environmental Working Group 's Healthy Living app on your phone .
Scary Mommy : These Are The Safest ( And Most Effective ) Face Washes During Your Pregnancy If you haven ’ t tried their Healthy Living App yet , you scan your product and find out what is good ( or not so good ) about it .
They make it so easy ( and a little addictive ) to know if your products are safe .
The Environmental Working Group , a health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program “ old-fashioned vote buying , ” saying it did not send money to groups truly at risk .
International Business Times : Is US Farm Support Now About The November Election ?
In April , when commodity prices fell through the floor due to the demand destruction from the pandemic , the Environmental Working Group , which advocates for a healthier future for everything from farms to fracking , said federal stimulus wasn ’ t enough to support farmers .
WEKU ( Ky. ) : Awash In Relief Money , Ohio Valley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ballots Together , the two programs have pumped a staggering $ 37.9 billion into farm economies around the country , according to USDA data and the Environmental Working Group , an advocacy organization that has long tracked farm subsidies .
USSA News : The Activist Left Turns It Fire On Amy Coney Barrett On October 6 , 2020 , the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights released an open letter urging the Senate not to confirm Barrett to the Supreme Court .
The following groups co-signed the letter… Environmental Working Group MindBodyGreen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & Sustainable- And They Actually Work '' The term can be misleading , as 'natural ' products often contain plenty of hazardous chemicals and undisclosed ingredients , '' Samara Geller , a senior research and database analyst for the environmental watchdog group Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) , tells mindbodygreen .
My Fitness Pal : 15 Home Hacks to Set Yourself up For Healthier Habits To steer clear of potentially harmful chemicals , experts recommend choosing from the Environmental Working Group ’ s ( EWG ) list of healthy kitchen cleaners .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Laundry Detergents on the Market On average , Dropps products earn a B safety score on the EWG 's Guide to Healthy Cleaning .
You can order Dropps through the company 's website , or from other online marketplaces like EarthHero .
GQ : Queer Eye ’ s Jonathan Van Ness On His Favorite Grooming Products , And Why The Future of Beauty Is Clean GQ : Any resources you can suggest to become better informed ?
JVN : The Environmental Working Group ’ s Skindeep data base at ewg.org/skindeep .
Grist : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but can it fix what it did to my face ?
The nonprofit Environmental Working Group does a pretty comprehensive evaluation of the health and environmental bonafides of skincare products and cosmetics every year , and you can use it as a starting point when evaluating the merits of any product you ’ re thinking of ordering .
Paperblog : All of the Breast Cancer Awareness Products You Can Buy Right Now The deodorant is made from natural ingredients and 100 percent natural essential oils .
In addition , each ingredient is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assessment by the environmental working group .
Real Simple : What Exactly Is ‘ Green-Washing ’ - And Why Is It a Problem ?
There are also helpful apps ( for example , Skin Deep , created by the Environmental Working Group , and ThinkDirty ) that allow you to quickly and easily access complete ingredient information about a product .
Vogue : Liza Koshy Shares Her Guide to Multi-Masking and Confidence-Boosting Eye Makeup “ Your face has different needs , ” she explains , brushing an exfoliating treatment onto her chin and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her eyes , and hydrating and brightening formulas atop her cheeks—all of which are Environmental Working Group verified .
Allure : Liza Koshy ’ s Signature Colorful Beauty Style Is Now Its Own Collection The line 's energy is light and fun , but the formula development process was anything but breezy .
`` All of our items are Environmental Working Group verified , '' she says .
`` I sat at their conference table and they take themselves so seriously .
I 'm so glad they do because I need someone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my skin and in my body. ''
.
Byrdie : Liza Koshy Swears by This $ 20 “ Shimmering Hydrafluid ” to Get Her Glow The capsule collection , aptly titled `` One of One , '' is an EWG ( Environmental Working Group ) -verified and dermatologist-tested line of skincare and makeup products now available for pre-sale and available November 16 .
According to a report released this summer by the Waterkeeper Alliance and Environmental Working Group , between 2012 and 2019 , the estimated number of chickens and turkeys in Duplin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 36 percent to 113 million , compared to only 17 percent in the rest of the state .
Maryland Matters : Report : Eastern Shore Has Unhealthy Levels of Nitrate in Drinking Water Due to CAFOs Furthermore , nitrate pollution in drinking water may be responsible for 12,500 cases of cancer per year in the US , as well as low birth rates and preterm births , according to a 2019 study from the Environmental Working Group .
Consumer Reports : New PFAS Compound in N.J. Water May Be More Toxic Than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American people and the residents of New Jersey should be outraged , ” says Dave Andrews , senior scientist at the advocacy organization Environmental Working Group .
“ Recent studies found previously unknown PFAS compounds in soil and drinking water near a Solvay chemical manufacturing plant , ” Andrews added .
Truthout : More Traces of Cancer-Causing PFAS in Arctic Raise Alarm Over Global Spread Back home , the findings of an Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) study helped lead the nonprofit watchdog organization to posit that PFASs are probably detectable in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S .
Many environmental groups and health experts have similar reservations about engaging in a process about which little is known .
Researchers with the Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) authored an upcoming December study in the journal Chemosphere analyzing numerous studies on PFAS disposal .
Waste Dive : Toxic PFAS waste that lasts ‘ forever ’ poses financial , logistical challenges for landfills Industry research is emerging alongside outside reports by environmental groups and others .
In an upcoming study already available online in the journal Chemosphere , experts with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found groundwater contamination from older landfills remains a concern .
Their report concludes methods ensuring safe disposal of PFAS are unknown , even as landfills present a potentially safer option than incineration .
Waste Dive : ‘ We can never get to zero ’ : Organics recyclers face hard choices in responding to PFAS contamination “ It ’ s not an ‘ either or ’ issue , ” said Melanie Benesh , a legislative and regulatory attorney with the Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) , an advocacy organization with a major focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think about ways to remediate , ways to get PFAS out of the environment .
But we also can ’ t keep adding to all the pollution that ’ s already out there.
” Huffpost : Are Apples Really That Good For You , And What ’ s The Healthiest Type ?
Non-organic apples consistently rank high in the Environmental Working Group ’ s annual “ dirty dozen ” list of produce containing high amounts of pesticides .
Medium : How to Eat Ethically When You ’ re Recovering From An Eating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy everything organic — check out the EWG ’ s Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen list to learn which fruits and veggies are best purchased organic due to high pesticide levels .
First for Women : Make Strawberries Last for Up to 2 Weeks With This Simple Hack The acids present in vinegar help to kill off harmful bacteria , so many people use it to clean things , including fruit .
Strawberries top the list of the Environmental Working Group ’ s ( EWG ) Dirty Dozen almost every year ( meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than any other produce item ) , so cleaning them with vinegar is particularly important .
Yahoo News : I Tried This Bestselling Sunscreen on Amazon , and My Skin Had Never Been Happier Purito uses ingredients that are EWG Green Level Grades 1 and 2 , so it is perfect for sensitive or reactive skin like mine .
BruDirect : Is It Safe To Drink Your Tap Water ?
EWG ’ s Updated Database Can Help You Find Out Last week , a peer-reviewed study by scientists from the Environmental Working Group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Environmental Science and Technology Letters journal that showed that more than 200 million Americans could be drinking water that is contaminated with toxic fluorinated chemicals called PFAS .

Drawing on internal government records provided by EWG, the New York Times published a bombshell report documenting the tug of war inside the Food and Drug Administration and how scientists at the agency tried and failed to ban formaldehyde in popular hair-smoothing treatments, also known as “Brazilian blowouts.”
EWG obtained emails from scientists at the FDA in 2015 and 2016 that show increasing frustration about the agency’s efforts to regulate toxic chemicals in cosmetics – a step along the timeline of the FDA’s failure to address these hair treatments.
“These emails show the glacial pace of regulating chemicals that are known to cause harm,” said EWG Legislative Attorney Melanie Benesh. “FDA scientists knew exposure to formaldehyde from these hair treatments was linked to serious health issues. They tried and failed to issue a formaldehyde ban – all the while continuing to receive reports of health harms from consumers and stylists.”
Next week, the Senate will almost certainly vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. With her confirmation and the current makeup of the court, the Environmental Protection Agency could see its authority to enforce nearly all major environmental laws severely hobbled and its ability to introduce future public health initiatives significantly diminished under a much more conservative court.
Eighteen month ago, the EPA announced a plan to address the crisis of the toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS. So far, the plan has accounted for very little. On Facebook Live, Benesh broke down this failure and the many other PFAS failures of the Trump administration.
And finally, EWG added information about healthy cleaning products to our Healthy Living App, which now includes ratings for foods, personal care products and cleaners.
Here’s some news you can use going into the weekend.
Children’s Health
Parents: Organic and Nontoxic Diapers: Finding the Best for Your Baby
But disposable diapers aren't uniformly labeled, and they're weakly regulated, meaning specific ingredients or materials can vary vastly from brand to brand, according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
Babygaga: Artificial Sweeteners For Babies & Toddlers: What Parents Need to Consider First
According to the Environmental Working Group, 25% of children consume foods that contain artificial sweeteners, and of those children, 80% of them consume them daily.
Trendhunter: Honey-Infused Baby Wipes
The first-of-their-kind baby wipes are certified by the Environmental Working Group and share a chemical-free experience for babies with sensitive skin.
Brazilian Blowout
New York Times: The F.D.A. Wanted to Ban Some Hair Straighteners. It Never Happened.
The Food and Drug Administration has allowed Brazilian Blowout and similar products, called keratin treatments, to remain on the market despite the recommendations of its own scientists, according to internal agency emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the advocacy group Environmental Working Group and shared with The New York Times.
Business Insider: The FDA ignored its own scientists' advice to ban 'toxic' Brazilian blowdries, according to a report
The Environmental Working Group, a non-profit that advocates for environmental and human health, requested any of the FDA's internal correspondence on the matter, but the agency hasn't fulfilled that request to this day.
EWG’s Healthy Living App Update
The List: Here’s why you should think twice about hypoallergenic skincare
If, however, you aren't necessarily allergic to anything but want to avoid toxins, consider downloading the Environmental Working Group's Healthy Living app on your phone.
Scary Mommy: These Are The Safest (And Most Effective) Face Washes During Your Pregnancy
If you haven’t tried their Healthy Living App yet, you scan your product and find out what is good (or not so good) about it. They make it so easy (and a little addictive) to know if your products are safe.
Trump’s Farmer Bailout
Reuters: Trump’s payments to farmers hit all-time high ahead of election
The Environmental Working Group, a health and environmental advocacy group, called the program “old-fashioned vote buying,” saying it did not send money to groups truly at risk.
International Business Times: Is US Farm Support Now About The November Election?
In April, when commodity prices fell through the floor due to the demand destruction from the pandemic, the Environmental Working Group, which advocates for a healthier future for everything from farms to fracking, said federal stimulus wasn’t enough to support farmers.
WEKU (Ky.): Awash In Relief Money, Ohio Valley Farmers Reflect on Trump Promises- And Their Ballots
Together, the two programs have pumped a staggering $37.9 billion into farm economies around the country, according to USDA data and the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that has long tracked farm subsidies.
Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court Nomination
USSA News: The Activist Left Turns It Fire On Amy Coney Barrett
On October 6, 2020, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights released an open letter urging the Senate not to confirm Barrett to the Supreme Court. The following groups co-signed the letter… Environmental Working Group
Cleaning Products
MindBodyGreen: These 15 Cleaning Products Are Safe & Sustainable- And They Actually Work
"The term can be misleading, as 'natural' products often contain plenty of hazardous chemicals and undisclosed ingredients," Samara Geller, a senior research and database analyst for the environmental watchdog group Environmental Working Group (EWG), tells mindbodygreen.
My Fitness Pal: 15 Home Hacks to Set Yourself up For Healthier Habits
To steer clear of potentially harmful chemicals, experts recommend choosing from the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) list of healthy kitchen cleaners.
Green Matters: The Most Innovative Zero-Waste Laundry Detergents on the Market
On average, Dropps products earn a B safety score on the EWG's Guide to Healthy Cleaning. You can order Dropps through the company's website, or from other online marketplaces like EarthHero.
Skin Deep® Cosmetics Database
GQ: Queer Eye’s Jonathan Van Ness On His Favorite Grooming Products, And Why The Future of Beauty Is Clean
GQ: Any resources you can suggest to become better informed? JVN: The Environmental Working Group’s Skindeep data base at ewg.org/skindeep.
Grist: Natural skincare won’t fix 2020, but can it fix what it did to my face?
The nonprofit Environmental Working Group does a pretty comprehensive evaluation of the health and environmental bonafides of skincare products and cosmetics every year, and you can use it as a starting point when evaluating the merits of any product you’re thinking of ordering.
Paperblog: All of the Breast Cancer Awareness Products You Can Buy Right Now
The deodorant is made from natural ingredients and 100 percent natural essential oils. In addition, each ingredient is selected by hand based on its safety assessment by the environmental working group.
Real Simple: What Exactly Is ‘Green-Washing’- And Why Is It a Problem?
There are also helpful apps (for example, Skin Deep, created by the Environmental Working Group, and ThinkDirty) that allow you to quickly and easily access complete ingredient information about a product.
EWG VERIFIED®
Vogue: Liza Koshy Shares Her Guide to Multi-Masking and Confidence-Boosting Eye Makeup
“Your face has different needs,” she explains, brushing an exfoliating treatment onto her chin and her nose, a calming concoction under her eyes, and hydrating and brightening formulas atop her cheeks—all of which are Environmental Working Group verified.
Allure: Liza Koshy’s Signature Colorful Beauty Style Is Now Its Own Collection
The line's energy is light and fun, but the formula development process was anything but breezy. "All of our items are Environmental Working Group verified," she says. "I sat at their conference table and they take themselves so seriously. I'm so glad they do because I need someone to be serious about what's going on my skin and in my body.".
Byrdie: Liza Koshy Swears by This $20 “Shimmering Hydrafluid” to Get Her Glow
The capsule collection, aptly titled "One of One," is an EWG (Environmental Working Group)-verified and dermatologist-tested line of skincare and makeup products now available for pre-sale and available November 16.
Farming Practices
Civil Eats: Fighting Voter Suppression, Environmental Racism, and Corporate Agriculture in Hog Country
According to a report released this summer by the Waterkeeper Alliance and Environmental Working Group, between 2012 and 2019, the estimated number of chickens and turkeys in Duplin, Sampson, and Robeson counties increased by 36 percent to 113 million, compared to only 17 percent in the rest of the state.
Nitrate Water Pollution
Maryland Matters: Report: Eastern Shore Has Unhealthy Levels of Nitrate in Drinking Water Due to CAFOs
Furthermore, nitrate pollution in drinking water may be responsible for 12,500 cases of cancer per year in the US, as well as low birth rates and preterm births, according to a 2019 study from the Environmental Working Group.
PFAS in Drinking Water
Consumer Reports: New PFAS Compound in N.J. Water May Be More Toxic Than Older One, Regulators Say
“The American people and the residents of New Jersey should be outraged,” says Dave Andrews, senior scientist at the advocacy organization Environmental Working Group. “Recent studies found previously unknown PFAS compounds in soil and drinking water near a Solvay chemical manufacturing plant,” Andrews added.
Truthout: More Traces of Cancer-Causing PFAS in Arctic Raise Alarm Over Global Spread
Back home, the findings of an Environmental Working Group (EWG) study helped lead the nonprofit watchdog organization to posit that PFASs are probably detectable in “all major water supplies” in the U.S.
WasteDive: Burning ‘forever chemicals’ emerges as industry flash point
Many environmental groups and health experts have similar reservations about engaging in a process about which little is known. Researchers with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) authored an upcoming December study in the journal Chemosphere analyzing numerous studies on PFAS disposal.
Waste Dive: Toxic PFAS waste that lasts ‘forever’ poses financial, logistical challenges for landfills
Industry research is emerging alongside outside reports by environmental groups and others. In an upcoming study already available online in the journal Chemosphere, experts with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found groundwater contamination from older landfills remains a concern. Their report concludes methods ensuring safe disposal of PFAS are unknown, even as landfills present a potentially safer option than incineration.
Waste Dive: ‘We can never get to zero’: Organics recyclers face hard choices in responding to PFAS contamination
“It’s not an ‘either or’ issue,” said Melanie Benesh, a legislative and regulatory attorney with the Environmental Working Group (EWG), an advocacy organization with a major focus on PFAS. “We certainly have to think about ways to remediate, ways to get PFAS out of the environment. But we also can’t keep adding to all the pollution that’s already out there.”
Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™
Huffpost: Are Apples Really That Good For You, And What’s The Healthiest Type?
Non-organic apples consistently rank high in the Environmental Working Group’s annual “dirty dozen” list of produce containing high amounts of pesticides.
Medium: How to Eat Ethically When You’re Recovering From An Eating Disrder
You don’t have to buy everything organic — check out the EWG’s Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen list to learn which fruits and veggies are best purchased organic due to high pesticide levels.
First for Women: Make Strawberries Last for Up to 2 Weeks With This Simple Hack
The acids present in vinegar help to kill off harmful bacteria, so many people use it to clean things, including fruit. Strawberries top the list of the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) Dirty Dozen almost every year (meaning they are sprayed with more toxic chemicals than any other produce item), so cleaning them with vinegar is particularly important.
EWG Guide to Sunscreens
Yahoo News: I Tried This Bestselling Sunscreen on Amazon, and My Skin Had Never Been Happier
Purito uses ingredients that are EWG Green Level Grades 1 and 2, so it is perfect for sensitive or reactive skin like mine.
Tap Water Database
BruDirect: Is It Safe To Drink Your Tap Water? EWG’s Updated Database Can Help You Find Out
Last week, a peer-reviewed study by scientists from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) was published in the Environmental Science and Technology Letters journal that showed that more than 200 million Americans could be drinking water that is contaminated with toxic fluorinated chemicals called PFAS.