Natural Health Protocol
  • Home
  • Josephine
  • Hair Mineral Analysis
    • Testimonials
  • Nutritional Balancing
    • Nutritional Balancing Basic Diet
  • CONTACT
  • Blog
    • Articles

Which Chemicals in Your Home Are Toxic? EPA Doesn’t Know!

7/9/2018

1 Comment

 
Picture
In a rare showing of bipartisanship, the Senate hopes to repair a hopelessly broken system. Action Alert!

Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), who died this week at the age of 89, and David Vitter (R-LA) recently introduced legislation to address toxic chemicals in household and manufacturing products. S 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), will try to plug the holes in the thirty-seven year old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), one of the few pieces of legislation that has never been amended.

While this new bill is a big step in the right direction, we have some concerns that we request Congress address.

Chemicals are used to produce 96% of manufactured consumer goods. Many of them are toxic. In 1976 Congress passed the TSCA to regulate the introduction of new or already existing chemicals. However, the TSCA does not separate chemicals into categories of toxic and non-toxic—it simply prohibits the manufacture or importation of chemicals that are not on the TSCA Inventory.


Under the TSCA the government must, for the most part, prove that a chemical is unsafe before it can be removed from market, instead of requiring manufacturers to prove that their chemicals are safe in the first place.

In fact, manufacturers often do not provide data to the EPA regarding toxicity, so it’s hard for EPA to have information on the safety of the chemical or show “unreasonable risk.” EPA has been able to require the testing of about 200 chemicals, and has taken action against only five chemicals or chemical classes, even though
 there are now roughly 85,000 chemicals on the market.

In other words, the current law is broken. Because these chemicals are mostly new to nature, one cannot assume they are safe for humans or the environment without studies.

This new bill will require safety evaluations on all existing chemicals, which will be labeled either high or low priority in terms of risk to human health. For high-risk chemicals, EPA must conduct further evaluations. If a chemical is determined to be unsafe, EPA is then empowered to take action—from a labeling requirement to a phase-out of the chemical to an outright ban.

However, the bill does not create mandatory deadlines for completing safety assessments and determinations. While the justification is that the review periods for different chemicals vary, and the EPA is more likely to abide by their own established deadlines, in reality it is far too easy for the government to needlessly drag out the review of chemicals.

Under the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, new chemicals entering the market must undergo a safety assessment, and EPA will have the authority to prohibit unsafe chemicals from being sold.

Unfortunately, the bill does not (though it should) require determination of 
the aggregate and cumulative exposure to chemicals— something earlier TSCA reform billsdid consider. Aggregate exposure looks at one’s exposure to a chemical from different sources and different routes, and cumulative looks at simultaneous exposure to different chemicals that affect the body through same modes of action.

The agency will also be empowered to get the necessary health and safety information from chemical manufacturers, while at the same time balancing manufacturers’ needs for proprietary information. Under the bill, EPA will take special care
 to properly evaluate the risk to vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women.

The bill also allows EPA to exempt chemicals from risk management under certain circumstances (e.g., national security, economic disruption). But the EPA does not have any burden of proof to justify their exemption. We would ask that the bill require EPA to show “clear and convincing evidence” that the chemical falls under an exemption.

If the federal government makes a law and there is already a state law on the books on the same issue, the federal law preempts the state law. With the TSCA, a state can petition the EPA for an exemption of TSCA’s preemptive effect so long as three conditions are met: the state requirement does not violate federal law; the state requirement provides a “significantly higher degree of protection from such risk than the requirement under federal law”; and interstate commerce is not unduly burdened.


Our greatest concern about CSIA, the new bill, is that
 the preemption language is more inclusive and carries a broader standard. Under CSIA, no state may require additional information on a chemical or additional development of test data when companies have to submit similar information to the EPA.

Moreover, states cannot create new restrictions or even enforce existing restrictions on the manufacture, processing, distribution, or use of a chemical after EPA completes its safety determination for the chemical.

Arguably, this could even limit a state’s ability to require chemical warning labels on product labels—companies could argue that this is part of “distribution.” A state can request a waiver from these limitations if the state law does not burden interstate commerce, and there are compelling state or local conditions, and the requirement is supported by “the best available science and is supported by the weight of the evidence.” This is an extraordinarily difficult bar to meet.

Instead, the new preemption language should be struck from the bill so it reverts to the preemption language under current law.

Besides its strong bipartisan support, the bill is enjoying the unique position of having the support of both
 industry trade associations and a number of public advocacy organizations. That’s a good thing—we like the bill in general, but we hope our concerns about the bill will be addressed.

Toxic chemicals can be found in a tremendous number of everyday products from BPA in food containers to flame retardants on our furniture, which can spread to the dust on the floor that children can ingest when playing. Flame retardant chemicals have been linked to lower IQ and the development of diabetes.

Toxic chemicals can cause a number of health problems, and exposure to chemicals in the womb 
can have long-lasting affects on the child’s life. This bill will go a long way toward getting rid of, or at least identifying, the toxic chemicals that citizens may be encountering on a daily basis.

Action Alert! Write to your senators and ask them to support the Lautenberg bill with amendments that address our serious concerns. Tell them that you work hard to keep your family safe from dangerous chemicals, but this bill is desperately needed to help ban the truly toxic ones. Please contact your senators immediately!

Sources:  Alliance For Natural Health

1 Comment
reviews for essay writing services link
1/22/2018 02:02:32 am

Being a student of Chemical engineering, I really happy about the struggle or David and all about the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA) depart that they develop a new formula. I hope you will post something new soon. Keep it up!

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    January 2023
    May 2022
    January 2022
    January 2020
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    December 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    November 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012

    RSS Feed

Join me on the Road less travelled by seeking the truth,
​through a system that will begin to set you free!
​

    Get email Updates
    Subscribe Here!
     

Submit
Mineral-Nutritional Balancing and Hair Tissue Mineral Analysis
Contact Josephine Here!
Nutritional Balancing
100% Customer Service



​

 
​
In the beginning there was the Logos  and the Logos was with God, and the Logos  is God. (John  1:1)

It is  the Logos that ultimately bring you  HEALTH, DEVELOPMENT and HAPPINESS! 
​

​
​A Way of Life for Life -Copyright © 2014-2022 Josephine  Certified Holistic Nutrition, CHN, FDN

NINE SERVINGS OF VEGETABLES 
​
Please note that there is only one nutritional balancing science, developed by Dr. Paul Eck. All other claims made by other practitioners, not approved by Dr. Lawrence Wilson on his site, have altered Dr. Eck's principles and as such have no in depth understanding of the science, which is very unfortunate.  

Further, altering even one aspect of a nutritional balancing program often ruins it rather completely.  This could be substituting different products that you like better, skipping an aspect of the diet or the supplements, or implementing other diets, such as GAPS OR PALEO, OR something else that people do all the time, such for example using other forms of meditation, other than what is recommended by Dr. Wilson.  In other words, using other products or diets, or meditation, conflicts with the entire program and it seriously reduces its effectiveness. Thus, nutritional balancing science is completely integrated, meaning that the sciences are used together in very unique way and should not be altered by yourself or other practitioners.  


Legal Notice and Disclaimer
Josephine Health and Wellness Weekly News Update Copyright © 2014 All Rights Reserved
Picture
Contact Josephine here

BACK TO TOP

Disclaimer