Attract diverse people to join the Toxics Team;

·Reduce toxics in consumer products;

·Reduce exposure to toxics where we work, live and play;

·Educate consumers about potential risks;

·Help return the USA as a leader in work related to protecting the public from toxics;

·Reform the international and national systems of regulating toxics in commerce or from past practices, especially those in consumer products, so that they more effectively protect the public and the environment.

Cleaning Products Reform Initiative. Our goal is national legislation on ingredient disclosure for both consumer and institutional/commercial cleaning products. Purchasers and users of cleaning products often do not realize that some contain ingredients that are toxic to their health and the environment. Presently there are no requirements for manufacturers to disclose this. Better informed consumers will lead to the development and purchase of greener, safer, healthier, more environmental cleaning products. Check FILES under heading CLEANING PRODUCTS for more information.

PBT Initiative Toxic substances, especially those released due to human activities, have proven to be a plague on society and the environment. Intergenerational impacts, additive and cumulative effects, and hormone disruption all result from a myriad of low-level environmental exposures resulting from purposeful uses and incidental/accidental releases of persistent, bio-accumulative and globally-mobile toxins. While industry has prevented and in some cases weakened policy which would protect the public, our goal with this project is to turn this around by educating members and the public about unavoidable chemical exposure and their role as consumers in ending excessive releases.
We seek the implementation of precautionary approaches to permitting any introduction of new consumer products. Specifically, we focus on exposures by natural (ie mercury), and synthetic (ie DDT) persistent, bio-accumulative toxins (PBTs). Additionally, we seek to gain the removal of /or substitution for problem chemicals currently in use. Because of their unique characteristics, including the ability to persist in toxic form and travel long distances, these pollutants ultimately require global solutions. As such, we will use local support to build into global solutions. Some states such as Maine and Washington are passing laws to ban or restrict some of the worst PBTs. Strengthening state level laws can help us improve federal toxics laws.

2) tell your friends about this team using the orange "add/share" button below

3) post a comment or a blog post: let us know what you think of this team

4) share what you know about toxics or post a link to an article, website, or other resources in comments or the blog

5) ask a question about toxics on the blog or comment wall

6) we need help writing facts sheets and letters to the editor: post a comment or blog that you can help!

Comment Wall

David Meiser

February 09

I have question regarding the club's policy on Hazardous Waste Management. specifically this one line from the policy. Underground injection is not acceptable because of the potential for present or future groundwater contamination. As hydrofracturing wastes are "regulatory exempt" from being considered hazardous waste does the club still consider this material as hazardous waste, specifically dealing with hydrofracturing "produced waters" sometimes called blow back water There is some debate as to what the club considers this material "hazardous waste" and I was hoping the toxics team could discuss and elaborate what the club considers "hazardous waste" Currently the in several states best management practice is to use deep well injecton for this mateial.

Rita Chapman

February 08

I saw the bulletin about a Toxics team call on Thursday Feb. 10, 2011 - but I can't find an agenda. I also couldn't reply to the bulletin because I'm apparently not friends with the sender. I'm already booked several nights this week, so it would be really helpful to know the purpose of the call, and the agenda. Thanks, Rita Chapman.

Rita Chapman

November 01

I've been thinking about the upcoming December 11 birthday of the Superfund law, it will be 30 years old. I wonder if we'd be able to pull off a mass event the day before, on Friday Dec. 10: - birthday cakes shaped like the US with candles for every CERCLA site used at a press event at the home offices of congressional delegation, that calls for renewal of the tax; - Plus, we invite the congress people from the 1980 Congress who passed the law to attend all these "birthday parties"... Thoughts?? Michigan has 85 superfund sites!! ~Rita Chapman Michigan Water Sentinels Project.

Doris Cellarius

July 15

Five states have passed laws banning Bisphenol A (BPA) Minnesota, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Washington, and Maryland. A bill pending in the Massachusetts legislature (S. 432), would prohibit the manufacture, sale, and distribution of toys or child-care articles containing BPA that are intended for use by children under the age of three. S.432 further stipulates that manufacturers use the least toxic alternatives to replace BPA and prohibits manufacturers from replacing BPA with more “carcinogens and reproductive toxicants.” •In May, 2009, Minnesota’s governor signed the nation’s first ban on BPA in empty bottles and cups intended for use by children under age three. The ban became effective in January, 2010 for manufacturers and wholesalers. In 2011, it will apply to retailers as well. • In June, 2009, Connecticut banned the manufacture, sale, or distribution of reusable food or beverage containers containing BPA, including, but not limited to, baby bottles, spill-proof cups, sports bottles, and thermoses. The Connecticut law also bans the manufacture, sale, or distribution of infant formula or baby food in containers with BPA. The Connecticut ban is the nation’s most stringent and will be phased in over the next two years. As of October, 2011, manufacturers may not use BPA in infant formula or baby food containers. Retailers may continue to sell such products through October, 2012 if they purchased the products prior to October, 2011. This ban excludes non-reusable items. • In March, 2010, Wisconsin banned BPA in baby bottles and non-spill cups for children aged three years and younger. The law takes effect in June, 2010. • Washington also adopted a BPA ban in March, 2010. It includes reusable food and beverage containers, with the exception of metal cans, for children three years and younger. It also bans BPA in reusable sports bottles. Implementation of the Washington law will be phased in from 2011 to 2012. • In April, 2010, Maryland became the fifth state to adopt legislation banning BPA. The law covers food and liquid containers for children under age four and would take effect in 2012. Eighteen other states, including California, New York, Illinois, and Michigan, currently have BPA legislation pending. Several of these bills are comparable in scope to the Connecticut ban.

JennyWaggo

June 23

Just added a post re: senate legislation on formaldehyde, courtesy of "Hitched"!

Showing items of 13

more