4/24/2012

The General Assembly has a tremendous opportunity to continue being a national leader in protecting children against toxic chemicals, in promoting regulatory certainty for businesses and in assisting state businesses to compete in global markets that restrict toxic chemicals more than in the U.S.

Many chemicals found in our homes, consumer products and environment include carcinogens, neurotoxins and endocrine disrupters.

Some of these — such as the wallboard with formaldehyde used in Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers used after Hurricane Katrina — are produced in China, but banned for sale there and in other countries. But, it is perfectly legal to sell to them to unsuspecting U.S. consumers.

As a public health physician, I am very aware of the growing body of scientific evidence linking exposure to toxic chemicals with rising incidence of many serious diseases. There is growing consensus that cumulative exposure to these chemicals, particularly during critical windows of fetal development, are contributing to the rising incidence of childhood leukemia and brain cancers; adult cancers of the breast, prostate, kidney and liver; learning and behavioral disorders, including autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; obesity; insulin resistance and diabetes.

The American Chemistry Council and the Toy Industry Association argue that any attempts to regulate chemicals should happen at the federal level, and point to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s new chemical action plans as proof progress is being made.

Unfortunately, the EPA has indicated it will try to assess the amount of regulation required for just 83 of the 84,000 chemicals registered with the agency as potentially used in consumer products.

These assessments can take decades under current law, as evidenced by the agency’s 10-year failed efforts to regulate asbestos and its recently completed 25-year effort to partially assess dioxins. The federal system of health protections from chemicals clearly does not work. Based on what I see when working at the national level, there is no reason to believe that it will be fixed anytime soon.

With federal efforts stalled, Connecticut must take leadership in protecting children. Senate Bill 274 establishes a Green Ribbon Science Panel to advise the state commissioner of public health and the commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection in establishing and reviewing a list of chemicals of high concern in relation to children and providing recommendations to reduce exposure to them. This framework ensures that decisions are science-based, and could have a significant public health impact.

The legislation also creates a framework to promote green chemistry and job innovation in the state by complementing the mission of the legislatively created Chemical Innovations Institute. Establishment of a list of chemicals of high concern is the first step in driving the market to develop and use safer alternatives. In addition, it can help kick-start needed comprehensive chemical reform on the federal level.

This bill promotes public health, continues Connecticut’s national leadership and fosters green business innovation. Our lawmakers would do right by passing this legislation.

Dr. Mark A. Mitchell, former director of Hartford’s Health Department, is the founder and senior policy adviser for the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice. Write to him at P.O. Box 1421, Hartford 06143; email: mmitchell@enviro-md.com.

April is here and for many, the top thing on our minds is the early days of spring—whether we can shelve our winter coats, maybe how close we are to Opening Day.

For me, April always reminds me of my grandmother, Aubine. She was born in early April, over 100 years ago in a small town in northern Maine. When I think of her, I think of the popcorn balls she would make for the holidays…of the walks we took together…of being on drying duty as she washed the dishes after a family dinner.

She taught my sisters and me many things over the years, but the single over-riding lesson was crystal clear: you take on the hard jobs, and you don’t shy away from the things that most need doing. That’s how she lived her life, from start to finish—including working as a young girl with her family to carve a fishing camp out of the Maine wilderness. That lesson reinforces my commitment to keep on pressing for the updates to our laws that will protect us all from exposure to toxic chemicals. This campaign has been tough at times.

It has effectively united a diverse cross section of the U.S. public from health groups to forward-thinking businesses to environmental justice advocates, all pressing for a bill introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg, the Safe Chemicals Act.  Whenever we collectively take a step forward, though, it sometimes seems like the chemical industry is relentless in battling back.  We help release new peer-reviewed studies that reveal solid evidence that toxic chemicals are damaging our health; the chemical industry lobbyists claim the research is unpersuasive.  We deliver over 100,000 petition signatures from concerned families across the country urging reforms; partisan legislators turn a blind eye because they don’t want to give the Environmental Protection Agency the tools they need to assess the safety of chemicals.

Here in Massachusetts, the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow has been mobilizing for nearly a decade to advance reforms as well.

Some days it can seem like it’s simply taking too long or that our efforts aren’t making enough headway. On those days, when it would be easier to throw in the towel out of sheer frustration, my grandmother’s lessons eventually kick in and I can reconnect with my core motivation to stand up for disease prevention and for the smarter laws that will protect our health.

How about you? What lessons do you draw on from your mother or grandmother that you apply to this campaign?  SAFER States and Safer Chemicals Healthy Families would like to know!  In honor of Mother’s Day, we’re launching a project called “Lessons from our Mothers” that we’ll continue through the rest of April and May. We’re asking you to tell your story—what did your mother teach you that you draw on in the effort to pass the Safe Chemicals Act or local reforms in your state? Did she teach you that persistence counts? Or that you go to the wall to protect your children? That the burden of cancer or other chronic diseases exacts too high a price and should be prevented wherever possible?  That you stand up to bullies?

By the way, do you wonder how my grandmother’s story played out?  She and her family not only established their fishing camp but it was so successful that she and her siblings were sent to college on the proceeds–something very rare in rural Maine in the early 1920′s.  I have no doubt that our collective efforts to pass the Safe Chemicals Act nationally and the Safer Alternatives Bill here in Massachusetts will ultimately be just as successful.

Tell your story and help us build momentum as we approach a potential vote on safer chemicals in the U.S. Senate.  To participate, simply submit an op-ed to your local paper or post a blog to your organization’s website, and let us know how you honor the lessons of YOUR mother. Send us a copy and we’ll re-post a number of your stories here.   To submit:  send your story, short bio, name as you’d like it to appear and photograph (at least 250px width by 250px height) to info@saferstates.com.

Lead, arsenic, cadmium, formaldehyde, mercury. These are some of the toxic ingredients that are found in products that we put on our skin, in our hair, and on our lips that ultimately make it into our bodies where they can wreak havoc with endocrine systems, neural development, reproductive systems and contribute to higher levels of cancer.

These ingredients are unreported and hard to track, even for the most scrupulous consumer. Annie Leonard, who produced The Story of Cosmetics in partnership with The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics said it best: “It turns out the important decisions don’t happen when I choose to take a product off the shelf. They happen when companies and governments decide what should be put on the shelves.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees regulations governing cosmetics. However, regulation is a term used loosely, as manufacturers can use nearly every chemical and ingredient, man-made or natural, in a cosmetic without approval from the FDA.¹

What is considered a cosmetic?
According to the FDA,² the following types of products are seen as cosmetics: skin moisturizers, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup preparations, shampoos, permanent waves, hair colors, toothpastes, and deodorants.

As is the case with many other toxic chemicals (BPA laws, cadmium laws, flame retardants and others) regulation is beginning with the states. While an overhaul of the federal regulations overseeing cosmetics would have to pass through the United States Congress, dodge strong-arming tactics of industry lobbyists, and make it through regulatory translation, a state law or regulation can be implemented within a relatively short period of time, and quickly start protecting residents.

What’s lead doing in our lipstick?

Late last year, the FDA published the results of an analysis of hundreds of lipsticks, which found measurable amounts of lead in 400 different lipsticks. Lead is a persistent, bioaccumulative toxic metal, which means that it builds up in our systems and does not break down. It’s been associated with neurological effects like seizures and impaired concentration, and with reproductive effects such as miscarriages and reduced sperm count, and is a developmental neurotoxin which may cause significant issues for children.

“Lead is a proven neurotoxin that can cause learning, language and behavioral problems such as lowered IQ, reduced school performance and increased aggression. Pregnant women and young children are particularly vulnerable to lead exposure, because lead easily crosses the placenta and enters the fetal brain where it can interfere with normal development,” according to Sean Palfrey, MD, a professor of pediatrics and public health at Boston University and the medical director of Boston’s Lead Poisoning Prevention Program.³

As is the case with many cosmetics products, consumers wishing to avoid lead in lipstick would be hard-pressed to do so without eschewing lipstick altogether. “The truth of the matter is a majority of lipsticks on the market, especially those with color additives, will contain some amount of lead,” writes Sheila Viswanathan of the GoodGuide’s science team.⁴ It gets into lipstick via source materials that contain lead. But there are widely varying amounts of lead, and it’s clear that best practices could minimize the amount of lead contamination in lipstick significantly.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, arguing that there is no safe level for lead for children and pregnant women, has sent a letter (pdf) to the FDA requesting the lowest possible limits for lead in lipstick.

Hair straighteners and nail polishes: posing a risk for salon workers.

When Molly Scrutton, a hair stylist in Oregon, started experiencing respiratory and other health issues in 2010, she began to look into the Brazilian Blowout product, a heat-activated straightening chemical used in salons. Scrutton had the product tested and researchers found high levels of formaldehyde in the product, which is an extreme irritant to the eyes, nose and throat.

Two years after the initial findings, the manufacturers of Brazilian Blowout agreed to put a warning on the product about the hazards of formaldehyde and the need to use the product in a well-ventilated area.⁵ However, this only came after California and Oregon took legal action against the company.

Similarly, nail polishes and hardeners contain several toxic chemicals, called the “toxic trio,” which present a problem less for women who use them once every couple of weeks, and more for salon workers who are exposed to the chemicals on a daily basis. The toxic trio is a group of three toxic chemicals that are often found in nail products: formaldehyde, toluene which is associated with negative effects to the central nervous system,⁶ and dibutyl phthalate which is associated with endocrine system disruption. Nail salon workers are often young immigrant women, and studies have shown that they have a greater prevalence of respiratory, skin problems and headaches when compared with the general population.⁷

After consumer group pressure, some companies have agreed to remove this toxic trio of chemicals from their products in the past few years. And the state of New York is working to make their removal mandatory with a proposed law, AB 1473, which would prohibit the manufacture, distribution and sale of nail polish and nail hardener containing any of the toxic trio. The law is currently in committee.

Toxic chemical laws around the United States, federal and state laws, need to be in place that can flex and bend to keep chemicals out of our lives.

“Currently, it is nearly impossible to identify the presence of carcinogens, reproductive or developmental toxins on a product’s label because companies are not required to list them. So, even if women are armed with knowledge about the potential presence of toxic chemicals, there is virtually no way for them to make informed decisions about the products they buy.”
- Michelle Noehren, founder of Connecticut Working Moms.

Proactive state bills could protect the most vulnerable populations from toxic chemicals in cosmetics.

Bills are being proposed in statehouses throughout the country to keep toxic products from getting into consumer products using a process of identifying priority chemicals and encouraging businesses (through incentives or rules) to choose safer alternatives. Connecticut’s Senate Bill 274 would address a strategy for getting the worst-of-the-worst chemicals out of children’s products. In its current iteration, SB 274 would cover products such as cosmetics intended for children under 12 years of age, phasing toxic chemicals out of children’s shampoos, lotions, soaps and toothpastes.

Oregon entertained a bill this legislative session which could have an affect on toxic chemicals in cosmetics. House Bill 4151 would require that products purchased by state agencies be submitted with a transparent list of ingredients and chemicals of concern, and that purchasing decisions factor in this list.⁸ All other things being equal, the state agencies would, under this bill, be required to choose a product that is safer for human health and the environment over one containing chemicals of concern. Like the proposed Connecticut law, Oregon’s would begin to set into place a new way of thinking about chemicals of concern, and would provide the legal backup for safer products to be used in lieu of unsafe ones.

This will prove to be a big year for makers of children’s personal care products, as well as parents and policymakers in Washington State. Beginning August 2012, manufacturers of personal care products, including cosmetics, intended for children will be required to disclose whether products contain any of the 66 chemicals that have been identified by the state⁹ as a concern for children’s health. These chemicals of concern include chemicals used in cosmetics like formaldehyde, parabens, and 1,4 dioxane.

The new requirements are the result of Washington State’s Children’s Safe Products Act, which passed in 2008. Advocates and policymakers hope the information on chemical in personal care products will not only help parents make better decisions about what products to use, but also inform policymakers of where problem chemicals are showing up in products so they can implement policies to tackle the problem.

Europe is leading the charge against toxic chemicals in cosmetics.

It is easy to feel defeatist about toxic chemicals in cosmetics. They’re so pervasive that it seems maybe it is impossible to get them out of chemicals. But the European Union (EU) is doing an admirable job of protecting citizens in all 25 EU countries from the worst-of-the-worst chemicals in cosmetics. As of January 2003, 1100 chemicals are banned from cosmetics (vs. the United States’ ban of 11 chemicals), proving that it is possible to set rules that cosmetics companies have to follow. Many companies are reformulating their product for EU acceptance, but still selling toxic-laden products in countries like the US that allow it.

The best-case scenario for strong cosmetics reform in the United States would be strong action on the federal level, with a standard plan across industries to identify the worst-of-the-worst chemicals and create an efficient strategy for getting them out of our lives quickly. However, as is the case with many chemical laws in this country, the states can take the lead on reforming the cosmetics industry on a state-by-state level until that can happen. Sometimes it takes state reform to prove to the federal branches that change is possible and imperative.

Look to the rest of the states to begin to join with Connecticut, New York, Washington and Oregon to demand change from cosmetic manufacturers, and protect consumers from the rampant use of toxic chemicals in cosmetics.

References

¹ Ingredients prohibited & restricted by FDA regulations. www.FDA.gov, May 30, 2000. ² Cosmetics Q&A: “Personal care products”. www.FDA.gov, December 14, 2011. ³ Lead In lipstick. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. ⁴ What Science Makes the Cut. The Good Guide, February 10, 2012. ⁵ Brazilian Blowout agrees to post formaldehyde warning. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, January 31, 2012. ⁶ Toluene fact page. www.FDA.gov. ⁷ At Some Nail Salons, Feeling Pretty and Green. The New York Times, November 10, 2010. ⁸ Fostering green chemistry innovation through healthy state purchasing: Policy concept. Oregon Environmental Council. ⁹ The Reporting list of chemicals of high concern to children. Washington State Department of Ecology.

March 13, 2012

CONTACT: Anne Hulick · 860-302-4861 · ahulick@cleanwater.org

TOXICS LINKED TO HORMONE DISRUPTION AND ASTHMA FOUND IN MANY CONSUMER PRODUCTS

Connecticut Coalition leaders point to study as further proof of needed reform – Senate Bill 274

HARTFORD – Pointing to a study recently released by the Silent Spring Institute that tested 213 consumer products for toxic chemicals associated with the rising rates of endocrine disruption related disease, Anne Hulick RN, JD, Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut Coordinator said that the need for Connecticut lawmakers to act on comprehensive toxic chemical reform legislation is now more important than ever. The results were reported in a peer reviewed article in Environmental Health Perspectives on March 8th.

“This study highlights that consumer products are not always as “natural” or as “safe” as they’re advertised and consumers shouldn’t need a degree in chemistry when shopping for their families,” said Hulick. “Unfortunately, this is yet one more reason why Connecticut families need lawmakers to support legislation before the General Assembly to protect consumers – specifically children – from exposure to these chemicals.”

Hulick was referring to legislation raised by the Legislature’s Public Health Committee, Senate Bill 274 — AAC Chemicals of High Concern to Children. The bill would create a Green Ribbon Science Panel of experts in the fields of science and green chemistry whose members will advise the Departments of Public Health (DPH) and Energy and Environment (DEEP) on which chemicals currently being used in commerce (for example in children’s toys and common household objects) pose the biggest health threat to children and pregnant women. Every two years the state agencies and the panel will report back to the Legislature and recommend policies to reduce the public’s exposure to toxic chemicals.

“It is becoming increasingly clear that we need a systematic, scientifically-based methodology for prioritizing chemicals that cause harm to people, particularly children and young adults,” State Rep. Betsy Ritter, Chair of the Public Health Committee said. “We must focus our attention according to the harm a chemical does – especially those with physical effects that children carry from the of point exposure through the rest of their lives.”

The Silent Spring Institute tested a variety of consumer products, including cleaning products, cosmetics, sunscreens, shower curtains, air fresheners, drier sheets, and other household goods made by Colgate, Unilever, S.C. Johnson, Johnson and Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Seventh Generation, and Ecover among other manufacturers.

Environmental health advocates across the nation see this new study as confirmation that ubiquitous chemical exposure is playing a factor in adverse health impacts.

“The Toxic Substances Control Act, created in 1976 with the intention of allowing the EPA to monitor and regulate chemical substances, has proven to be a failure,” said Mark Mitchell, MD, MPH, of Mitchell Environmental Health Associates and the Environmental Health Task Force at the National Medical Association. “Under TSCA, the EPA has only been able to ban or limit the use of five types of chemicals out of the 20,000 introduced since 1976. With reform stalled at the federal level, individual states have taken on the task of protecting their citizens from the health dangers linked to toxic chemical exposure. Connecticut lawmakers have shown themselves to be leaders and the health and wellbeing of Connecticut residents depends on them continuing to do so.”

Dr. Mitchell, who also founded the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice added that as the number of chemicals used in the United States has increased, so have the incidence rates for different types of cancers (brain, breast, bladder, liver and many more.) The incidence rates of environmentally related childhood illnesses, such as asthma and childhood cancers, have also been steadily rising over the past 25 to 30 years.

“This new study found PVC products, including a pillow protector and shower curtain, contained high levels of the toxic phthalate DEHP,” explains Mike Schade from the Center for Health, Environment & Justice. “Phthalates have been banned in toys, but are widespread in many PVC products children come in contact with in schools and even at home. Phthalates have been linked to asthma, adverse impacts on brain development, and reproductive health problems in baby boys. Thankfully, there are safer cost-effective alternatives to phthalate-laden PVC products for our schools and homes.”

The products were tested in 2008, and the study authors acknowledge that product samples can vary and that some formulations may have changed.

Download the press release.

Working Mother Media Blog Post

By Michelle Noehren

March 7, 2012

As moms, we all want to protect our children from harm. But what if that harm is invisible, occurs daily, and is almost impossible to stop without government intervention?

There’s a growing consensus that our exposure to toxic chemicals in consumer products is a risk factor for many serious diseases. Children are exposed to these chemicals at an alarming rate and as a result, there are long-term implications for their health and development.

One particular class of chemicals, called endocrine disruptors, has been linked to increased rates of breast cancer, early onset of puberty and rising rates of endometriosis – a leading cause of female infertility. In fact, a large body of research indicates a link between increased infertility rates in women and toxic chemical exposure. According to a report by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, at least 12% of women reported difficulty in conceiving and maintaining pregnancy in 2002, an increase of 40% from 1982. The rate has almost doubled in younger women, ages 18–25. I’m sure each of us knows at least one woman who is struggling or has struggled with getting pregnant.

Scientists on the cutting edge of research have found that chemicals such as phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), perfluorinated compounds, and cadmium are linked to these increases in reproductive health problems. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we all have some levels of these chemicals in our bodies.

Mothers-to-be and breastfeeding mothers are particularly vulnerable to toxic chemical exposure. Women’s bodies are the first environment for the next generation. Unfortunately, many chemicals that are stored in a woman’s body can be passed onto her child while in utero and later during breastfeeding (many toxic chemicals pass through the placenta and have been found in breast milk). In fact, an alarming study by the Environmental Working Group found that at least 287 hazardous industrial chemicals pass through the placenta to the fetus.

What’s even more startling, according to Women’s Voices for the Earth, is that many chemicals are so prevalent in breast milk that if it were to be bottled for sale, most breast milk would not pass FDA regulations. While breastfeeding is clearly still the number one option for building a new baby’s immune system, the abundance of toxic chemicals in breast milk is cause for serious alarm.

Women are the primary consumer decision-makers in 85% of households in the United States which means we are the ones most likely to purchase products such as toys, diapers, sunscreen, bath products and more. Parents deserve the ability to feel confident that the products they buy are safe for their families, and many of us just assume that if we can purchase it in a store, it must be OK.

Currently, it is nearly impossible to identify the presence of carcinogens, reproductive or developmental toxins on a product’s label because companies are not required to list them. So, even if women are armed with knowledge about the potential presence of toxic chemicals, there is virtually no way for them to make informed decisions about the products they buy.

The Connecticut legislature is leading the way by introducing a bill on this very topic, Senate Bill 274, An Act Concerning Chemicals of High Concern to Children. As parents, it’s our responsibility to ensure that our children are protected from harm and Connecticut should be applauded for making the health of our children a priority.

Note: advocacy efforts are being led by the Coalition for a Safe & Healthy Connecticut

Health conscious consumers often pore over product labels trying to avoid certain ingredients. But those labels can be incomplete. A Silent Spring Institute study shows that everyday products contain a wide range of potentially harmful chemicals, including many that are not listed on product labels. The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives, marks the largest investigation that actually tested the products themselves for the presence of many suspect chemicals. Learn more: http://www.silentspring.org/product-test

February 14, 2012

The FDA, which hired a private laboratory to do the testing, selected lipsticks based on the parent company’s market share, although it also included a few brands from niche markets.

“We do not consider the lead levels we found in the lipsticks to be a safety concern,” the FDA said in its online comments. “The lead levels we found are within the limits recommended by other public health authorities for lead in cosmetics.”

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has a different take on the results.

The lead content in Maybelline’s Pink Petal is more than twice as high as levels found in the previous FDA report and more than 275 times the level found in the least-contaminated product in the recent report, the group wrote in a letter to the agency this month.

The least-contaminated product — Wet ’n’ Wild Mega Mixers Lip Balm — was also the least expensive, the group said in a separate statement, “demonstrating that price is not an indicator of good manufacturing practices.”

The group cited federal research that concluded that there’s no safe level of lead exposure for children, and experts stressed the need to shield children and pregnant women from exposure.

“Lead builds in the body over time, and lead-containing lipstick applied several times a day, every day, can add up to significant exposure levels,” Mark Mitchell, co-chairman of the Environmental Health Task Force for the National Medical Association, said in the group’s statement.

California, a trailblazer when it comes to lead regulation, has grappled with this issue.

In 2008, after reports on lead in lipsticks resurfaced, the state attorney general’s office examined whether cosmetics firms had run afoul of a California law that requires businesses to provide a reasonable warning if they knowingly expose consumers to chemicals that can cause cancer or reproductive harm.

The state concluded, based on public data, that the concentration of lead in lipsticks was too low to trigger the law. The duty to warn consumers would not arise until the lead concentration reached five parts per million, the state said.

In the FDA’s study, the overwhelming majority of the lipsticks fell below that threshold. But two exceeded it — Maybelline’s Pink Petal and L’Oreal’s Colour Riche Volcanic. The California attorney general’s office has taken no further action.

Lead in lipsticks: Which brands are the worst offenders? See the full list here.

February 10, 2012 (860) 302-4861

(860) 232-6232

ahulick@cleanwater.org

Coalition for a Safe and Healthy CT announces new members

Connecticut — The Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut, which successfully advanced banning the use of BPA in baby bottles, infant formula containers and other reusable containers in the state, today announced that two additional organizations have joined forces with them in their fight to reduce the public’s exposure to toxic chemicals. New Coalition members include the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) and Connecticut Breastfeeding Coalition (CBC).

“We are thrilled to partner with the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women and the Connecticut Breastfeeding Coalition. Increasingly, scientists and health professionals agree that there are strong links between exposure to toxic chemicals, particularly during critical windows of development, and diseases later on in life. With the rise in many serious diseases like cancers in children, learning and behavioral disorders, breast cancer and reproductive disorders, the writing is on the wall and women and mothers are reading it,” said Coalition Coordinator Anne Hulick, RN, JD.

“More and more women are taking a stand against toxic chemicals to protect their children and families,” she added. “We are proud to have two such influential groups join in our efforts to make Connecticut a safer place in which to raise a family.”

“The PCSW is pleased to join the Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut as it takes steps to improve the long-term health of women and children,” said Teresa Younger, Executive Director of PCSW. “Progress is always incremental, and it begins with asking the kinds of hard-hitting questions the Coalition is putting in front of the public, the corporate community and our elected leaders.”

The Permanent Commission on the Status of Women was formed in 1973 to study and improve Connecticut women’s economic security, health and safety; to promote consideration of qualified women to leadership positions and to work toward the elimination of gender discrimination. As a non-partisan arm of the General Assembly, the agency monitors, critiques and recommends changes to legislation in order to inform public policy, and assess programs and practices in all State agencies for their effect on the state’s women. The PCSW serves as a liaison between government and its diverse constituents, and convenes stakeholders, including the business, non-profit and educational communities, local governments, and the media in order to promote awareness of women’s issues.

“We are delighted to join the Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut. The two groups are closely aligned in the concern for the health and well-being of mothers and infants in Connecticut as evidenced by their efforts to remove BPA from infant feeding products. Mothers are very capable of making the right feeding choices for themselves and their children, they deserve feeding products that promote the healthy growth and development of their children and do not increase their own health risks“ Michele Griswold, Chair of the CBC.

The Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut is an ever-growing partnership of citizens and over 50 organizations working for safer alternatives to toxic chemicals. The Coalition represents health professionals, workers, nurses, businesses, environmentalists, occupational safety advocates, people of faith, and individuals whose health has been impacted by toxic chemicals.

– END –

(January 19, 2012)

Michelle Noehren with her daughter Lillian Hauserman & Christa Allard and her daughter Nora Allard spoke out the use of toxic chemicals in children's products.

Issue to be Addressed In Legislative Session

See more photos here.

HARTFORD – State Representative Diana Urban (D-North Stonington) and State Senator Terry Gerratana (D-New Britain), the co-chairs of the Select Committee on Children, raised concerns at a State Capitol news conference over a recent report citing that many popular baby products contain toxic flame-retardants linked to cancer, hormone disruption and other health effects.

They were joined by members of the Coalition For A Safe and Healthy Connecticut, health care advocates, concerned parents and fellow lawmakers.

The issue is expected to be the subject of legislation when the legislature convenes next month with health advocates urging a state ban on toxic Tris flame retardants.

The report, “Hidden Hazards In the Nursery,” found toxic flame retardants in 85% (17 of 20) of new baby and children’s products tested, including bassinet pads, nursing pillows, changing pads, and car seats.

The most prevalent flame retardant found was chlorinated Tris (TDCPP), a chemical voluntarily removed from children’s pajamas in the 1970s when it was found to cause adverse health effects. Chlorinated Tris was present in 80% of the products (16 of 20). California recently classified chlorinated Tris as a carcinogen, and evidence links the chemical to neurotoxicity as well as hormone disruption.

“It is absolutely shocking that companies would choose to use a fire-retardant that was banned in children’s pajamas in the 70’s in baby products that are being used today,” Rep. Urban said. “Parents expect that when they buy a changing pad or a nursing pillow that it is safe to use. This report makes it abundantly clear that these fire retardants, and specifically Tris, are mutagenic, carcinogenic and hormone disruptors. We will be addressing this in the upcoming session and I look forward to working with the Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut members to keep Connecticut kids safe and healthy.”

“Parents expect that any products they buy – especially for their children – should be safe. That’s common sense,” said Sen. Gerratana. “The fact that these products are still sold just about everywhere is surprising and alarming. As legislators, I believe it is very appropriate that we take steps to ban these carcinogens, especially among our most vulnerable population: children.”

“As busy working moms, how are we supposed to find the time to research every single product we give our children?” said Michelle Noehren, Events and Special Projects Manager for the Permanent Commission for the Status of Women. “The answer is: we can’t and the reality is, moms assume the products they buy are safe for their children. We rely on the government to keep us safe and somewhere along the line there’s been a clear failure. Toxic chemicals have no place in our products.”

“The widespread use of chlorinated TRIS, a known carcinogen, in children’s products is one more shocking reason why states need to take action to protect the health of our most vulnerable citizens,” said Anne Hulick,Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut Coordinator. “The Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut applauds Representative Urban, Senator Gerratana and the Select Committee on Children for raising awareness of this issue. We look forward to working with members of the legislature in leading efforts to reduce exposure to harmful chemicals.”

BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food shows the results from testing four cans each of Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom Soup; Campbell’s Turkey Gravy; Carnation Evaporated Milk (by Nestle); Del Monte Fresh Cut Sweet Corn, Cream Style; Green Giant Cut Green Beans (by General Mills); Libby’s Pumpkin (by Nestle); and Ocean Spray Jellied Cranberry Sauce. One set of cans was purchased in Massachusetts. Single servings of almost half of the products tested had levels of BPA comparable to levels that laboratory studies have shown may cause health problems. Read more…

Read CT Post story here