CIR: Exposed

What's in your lipstick?

CIR Staff — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:55:43 -0800

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! talks to CIR Editorial Director Mark Schapiro about his book, Exposed, and the lack of oversight by the FDA when it comes to the safety of chemicals in household products:

When a woman puts on mascara or lipstick or powder—I mean, someone’s tested it, haven’t they? ... Unfortunately, this is an illusion that a lot of Americans have, basically, that somebody out there in the government is assessing the safety of the ingredients in the cosmetics that they put on their body. ... There’s a deep mythology I think people have here in this country that the government is looking out for their health and safety, when it comes to chemicals. And what I talk about in the book is really how that is unfortunately not the case and what the consequences are for our health, but also for our economic and political status in the world.

>> Watch the Democracy Now! program online.

Is environmental reform at odds with economic growth?

CIR Staff — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:13:18 -0800

Tonight on KQED public radio in San Francisco, Mark Schapiro appears on Health Dialogues in a discussion about toxins in consumer products, and efforts by the California Green Chemistry Initiative signed by Governor Schwarzenegger to put California at the forefront of chemical reform, aligning state laws more closely to those of the European Union. Also, in this month's issue of Mother Jones, Schapiro writes about the economic consequences of the EU’s environmental initiatives, which challenge many of the cost predictions by industry and the long-reining American presumption that such measures are incompatible with economic growth.

New EU law requires chemical companies to come clean

CIR Staff — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:29:30 -0800

Today is the deadline for international chemical companies to comply with a sweeping new European law requiring proof that products they export are safe. On Marketplace, CIR's Mark Schapiro talks about the law, which may force American companies to make safer chemicals. Under the new regulation, called REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals), the companies will have to pre-register their products—revealing detailed data about the chemical ingredients and their toxicity—before they are allowed to sell the products in Europe. Will American chemical companies—who've resisted regulations at home that require giving up such information to consumers—clean up their act? Or will they simply stop selling certain products that don't meet the EU standards in Europe? On the program, Schapiro points out:

If the United States does not keep up with what the European Union is doing now, what's going to happen is we are going to become the dumping ground for products that are banned in Europe.

>> Listen to the full report on Marketplace.

The case against phthalates

CIR Staff — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:28:30 -0700

On the Huffington Post, author and CIR editorial director Mark Schapiro responds to Dr. Elizabeth Whelan's claims that his new book Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's at Stake for American Power is contributing to "unfounded health scares." Schapiro writes:

In her post, Dr. Whelan, President of the American Council for Science and Health, claims that "there is no evidence whatsoever—not even a hint—of health problems from phthalates used by children or adults." Alas, there is far more than a "hint" of such evidence.... The problem, despite Dr. Whelan's assertions, is not lack of evidence; the problem has been that no one in a policy-making position inside the U.S. government has been willing to listen to their or any other American scientist's research on the potential endocrine-disrupting effects of phthalates.

Schapiro also points out:

One thing that Ms. Whalen neglected to mention: the American Council on Science and Health, of which she is President, has forty percent of its budget paid for by corporations, according to a statement on the group's website by Whalen herself. The group no longer lists the names of its funders, but in the past, those named have included Chevron, Dow, DuPont, and Pfizer and company foundations including those of Procter&Gamble, and Merck. These companies are among the key players which have helped create, through their influence in Washington, a laissez faire regulatory approach to chemicals that is increasingly leaving the United States behind the rest of the world in our approach to the growing evidence of harm to humans and the environment from toxic chemicals.

>> Read Mark Schapiro's essay on the Huffington Post.

Worry, be happy

Mark Schapiro — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:00:00 -0800

As we pass through the season of toy recalls into the heyday season of Christmas consumerism, few of the presidential candidates on either side of the aisle have yet to seriously focus on an issue that would send a powerful signal of commitment to protecting Americans. The question of ensuring American's security from the hazards to their health contained in hundreds of consumer products hangs like a ripe fruit for any candidate willing to pick it. Who is out there protecting Americans from these hidden hazards? The answer: practically nobody. We now know what happens when illegal substances like lead are integrated into toys and shipped to the United States from China: They slip into the country past the eviscerated Consumer Product Safety Commission, whose sole toy inspector spends most of his time making sure toys don't break in children's hands, rather than assessing the toxic substances that enter into their body. In fact, the CPSC's budget has dropped almost in parallel with the rising reliance of U.S. toy manufacturers on production in China. Hillary Clinton may have called for greater vigilance of our imports from China, but its not just illegal substances like lead that are being integrated into an array of consumer products. A host of substances suspected of causing cancer, mutating genes and disrupting the reproductive system are permitted in this country, while much of the world--our economic peers in Europe, Japan and even in emerging economies like Korea--are banning them from use. U.S. influence has been slipping globally, diminished by a bellicose foreign policy, the rapidly dropping clout of the dollar and the quicksand of Iraq. But nowhere are Americans feeling this shrinking global presence than in the realm of their health. Once, thirty years ago, the United States was the leader on environmental protection. What we did in America--creating the EPA, passing laws regulating chemicals--was followed by the rest of the world. Our law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, was the first in the world to address the potential health dangers from chemicals. But it included a massive loophole: Any chemical already on the market as of 1981 did not have to undergo any testing for their effects on human health or the environment. The result: Some thirty years later, ninety percent of the chemicals on the market today--some 65,000 substances--have never been assessed for their toxicity. Over the intervening twenty-six years, our laws have not kept up with the exponential increase in scientific knowledge of chemicals' effects on the human body. But the rest of the world is moving ahead. Those moves are being led by the European Union, which now includes 480 million people spread across twenty-seven countries, constituting an integrated market far larger than that of the United States. The Europeans are looking at the billions of dollars in costs to public health triggered by exposure to toxic chemicals, and are opting to act while the United States remains complacent with the status quo. Take toys, for example: the Europeans responded to a growing body of evidence suggesting that a plastic additive called phthalates may contribute to decreased production of testosterone in infant boys by banning the substance from use in products aimed at children under the age of three. Much of the evidence used by the Europeans to make that decision came from American scientists, some of whom have been supported in their research by our own EPA. But there has been no one in the US government willing to listen. The result: toys are manufactured in China without phthalates for export to the European Union, and with phthalates for export to the United States. European manufacturers have found far less toxic alternatives and European kids have as many plastic animals and other goofy playthings as their American counterparts. Another example, cosmetics: There is no independent body anywhere in the United States that independently assesses the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics. Who knew how many carcinogenic, mutagenic and reproductive system inhibitors are included in cosmetics? Now we know, because the Europeans have published a 'negative' list banning such substances from cosmetics now sold in Europe. And not just Europe: increasing numbers of emerging economies, like Korea and Brazil, are beginning to look to Brussels, capitol of the EU, and not Washington for guidance in how to address such potential hazards. Altogether, America's bluff is being called: The world's other major economy is showing that safety and financial success are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, at a time of rising environmental sensitivity in the marketplace, many of these 'greener' businesses are now posing a competitive challenge to U.S. producers. The first candidate to realize that this issue strikes directly at American's sense of safety and security will reap the benefits. Mark Schapiro is the editorial director of CIR, and author of Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's at Stake for American Power.

Listen to Schapiro on Fresh Air

CIR Staff — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:00:00 -0800

Mark Schapiro talks to Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air Monday, November 26, about his book Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everday Products and What's at Stake for American Power. Listen to Schapiro discuss how and why the U.S. is become a dumping ground for toxic products banned elsewhere in the world, and the response of U.S. industry and the government to the tightening of environmental protections in the European Union. >> Listen to Schapiro's interview online.

Toxic Inaction

Carrie Ching — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:25:42 -0700

Why poisonous, unregulated chemicals end up in our blood. This excerpt of Schapiro's book appeared in the October 2007 issue of Harper's magazine. >> Visit the Harper's website.

Toxic Toys

Carrie Ching — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:04:49 -0700

As safety scandals dampen the public's appetite for cheap imports, the European Union is raising doubts about standards and oversight in the US toy manufacturing industry—which uses many toxic chemicals banned elsewhere. >> Read the article on The Nation's website.

What's in your lipstick?

Carrie Ching — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:21:42 -0700

Dan Mitchell's "What's Online" column in the New York Times featured Exposed this past Saturday:

If you want to know what’s in your food, finding out is easy enough — just look at the label. Federal law mandates that food producers list ingredients. Not so with makers of cosmetics, and millions of Americans have no idea what they are putting on their skin each day. That is not the case in Europe, where the European Union has imposed strict limits on the chemicals that manufacturers can use in products ranging from body spray to bug spray. A result, Mark Schapiro, an investigative journalist, says in his book, “Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s at Stake for American Power,” is not only that American consumers are more at risk than their European counterparts. Besides that, he says, the European Union is also gaining the upper hand in regulating the behavior of multinational corporations, and is thus amassing more economic power.

Brussels on top

Carrie Ching — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:16:09 -0700

This week The Economist featured Mark Schapiro's Exposed, calling it "a gripping new book." The article, "Brussels Rules OK," points out: "Mr Schapiro is a campaigner for tougher regulation of American business. Yet you do not have to share his taste for banning chemicals to agree with his prediction that American industry will want stricter standards to create a level playing-field at home." >> Read the article "Brussels Rules OK" in the Economist. >> Visit CIR's special website for Exposed. >> Buy Exposed on Amazon.

Exposed: A World Tour

Carrie Ching — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:31:54 -0700

Exposed: Selected Sources

Carrie Ching — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:04:54 -0700

Chapter 1: Soft Power, Hard Edge

Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005.

"Fertile Grounds for Inquiry: Environmental Effects on Human Reproduction," Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114, no. 11, November 2006, pg. 646.

Chapter 2: The Beauty Bluff

The Environmental Working Group has researched and advocated on personal care product safety and created a helpful database based on their findings: Environmental Working Group, "Skin Deep."

"State of the Evidence: What is the Connection Between the Environment and Breast Cancer?," Breast Cancer Fund, 2006, pg. 4

"Use of Hair Dyes and Bladder Cancer Risk," Manuela Gago-Dominguez and four co-authors affiliated with the Dept. of Preventative Medicine, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, International Journal of Cancer, vol. 91, issue 4, February 2001, pp: 575-579.

"Cancer-Causing Chemicals: A Thousand Threats. Cancer-causing chemicals don’t work alone, but in tandem. A scientist argues for increased vigilance," Devra Davis, Newsweek International, March 5, 2007. That article reflects scientific findings in: "Personal Care Products that contain estrogens or xenoestrogens may increase breast cancer risk," Devra L. Davis and a team of co-authors affiliated with the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, the Epidemiology Center for Cancer Prevention in Bourdeaux, France, the New York University Clinical Cancer Center and the Center for Research on Minority Health at the University of Texas, Medical Hypotheses, vol. 68, no. 4, 2007, pp: 756-766

Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (otherwise known as the 7th amendment to the Cosmetics Directive, which came into force on March 1, 2005), published in the Official Journal of the European Union, March 11, 2003.

Cosmetic Ingredient Review Board A comprehensive article written for the American Academy of Dermatology by members of the review board explains the board’s methods for assessing cosmetic ingredient safety: "Safety of ingredients used in cosmetics," Wilma Bergfeld, Donald Belsito, James Marks and F.Alan Anderson, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, January, 2005.

National Library of Medicine, Household Products Database This database provides information on the health effects of over 7,000 consumer brands of household items.

Scientific committee opinions on public health and risk assessment of cosmetic products can be accessed at the website of the European Commission.

Advocates of the Safe Cosmetics Act A coalition that calls for the "elimination of chemicals used in the cosmetic industry linked to cancer, birth defects and other health problems."

Opponents of the Safe Cosmetics Act An organization comprised of members of the cosmetic industry whose "goal is to arm consumers with the information needed to make an informed decision on cosmetic safety."

Procter & Gamble Fund, 990 Forms for Internal Revenue Service, July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005.

Chapter 3: Sex & Plastic

"Perinatal Exposure to the Phthalates DEHP, BBP, and DINP, but not DEP, DMP, or DOTP, Alters Sexual Differentiation of the Male Rat," L Earl Gray, et al., Toxicological Sciences, vol. 58, December 2000, pp. 350-365. "A Mixture of the 'Anti-Androgens' Linuron and Butyl Benzene Phthalate Alters Sexual Differentiation of the Male Rat in a Cumulative Fashion," L. Earl Gray and six co-authors affiliated with the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory and North Carolina State University, Raleigh, Biology of Reproduction, vol. 71, October 2004. Dr. Gray's work has also been incorporated in several EPA risk assessments of DEHP; his most recent contribution to the scientific literature on the relation between phthalates and male reproductive development is: "Cumulative Effects of Dibutyl Phthalate and Diethylhexyl Phthalate on Male Rat Reproductive Tract Development: Altered Fetal Steroid Hormones and Genes," L. Earl Gray and five co-authors affiliated with the EPA's National Health and Environmental Research Laboratory, Raleigh, North Carolina, Toxicological Sciences, March 30, 2007. For background information on rates of male sexual malformations and their possible links to chemical exposure, also see: "The relationship between environmental exposures to phthalates and DNA damage in human sperm using the neutral comet assay," Susan M. Duty and six co-authors affiliated with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Environmental Health Perspectives, December 2002 "International Trends in Rates of Hypospadias and Cryptorchidism," Leonard J. Paulozzi of the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control, Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 107, no. 4, April 1999.

"Decrease in Anogenital Distance among Male Infants with Prenatal Phthalate Exposure," Shanna H. Swan (and ten co-authors), Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 113, no. 8, August 2005.

"Use of Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate-Containing Medical Products and Urinary Levels of Mono(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Infants," Ronald Green and six co-authors affiliated with the Harvard School of Public Health, the Centers for Disease Control and the Science and Environmental Health Network, Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 113, no. 9, September 2005, pp. 1222-1225.

For criticism of Swan’s work, see website of the Phthalate Esters Panel. Also, see Science magazine: "Panel Finds No Proof that Phthalates Harm Infant Reproductive System," Jocelyn Kaiser, vol. 310, 21 October 2005. For criticism of agd as a marker of gender, and Swan's response, see Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114, no. 1, January 2006, letter from Gerald N. McEwen, Jr of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association and Gerald Renner, of the European Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfume Association, "Validity of Anogenital Distance as a Marker of in utero Phthalate Exposure and Author’s Response." Swan’s response follows in the same issue of EHP.

"Human Breast Milk Contamination with Phthalates and Alterations of Endogenous Reproductive Hormones in Infants Three Months of Age," Niels E. Skakkebaek and Katharina M. Main, and eleven other researchers affiliated with the University Department of Growth and Reproduction, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; the Dept. of Physiology and Pediatrics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; and the Dept of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114, no. 2, February 2006.

"In Utero Exposure to Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate and Duration of Human Pregnancy," Giuseppe Latini, Claudio De Felice, Giuseppe Presta, Antonio Del Vecchio, Irma Paris, Fabrizio Ruggieri and Pietro Mazzeo, Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 111, no. 14, November 2003. [research sponsored by Clinical Physiology Institute, National Research Council of Italy, Brindisi, Italy].

"Directive 2005/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 14 December 2005, amending for the 22nd time Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (phthalates in toys and childcare articles)."

"Expert Panel Update on the Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity of Di(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate," National Toxicology Program, Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, November 2005, pg. 179-180.

"Phthalate Exposure and Human Semen Parameters," Susan M. Duty and Russ Hauser of the Harvard School of Public Health, Epidemiology, vol. 14, 2003, pp. 269-277.

"Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Di(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP)," National Toxicology Program, Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, November 2006, pg. vii. Other studies on phthalate exposure reviewed by the author include: "Decreased Serum Free Testosterone in Workers Exposed to High Levels of De-n-butyl Phthalate (DBP) and Di-2-ethylhexyl Phthalate (DEHP): A Cross Sectional Study in China," Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114, no. 11, November 2006.

"Pediatric Exposure and Potential Toxicity of Phthalate Plasticizers," Katherine M. Shea, MD, MPH, in Pediatrics (Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics), vol. 111, no. 6, June 2003, pp. 1467-1474.

"Male Reproductive Effects of Phthalates: An Emerging Picture," Jane A. Hoppin, Epidemiology, vol. 14, 2003, pp. 259-260.

For a comprehensive journalistic treatment of rising concern over phthalates in toys, see: "From an Ingredient in Cosmetics, Toys, A Safety Concern: Male Reproductive Development Is Issue With Phthalates, Used in Host of Products," Peter Waldman, Wall Street Journal, October 4, 2005, page A1.

The CPSC's decision not to restrict phthalates in toys was issued on February 26, 2003 in the form of a letter from Todd A Stevenson, CPSC Secretary, to Jeffrey Becker Wise, Policy Director of the National Environmental Trust: "Re: 'Petition Requesting Ban of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) in Products Intended for Children Under Five Years of Age and Under.' Letter is available on the CPSC website. Also, see: "Young Children and Plastic Toys," Consumer Product Safety Review (a CPSC newsletter), pp. 3-5, Summer 2003.

Chemical analysis of playthings is cited in: The Right Start: The Need to Eliminate Toxic Chemicals from Baby Products, U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Environment California, October 2005.

For more on the Weinberg Group, see: "The Weinberg Proposal: A scientific consulting firm says that it aids companies in trouble, but critics say that it manufactures uncertainty and undermines science," by Paul D. Thacker, Environmental Science and Technology, February 22, 2006

RAPEX can be accessed on the web, offering a week by week survey of citations and confiscations due to violations of EU safety standards. References to prohibited goods due to their phthalate content are at: Consumer Affairs, European Commission, citation # 8 Consumer Affairs, European Commission, citation # 15

Chapter 4: Two Houses of Risk

For text of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS), latest ratifications, etc., see: The POPS website. The US Pops Watch Campaign seeks ratification of the Stockholm Pops Convention by the United States.

"Proposal to add a new substance to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS)," formal submission nominating lindane from Daniel Chacon Anaya, Director for Integrated Management of Materials and Risky Activities in Mexico’s Secretariat for Environment and Natural Resources, paperwork formally submitted on June 29, 2005.

"Lindane and other HCH Isomers—EPA Risk Assessment Fact Sheet," EPA, February 8, 2006. An Environmental Protection Agency fact sheet on risks associated with Lindane and other HCH Isomers.

"Nomination Dossier for Lindane: Submission by the United States to the Working Group of the Sound Management of Chemicals (SMOC) to consider lindane as a candidate substance for development of a NARAP" (National Regional Action Plan). Submitted to the Council on Environmental Cooperation, January 15, 1999.

Letter from Condoleeza Rice and Stephen L. Johnson to Senator Bill Frist, July 22, 2005.

"U.S. Ratification of the Stockholm Convention: Analysis of Pending POPS Legislation," Center for International Environmental Law, February 28, 2006.

Chapter 5: Genetic Boomerang

Tribunal de Grande Instance d'Orleans, Jugement Correctionnel du 9 decembre, 2005, no. de jugement 2345/S3/2005. The case was between Monsanto ('La Societe Monsanto') and Francois DuFour, a local farmer, and 47 others. Translation by author. Also see, "Activists destruction of GM crops was justified: French court," Agence France Presse, December 9, 2005.

I visited Laura Krause's farm in August, 2002 with a film crew from the PBS newsmagazine program NOW With Bill Moyers. The story was broadcast on October 4, 2002, entitled Seeds of Conflict. A print version, "Sowing Disaster? How Genetically Altered Corn Has Altered the Global Landscape," was later published in the October 28, 2002 issue of The Nation.

GeneWatch UK's and Greenpeace's resource page on genetically modified organism contamination.

"Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.: Corn Varieties and Soybean Varieties," USDA Economic Research Service, 2000-2006.

The WTO's official decision was rendered in September '06; a summary of the findings and history of the case is described at: "European Communities — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products" There were also numerous press reports of a preliminary opinion issued in February 2006; here’s one from EurActiv, a news service covering the EU: "WTO panel rules EU GMO moratorium illegal"

Two interesting analyses of the meaning of the WTO's decision come from the Congressional Research Service’s "Agricultural Biotechnology: The U.S.-EU Dispute," a report to Congress on March 10, 2006; and from Friends of the Earth International, "Looking behind the U.S. spin: WTO ruling does not prevent countries from banning GMO’s," February 2006.

Forty-nine of sixty major European retailers contacted by Greenpeace in 2005 said they would not sell food containing genetically modified ingredients in their stores, "EU Markets Report," Greenpeace International, February 3, 2005

"Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 21 April, 2004, on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage," otherwise known as the Liability Directive.

A Friends of the Earth Europe press release on US efforts to pressure the EU to market genetically modified foods and crops.

Chapter 6: Rise and Fall of the Machine

Electronic Waste: Strengthening the Role of the Federal Government in Encouraging Recycling and Reuse, Government Acountability Office, November 2005 [# GAO-06-47]

"Electronic Waste and eCycling," Environmental Protection Agency: The Environmental Protection Agency's resource page on electronic waste and eCycling.

Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia, February 2002, and The Digital Dump: Exporting Use and ReUse to Africa, October 2005, both by Basel Action Network.

"Toxic Tech: Pulling the Plug on Toxic Electronics," Greenpeace International, May 2005.

The Basel Action Network's list of countries and their positions on Waste Trade Ban Agreements.

WEEE Directive: European Parliament and Council's directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment.

"Frequently asked questions on Directive 2002/95/EC on the Restriction of the Use of certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (RoHS) and Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), DG Environment."

The Electronic Industries Alliance maintains a comprehensive data base, EIA Track, of global chemical and recycling laws impacting the electronics industry:

End of Life Vehicles Directive: This piece of legislation ny the European Commission aims to reduce the volume and hazardous nature of waste of End of Life Vehicles.

Chapter 7: Chemical Revolution

Generations X: Results of WWF's European Family Biomonitoring Survey, October 2005 -- A WWF survey on the extent to which people across Europe have been exposed to man-made chemicals.

"Fertile Ground for Inquiry: Environmental Effects on Human Reproduction," Julia R. Barrett, Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114, no. 11, November, 2006.

"Body Burden—The Pollution in Newborns," Environmental Working Group, July 14, 2005

"A Present for Life," Greenpeace UK, September 8, 2005. This study addresses the concern of hazardous chemicals being passed between mothers and their children.

Trade Secrets: A PBS special on chemical companies and the withholding of information pertaining to hazardous chemicals.

Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation, Michael P. Wilson, with Daniel A Chia and Bryan C. Ehlers, prepared for the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee and the California Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials by the California Policy Research Center at UC Berkeley, 2006.

"Chemical Regulation: Approaches in the United States, Canada, and the European Union," report by the Government Accountability Office for Senators Patrick Leahy, Frank Lautenberg and James Jeffords, November 4, 2005, pg. 2.

"OVERVIEW: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Programs," report by EPA, January 2007, pg. 7/ 8.

Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA's Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program, Government Accountability Office, (GAO-05-458), June 2005.

"Chemical and Related Manufacturing: Top Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties," Center for Responsive Politics.

European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), "Facts and Figures." The European Chemical Industry Council's website on all things related to chemicals and Europe.

"Roundtable on Transatlantic Standards Issues: Meeting Notes," U.S. Department of State, January 10, 2005.

Corporate Europe Observatory: An Amsterdam-based research and campaign group that focuses on corporations and presumed threats to democracy, equity, social justice and the environment posed by the large firms.

U.S. Representative Henry Waxman launched an investigation into the Bush administration’s lobbying against REACH and released a report with his findings: "A Special Interest Case Study: The Chemical Industry, the Bush Administration, and European Efforts to Regulate Chemicals."

"Comments of the United States on Notification G/TBT/N/EEC/52 Regarding European Commission Regulation COM(2003) 644," a complaint by the United States to the WTO's Technical Barriers to Trade Committee on REACH, submitted June 21, 2004.

"Response from the European Communities to Comments Submitted by WTO Members Under G/TBT/N/EEC/52 (Regulation Concerning the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals, Known as REACH)," submitted to the Technical Barriers to Trade Committee on October 28, 2004; also, "The History of REACH," Power Point presentation by the European Commission.

Courting Influence: The Center for Investigative Reporting's project on federal judicial nominees and their ties to special interest groups. The webpage for "Courting Influence" contains a database of judges and nominees from 2001 to the present, covering Circuit and Federal Claims courts. It also includes biographical data from nominees' Senate questionnaires, and downloadable financial disclosure statements.

Chapter 8: Transpacific Drift

"Implications of REACH for the Developing Countries," by Frank Ackerman and a team of researchers at the Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, in collaboration with the International Chemical Secretariat in Sweden. The study was commissioned by DG-External Policies and submitted to the European Parliament in March 2006.

For details on China’s RoHS, see explanation by the American Electrical Association.

"The PRC's Evolving Standards System: Institutions and Strategy," by Chaoyi Zhao and John M. Graham, Asia Policy Journal, no. 2, July 2006, pp. 63-87.

Chapter 9: The New Diplomats

"View of US's global role 'worse'," BBC News, January 23, 2007

Corporate European Observatory in Amsterdam tracks—and helps to unearth—conflicts of interest inside the European Commission.

"Could Try Harder: A midterm report on the European Commission’s environmental record," an assessment by the Green 10, a coalition of leading environmental NGO’s operating throughout the EU.

Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation, Michael P. Wilson, with Daniel A Chia and Bryan C. Ehlers, prepared by UC Berkeley California Policy Research Center for the state Senate Environmental Quality Committee and Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, 2006, pg. 44.

An Interview with Mark Schapiro

Carrie Ching — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:19:39 -0700

An interview with Mark Schapiro, author of Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s at Stake for American Power. How did you become interested in the topics in Exposed? What inspired you to write this book? As a journalist, I’ve spent much of my career working and living in Europe and following the evolution of the European Union (EU) into what it is today—the world’s largest economy. This shift in economic influence has gone largely unnoticed by most Americans. I wanted to explore what that shift has meant in the realm of the environment: What happens when U.S. multinational companies, accustomed to operating according to U.S. rules, suddenly face tougher standards coming from what is now the world’s single largest market? This book investigates the U.S. response—and reveals how in many ways consumers in this country are being left exposed to environmental hazards to which their European peers are protected. In the early 1980s I coauthored a book, Circle of Poison, which exposed how the U.S. was exporting banned pesticides to developing countries. Twenty-five years later, the U.S. was becoming the recipient of many chemicals banned in Europe. I was also interested in reporting on the environmental and economic impact of the U.S. retreat from environmental protection, and on the environmental dimension to the overall shrinking of U.S. global influence and concurrent rise of the European Union. The United States is exposing itself not only to environmental hazards, but to dramatic economic consequences to come as other major economic players, including China, increasingly follow Europe’s lead in establishing environmental criteria for the products in the global economy. What is the single greatest toxin Americans should be concerned about and in what product, or products, is it commonly found? There is no “single greatest toxin.” However, there are many substances in common products—cosmetics, toys, electronics and many others—that scientists have shown are potent carcinogens, mutagens, and neurological toxins. These are included in many consumer products—including electronic devices, cosmetics, automobiles and children’s toys. One example cited in the book is phthalates. One phthalate in particular, DEHP, is used to make toys more pliable for young children. How are phthalates treated in the European Union, and have they been banned, or reduced from use, in products there? In Europe, phthalates, DEHP specifically, are banned for use in toys likely to be used by children three years of age or less. In the United States, there is no such ban, and DEHP, as well as other phthalates, continue to be found by independent monitors in toys sold in the United States. The question of devising alternatives is a global one. Most of the world’s toys, for example, are produced in China where manufacturers have shown that they can produce toys for Europe without phthalates, while continuing to produce toys for the United States with them. Your book speaks to not just the environmental impacts, but also how some products are more dangerous to certain classes, or races, of people. What do you think explains this? The Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute cautions that some substances in cosmetics mimic the female hormone estrogen, and that such additives in hair-care products may be contributing to otherwise inexplicable incidences of breast cancer among African American women under the age of forty. There is also increasing evidence that skin lighteners may be carcinogenic—a particular danger to African Americans, Asians, and others who utilize these substances. Workers in salons have also been found to have higher rates of bladder cancer—which many scientists ascribe to the high rates of chemical substances to which they’re exposed in the normal course of work. In general, some of the large electronics and cosmetics companies which operate in Europe and America are adjusting their formulations to comply with Europe’s far stricter controls over chemical hazards. However, a significant portion of the U.S. market consists of discounted, no-name manufactured goods that are more accessible to lower-income consumers and which frequently contain chemicals that are banned in Europe. What are some favorite alternative/“green” products that are being developed by manufacturers for the EU market, but not for the American market? Every product sold in Europe that once contained substances now banned has its more benign alternative. That includes toys, electrical goods, and cosmetics. The same goods available in Europe are available in the United States, but they are frequently formulated differently. A parent, for example, can be certain that toys being used by their male children do not contain DEHP, whereas a parent in the United States has no such assurance. What can those concerned about these toxins do? They seem to be everywhere! Are there lessons we can take from NGOs, citizen groups, and governments in the EU? They are not “everywhere.” Compare your average American home with that of someone of comparable socio-economic status in Europe: the EU’s laws ensure that the products in the latter contain far fewer toxins than those in the average American home. The difference is that laws on one side of the Atlantic are far more careful as to the hazards contained in those products than they are in the United States. And despite warnings in the U.S. that such laws could have dire economic consequences, Exposed shows that there has been no economic catastrophe for the industries affected by such bans in Europe. How do you respond to manufacturers’ claims that the fact the United States is a litigious society is the only real oversight they need? How do you respond to statements such as: “If there was solid scientific evidence that these products were harmful, the toy industry would be the first to remove them” from Joan Lawrence, the vice president for Standards and Regulatory Affairs of the Toy Industry Association? These are two separate questions. First, it is true that the United States is a far more “litigious” society than Europe. The United States generally has a far more vigorous civil liability system than the Europeans, offering greater access to the courts and with damages that are far higher when it comes to liability from dangerous products. The existence of this system—known as “tort law”—is often used by industry to support its position that stronger regulation of chemical hazards is not necessary because the U.S. legal system offers a check against dangerous products. This presumption offers the prospect of justice after the damage has been done, while the European approach attempts to prevent such abuses before they happen. Exposed also reveals that often the same companies that make this argument—suggesting there is no need to meet the tough approach in Europe with an equally tough approach in the United States—are some of the biggest financial supporters of the “tort reform” campaign in the United States to weaken those legal checks on product liability. Second, the question at the heart of the U.S. and EU approach to chemicals is: How do you define “solid evidence?” Regarding phthalates in toys, the EU looked at the same data as have U.S. regulators, but came to an entirely different conclusion about phthalate’s dangers. Much of that evidence came from U.S. researchers. The big toy companies with operations in the United States and Europe, and which also happen to be members of Joan Lawrence’s trade association, have removed phthalates. Though they fought the ban at first, all companies with sales in Europe have now accommodated to removing phthalates from their toys and found far more benign alternatives. As Exposed reports, there has been negligible economic impact on the European toy industry from this change. Can you boil down into a simple statement the difference in attitude between the EU and the U.S. government regarding these toxins and potential health risks? There are always scientists who will dispute other’s findings. That’s the nature of science—one answer leads to another question. But the Europeans have chosen to act on an array of chemical hazards based on the same evidence that has been reviewed by U.S. regulators, who have chosen not to act. The EU operates according to the precautionary principle: they act when an accumulation of scientific evidence suggests potential harm, and attempt to prevent that harm from happening. U.S. regulators wait for final scientific “proof”—an elusive goal that creates what critics call “paralysis by analysis.” What is the greatest positive change you’ve seen in the United States in the last several years—the one that gives you the greatest hope? The rising environmental consciousness in the United States is putting manufacturers on notice that there is a growing market for environmentally sustainable and less dangerous products. NGOs and environmental health scientists are beginning to look to Europe to discern alternate paths of production, suggesting numerous models in which solutions have been devised that are both environmentally and economically sustainable, and which do not present health hazards that are present in the United States. Of the main categories in your book (cosmetics/personal care, plastics/toys, food, electronics/automobiles), in which area do you feel the greatest strides are being made? Major name electronics manufacturers are, in essence, adopting the rules of the European Union in reformulating their products with less hazardous chemicals. This reflects a historic development, where U.S. firms are for the first time abiding by rules for protection of citizens emanating from a foreign government. Thus, the global market is propelling changes in this arena. This, however, does not include the smaller, so-called “white box” manufacturers which occupy about twenty percent of the U.S. market, and are under no legal obligation to remove the toxins from their products. U.S. natural cosmetics companies are offering products without dangerous chemical ingredients in the United States; their European counterparts are doing so as well. Are there any areas in which the United States is taking the lead over Europe? As has happened time and again in Europe, there is nothing more powerful than a legal ban on substances to focus industry initiatives on the development of less toxic chemical formulations, known loosely as “green chemistry.” In every industry where there has been such a ban in Europe, alternatives are being found. In the United States, the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts estimates that alternatives are available for at least a quarter of “problematic chemicals” now in use in the United States. Research on another forty-five percent is showing “great promise,” awaiting the financial commitment of industry to support such research. When did this geopolitical shift begin to emerge, and did any U.S. administration take note of it? This geopolitical shift began occurring in the latter years of the previous century, and really took hold when the EU expanded from fifteen to twenty-five member countries in 2004; in 2007 the EU expanded again with two new member countries. That created a unified market, larger than that of the United States, which could demand that manufacturers adapt to Europe’s standards in order to gain access. There was a convergence of forces: the coalescing of Europe into a powerful economic and political bloc; the inclusion of environmental health priorities in EU policy making; and the simultaneous retreat from such policies in the United States. The EU now plays a role as global environmental leader that was once occupied by the United States. You mention that China is beginning to take Europe’s lead — what are they doing and why? What other countries are taking the EU’s lead? China has established its own strict rules governing the toxic permitted in electronic devices that are closely modeled on those of the European Union; the country is also beginning to train its industrial leaders in basic European principles of risk assessment to enable them to conform to a new European regulation, known as REACH, which requires that toxicity data on thousands of chemicals now in common use be submitted to European regulators—a requirement that does not exist in the United States. Other countries like Korea are following the European approach to chemical hazards in cosmetics as well as in electronics. Overall, the global market is growing for environmentally sustainable production, and the United States, with little incentive from its government, is falling behind. Could we see a time when products could only be available here in the United States and banned in other parts of the world? That is already the case. As Exposed reveals, certain chemicals now used in U.S. cosmetics, electronics and toys are banned in Europe, Japan, and Canada, and in the case of electronics, in China; furniture made from processed wood is now sold in the United States which contains levels of formaldehyde far in excess of that permitted in either Europe or Japan; certain chemicals and heavy metals used in automobiles in the U.S. are banned in Europe. Because there are no U.S. laws prohibiting the use of such substances, the American market is emerging on par with that of developing countries, while economic powerhouses like China, Korea, and others are following the EU’s lead.

The global power struggle over poisonous products

Carrie Ching — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:33:20 -0700

Vanja Petrovic interviews investigative journalist Mark Schapiro for AlterNet.org about his new book, Exposed,and why companies that manufacture hazard-free products for the European Union often produce toxin-filled versions of the same items for America and developing countries.

Exposed

Carrie Ching — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:30:18 -0700

Buy Exposed on Amazon.com.

New evidence seems to arrive daily—from stories about tainted pet food to toxic toys— of the dangerous consequences that lax environmental policies are having on the consumer products that we, and our children, use daily thanks to lobbying efforts by the U.S. chemical industry. Meanwhile, the European Union is forcing these global corporate giants to chart a new path that, by requiring safe products, is revamping how businesses can create safe products and make money. In Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's at Stake for American Power investigative journalist Mark Schapiro takes the reader inside the corridors of global power where tectonic battles are occurring that will impact the health of ourselves and the planet. Schapiro’s exposé shows how the European Union is demanding that multinationals manufacture safer products, while products developed and sold in the United States are increasingly equated with serious health hazards, and are banned from Europe and other parts of the world. Short of strong government action the United States will lose its claim of economic and environmental supremacy. Schapiro’s revelations in this thought-provoking work will change the way American consumers think about everyday products—from plastic softeners that can contribute to sexual malformations to lipstick additives that are potential toxins to the liver, kidneys, and immune system. And, it will stir them into forcing our government to take the lead of others, including the European Union, China, and countries in Central and South America. Exposed is a revealing and fascinating look at global markets, everyday products, and the toxic chemicals that bind them. It will shock, inform and warn American businesses and government leaders about the risks of being left behind in the international marketplace. Schapiro’s book also shines a light on Europe’s evolving search for higher standards that places Brussels, not Washington, at the center of global market innovation.

Brussels' Clout

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:37:49 -0800

While the Bush Administration unravels decades of hard-fought environmental protections, a new global force is emerging with the power to reshape American industrial practices: the European Union. CIR Editorial Director Mark Schapiro collaborated with the public radio program Marketplace on this three-part series, investigating how the European Union is filling the vacuum left by America’s own weakened EPA and FDA. The E.U. is confronting American manufacturers with a dilemma: either conform to Europe’s stricter health and environmental standards, or give up the European market. Tune in to Marketplace on your public radio station to hear how, when it comes to environmental health, the United States is slipping into the bottom end of a global double standard. These stories are based upon and expand upon Mark Schapiro's cover story for the December 27, 2004 issue of The Nation, "New Power for 'Old' Europe." Part 1: January 13th. The series begins with Marketplace correspondent Stephen Beard's report from London, followed by Mark's commentary. Part 2: January 19th. Today, at a ceremony in Toulouse, France, the European Airbus consortium unveiled the world's biggest passenger jet. The leaders of France, Spain, the UK and Germany were there, the latter noting "Good old Europe has made this possible". A barb for the U.S.? Marketplace's Alisa Roth shows how Europe intends to call the shots for some American companies through a sweeping regulation of the chemical industry. Part 3 will air soon; stay tuned. Boston: 90.9 WBUR at 6:30 p.m. Chicago: 91.5 WBEZ at 6:30 p.m. Los Angeles: 89.9 KCRW at 2:00 p.m. New York: 93.9 WNYC at 6:30 p.m. San Francisco: 88.5 KQED at 4:00 p.m. Washington, D.C.: 88.5 WAMU at 6:00 p.m. Check your local listings for additional air times.