TOXICS INFORMATION PROJECT (TIP)
Liberty
Goodwin, Director
P.O. Box 40572,
Providence, RI 02940
Tel.
401-351-9193, E-Mail: TIP@toxicsinfo.org
Website: www.toxicsinfo.org
(Lighting the Way to Less Toxic Living)
4-2-09 TESTIMONY ON H5038,
CHILDREN’S PRODUCT SAFETY ACT
(TO PROTECT KIDS FROM TOXIC
CHEMICALS IN TOYS & CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS)
WHY ACT NOW ON THIS BILL?
Ask yourself these
questions: Do I want to wait and see if
my child or grandchild proves this concern to be very real? If a significant number of respected
scientists think that neurological and/or reproductive harm can be done to
children by these chemicals, is it justifiable to continue to allow this
exposure? Are our kids appropriate
guinea pigs - test subjects?
WHY NOT
ACCEPT CHEMICAL & TOY INDUSTRY SAFETY CLAIMS?
Ask yourself who is the
more plausible source of information - those who make millions of dollars
selling products as now formulated - or those with no benefit from keeping
business as usual?
**In 2005 Dr. Frederick
Vom Saal, professor of biology at the University of Missouri found that 100% of
studies funded or carried out by industry purported to find no harm from BPA -
but 100% of independent research found cause for serious concern - and some
pointed to serious flaws in industry findings.
(See summary at end of
testimony re: critics’ concerns about flaws in EPA research)
WHAT ARE
THE FACTS?
**Phthalates and
Bisphenol-A are chemicals known to be present in many toys and products made
for use by children.
**Studies have shown that
these chemicals leach out of products during use, and especially when
heated. Young children are exposed by
inhalation of fumes - and by mouthing and chewing toys and drinking from baby
bottles and sippy cups.
**Studies have also
indicated that these chemicals are endocrine disrupters that are associated,
even at extremely low doses, with a variety of reproductive and other health
effects in animals. These include
obesity, diabetes, thyroid disease, breast cancer, prostate cancer and other
illnesses.
**Concerns about possible
effects of BPA in humans, due to its being an estrogen mimicker, include early
puberty and possible later breast cancer in girls and other reproductive
abnormalities in boys, including possible low testosterone levels. Phthalates have been connected with liver
and hormonal damage.
**A study at the
University of Missouri-Columbia showed that mice fed bisphenol A during early
development - at lower amounts than what would have resulted in the levels
found in most people in the CDC study - become markedly more obese as adults
than those that weren't fed the chemical.
Tufts University scientists observed similar phenomenon in rats.
SHOULDN’T
THIS BE ACTED UPON AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL?
**Absolutely! However, do you really expect that to happen
any time soon? According to a recent
report, right now the Consumer Product Safety Commission has 15 employees, down
from several hundred years ago. They
have great responsibilities - which do not include testing and regulation of
toys before they are sold in the U.S.
Even if action is taken this year - a big IF - no protection can be
hoped for at the federal level for a long time to come.
(Also See Comments At
End Of Testimony Re: Serious Questions About Federal Research Integrity)
**The European Union, and
other countries, in addition to the state of California, have already found
this concern important enough to restrict the use of the phthalates in
question. (A bill was also passed this month by both houses of the Washington
legislature, and awaits the Governor’s signature there. No significant economic
hardship has resulted from this regulation.
Shouldn’t our level of protection for the young and vulnerable in Rhode
Island be equal to that elsewhere?
CONCLUSION
It makes no sense to
continue to expose children to chemicals that raise such serious questions when
alternatives are readily available and in use around the world. Do you want your children or grandkids to be
the test subjects for suspect hormone imitators and carcinogens while waiting
for 100 per cent certainty about their safety?
Could you look them in the eye if they developed any of the health
effects about which we have been warned?
ONE SPECIFIC
SUGGESTION ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION
H5038: This is an extremely common sense bill,
vital for the protection of RI children.
Parents concerned about toxic toys deserve no less. It does, however need to be amended to
indicate which agency will be responsible for enforcement when violations are
reported. The bill’s fiscal effect
should be negligible - especially since in the case of such action, fines would
be assessed.
(SEE NEXT PAGE)
SCIENTISTS CRITICIZE EPA CHEMICAL
SCREENING PROGRAM
Experts Worry Agency's Program Will Miss
Harmful Effects On Hormones;
Agency Counters Program Developed In An
Open Manner
by Sue Goetinck Ambrose,
Dallas Morning News, May 27, 2007
Scientists
say the Bush administration is developing a chemical testing program that
favors the chemical industry when it comes to judging whether certain
substances in the environment might cause cancer, infertility, or harm to
babies in the womb. What's billed as one of the most comprehensive screening
programs ever to check whether chemicals can disrupt human hormones, scientists
say, may instead prove to be a misleading $76 million waste. Federal officials
defend the program, which aims to identify so-called "endocrine
disruptors." They say that no tests can cover everything, and that the
process of setting up the program has been open and transparent.
Article
Summary: Scientists began to suspect that manmade chemicals could
interfere with hormones in the 1960s. Since then, scientists have documented
wildlife abnormalities in areas contaminated with industrial chemicals. Lab
studies have also established that hormone-disrupting chemicals can cause
abnormalities in mammals, namely rats and mice. And some studies have made
correlations -- but not cause-and-effect links -- between hormone-disrupting
chemicals and human deformities. Based on these multiple lines of evidence, researchers
suspect long-term effects on people -- such as lower sperm counts, abnormal
genitals, infertility and cancer. As
part of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, Congress ordered the EPA to
come up with an animal-screening program to see if pesticide chemicals had the
potential to interfere with hormone systems in people. Substances such as those
used in industrial processes or found in consumer products could also be tested
at the EPA's request. The 1996 act said
the EPA had to implement the program within three years, but testing still has
not begun. When the National Resources
Defense Council sued the EPA for missing the deadline, the EPA said it
interpreted "implement" to include validating the lab assays for the
program, a process that is still ongoing. The EPA now anticipates that the
first round of tests, on an initial battery of 50 to 100 chemicals, will begin
early next year. Charges of poorly
designed tests, inappropriate breeds of lab animals, the wrong test chow,
failure to guarantee tests on prenatal exposure to chemicals, wrong dosage
ranges, and chemical company involvement in test design have been made.
***********************************************************************************************************************
EXAMPLES: The critics agree that much is known about
the tests – and, they say, the publicly available information is precisely what
causes their concern. They say the Environmental Protection Agency has:
• Allowed
lab tests, using rodents, that are so badly designed, they're almost certain to
miss harmful chemicals. For instance,
the EPA favors using a breed of rat that is relatively insensitive to several
known hormone-disrupting chemicals. And
the EPA plans to allow those rats to be fed chow that could mask the effect of
some chemicals.
• Failed to
guarantee that tests will be conducted on prenatal exposure to chemicals. Last week, a group of 200 scientists signed
a declaration warning that exposure to chemicals in the womb may make babies
more likely to develop diabetes, obesity, attention deficit disorder and
infertility. The group urged action
from governments around the world.
• Demanded
the wrong dosage range, also raising the odds that harmful effects will be
missed.
• Said it
might allow chemical companies to tailor certain aspects of the tests.
***********************************************************************************************************************
"If your objective is not to find anything,
that's the perfect way to do it," said Fred vom Saal, a developmental
biologist at the University of Missouri.
EPA officials say the agency has thoroughly and openly considered the
test animal, test dose and animal chow issues.
As for allowing the chemical industry to make decisions on how to test
chemicals, the EPA said it is not worried about foul play.
********************************************************************************************