Monday, April 7, 2014

Did you know there is a FDA loophole that allows companies to decide for themselves whether or not chemicals in food are “generally recognized as safe” without disclosing chemical name, uses and safety to the agency?

This needs to stop! Tell the FDA: to prohibit conflicts of interest and to require manufacturers to inform the agency about its GRAS safety decisions.

Friday, April 4, 2014
Thanks to loopholes in clean water policies that only benefit big polluters, harmful chemicals could make their way into water bodies that help supply our drinking water and that we swim in and fish from. Don’t let big polluters threaten your water: http://bit.ly/1dYJxGv#ProtectCleanWater

Thanks to loopholes in clean water policies that only benefit big polluters, harmful chemicals could make their way into water bodies that help supply our drinking water and that we swim in and fish from. 

Don’t let big polluters threaten your water: http://bit.ly/1dYJxGv
#ProtectCleanWater

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Toxic flame retardant chemicals are saturated in the foam inside our furniture. These chemicals are linked to serious health effects and are worthless in preventing furniture fires. We need better regulation of these chemicals to address this problem. If you agree, take action.

Sunday, December 30, 2012
How Does the FDA Know What Is Safe to Eat or Buy If It Doesn’t Define Safe?More than 90 percent of Americans carry residues of the chemical BPA in our bodies, according to the Centers for Disease Control. We encounter the chemical through every day products such as plastic water bottles, canned food, and ATM receipts, and this steady exposure poses significant risks. Independent scientific studies show that BPA interferes with estrogen and alters the development of the brain, prostate, and breast tissue. The evidence is so strong that 11 states have begun to regulate BPA.
The Food and Drug Administration, however, has delayed taking action on BPA for more than five years—effectively leaving consumers to believe it is safe. Yet when public health organizations ask the agency to explain why it hasn’t protected Americans from this harmful chemical, the FDA stonewalls. NRDC recently had to sue the FDA just to make it comply with our Freedom of Information Act request for material on the agency’s BPA review.
It shouldn’t take a lawsuit for the public to find out what government officials think about health risks posed by consumer products. But as detailed in an exposé by Barry Estabrook in the latest edition of NRDC’s OnEarth Magazine, the agency repeatedly fails to protect Americans from known hazards. Not only does it discount the weight of scientific evidence on issues ranging from antibiotic use to raise livestock to mercury contamination in seafood. But it also has refuses to share how it determines something is free of harm. Read more.
Photo: Lisa Beebe

How Does the FDA Know What Is Safe to Eat or Buy If It Doesn’t Define Safe?
More than 90 percent of Americans carry residues of the chemical BPA in our bodies, according to the Centers for Disease Control. We encounter the chemical through every day products such as plastic water bottles, canned food, and ATM receipts, and this steady exposure poses significant risks. Independent scientific studies show that BPA interferes with estrogen and alters the development of the brain, prostate, and breast tissue. The evidence is so strong that 11 states have begun to regulate BPA.

The Food and Drug Administration, however, has delayed taking action on BPA for more than five years—effectively leaving consumers to believe it is safe. Yet when public health organizations ask the agency to explain why it hasn’t protected Americans from this harmful chemical, the FDA stonewalls. NRDC recently had to sue the FDA just to make it comply with our Freedom of Information Act request for material on the agency’s BPA review.

It shouldn’t take a lawsuit for the public to find out what government officials think about health risks posed by consumer products. But as detailed in an exposé by Barry Estabrook in the latest edition of NRDC’s OnEarth Magazine, the agency repeatedly fails to protect Americans from known hazards. Not only does it discount the weight of scientific evidence on issues ranging from antibiotic use to raise livestock to mercury contamination in seafood. But it also has refuses to share how it determines something is free of harm. Read more.

Photo: Lisa Beebe

Thursday, November 29, 2012
Ever wondered what chemicals might lurk in your couch?  Sarah Janssen, NRDC senior scientist, explores flame retardant chemicals used in upholstered furniture and how they could be affecting your health in My Toxic Couch.

Ever wondered what chemicals might lurk in your couch?
Sarah Janssen, NRDC senior scientist, explores flame retardant chemicals used in upholstered furniture and how they could be affecting your health in My Toxic Couch.