White House Tug of War Over Last Minute Rules

  • Many of the last-minute Bush rules are already in effect (Photo courtesy of the Obama transition team)

The Obama administration would like to stop some new Bush regulations from going into effect. Lester Graham reports some can be stopped, but many more cannot:

Transcript

The Obama administration would like to stop some new Bush regulations from going into effect. Lester Graham reports some can be stopped, but many more cannot:

A memo from Obama’s chief of staff stopped several rules.

But, a lot more of these last-minute Bush rules are already in effect.

Patti Goldman is with the environmental group Earthjustice. She says the Obama team can avoid enforcing the new rules if the new administration thinks they’re not lawful.

“That they are legally doubtful. That’s the language. And that in court the may need to confess error rather than defend the rule.”

But many of the rules passed by the Bush White House are legally solid, and Goldman says there’s not a thing the Obama administration can do about that.

“Because we live in a country that has the rule of law you can’t just undo everything as soon as there’s a change of administration.”

But groups such as Goldman’s can challenge them in court. And they are.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour

  • Passing midnight regulations is nothing new. When presidents of a losing party are packing up, there's not much of a political price to pay for unpopular rules. (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)

It’s the Holiday Season – and
critics say industry lobbyists are getting
many of the gifts they’ve been asking for.
The Bush Administration is pushing through rules and regulations for them. Mark Brush
reports these midnight regulations will be
difficult to overturn:

Transcript

It’s the Holiday Season – and
critics say industry lobbyists are getting
many of the gifts they’ve been asking for.
The Bush Administration is pushing through
rules and regulations for them. Mark Brush
reports these midnight regulations will be
difficult to overturn:

Critics say President George W. Bush is doing a lot of last minute shopping for his
friends in big industries.

“What’s happening in Washington right now is a really quiet sneak attack on a lot of
fundamental protections that Americans enjoy under the law.”

That’s John Walke. He’s a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
He says these last minute Bush rules are not good for the environment – and they’re not
good for people.

“It’s important to realize we’re talking here about midnight de-regulation. These are
actions that are removing safeguards and protections of public health, and public welfare,
and the environment, and giving industry the permission to commit those harmful acts.”

So what kind of harmful acts is he talking about? Here are just some of the more than 60 rules and
regulations the Bush Administration is working on or have finalized.

A rule that makes it easier for coal mining companies to dump their waste into nearby
creeks and streams.

A rule changes that would allow older coal burning power plants to pump out more air
pollution without having to install clean up equipment.

A rule that would allow large dairies or livestock farms to police pollution from their own
operations.

And a rule that would make it more difficult to protect workers from toxic chemicals.

It’s a long list. But the main philosophy of the Bush Administration is that big industries
need a break from government regulations.

The Administration says they’ve been working on these rules for a long time. But
they’ve waited until the last minute to finalize a lot of them.

Passing midnight regulations is nothing new. When presidents of a losing party are
packing up, there’s not much of a political price to pay for unpopular rules. Your party
lost the election. So why not? Jimmy Carter’s administration was famous for it. The
term ‘midnight regulation’ was coined when Carter kicked last-minute rule making into
high gear. And every president since then has had his own last-minute rule changes.

The incoming Obama Administration is promising to go through these rules. Jon Podesta
is with Obama’s transition team. And he talked about that on Fox News Sunday.

“As a candidate, Senator Obama said that he wanted all the Bush executive orders
reviewed, and decide which ones should be kept, which ones should be repealed, and
which ones should be amended.”

Overturning some of these rules won’t be easy. Joaquin Sapien is a reporter for
ProPublica. He’s been following these midnight regulations closely. He says what
makes the end of this administration different is how it planned for the end. Last May,
White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten contacted all the federal agencies.

“What they did was they sent out a memo saying, ‘get your work done on these
regulations by November the first.’ So that would give these agencies plenty of time to
get them in effect before the next administration takes over, thereby limiting what the
next administration could do about some of these rules.”

Once the rules are finalized – they become effective in thirty to sixty days. And once that
happens – Sapien says it’s pretty much a done deal.

“And so, if a rule is in effect by the time the Obama Administration takes over, there’s
really very little he can do.”

For every rule that has gone into effect, it would take a lengthy rule-making process to
overturn it – a process that can take months and more likely years to complete.

There is another option. Congress can review the rules – and stop them before they’re
enforced. But with all the attention on the financial crisis, and with the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, experts think Congress won’t do that. And that these last minute rules will
be government policy for awhile.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Whitman Gives Insights on Cabinet Choices

  • Christie Todd Whitman, who was appointed to head the EPA under George W. Bush, says just because you're leading the EPA, that doesn't mean you get to choose who staffs it. (Photo courtesy of the EPA)

The big environmental agencies of
the government will soon have new leadership.
Rebecca Williams reports those agency leaders
might not have as much control as you’d think:

Transcript

The big environmental agencies of
the government will soon have new leadership.
Rebecca Williams reports those agency leaders
might not have as much control as you’d think:

President-elect Barack Obama is putting together his Cabinet and appointing
agency leaders.

One former Cabinet-level official says it’s great working with the President,
but you don’t always have as much power as you’d like.

Christine Todd Whitman was appointed by George W. Bush to run the
Environmental Protection Agency.

She says just because you’re leading the EPA, that doesn’t mean you get to
choose who staffs it.

“You have recommendation ability. Obviously the Administration always
has those must-hires. People they want to put in, people they feel they owe
positions to, people they think have good backgrounds.”

She says when she was in charge there was tension between the EPA and the
White House.

Critics of the Bush White House say political appointees have interfered
with scientific findings. They’re hoping that changes with the Obama
Administration.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

White House Bars Science

  • Memos from Bush political appointees are telling government scientists there's no way to make a connection between specific greenhouse gas emissions and endangered wildlife, so don't going looking for one. (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Wildlife scientists in government
agencies have been ordered not to analyze
whether greenhouse gases affect endangered
animals. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Wildlife scientists in government
agencies have been ordered not to analyze
whether greenhouse gases affect endangered
animals. Lester Graham reports:

Memos from Bush political appointees are telling government scientists there’s no way
to make a connection between specific greenhouse gas emissions and endangered
wildlife, so don’t going looking for one.

In other words, that ice melting in the arctic causing polar bears so much difficulty?
Don’t try to use science to blame coal-burning power plants in the U.S.

Jeff Ruch is with Public Employees for Envrionemental Responsibility. He says this new
rule is the Bush administration’s way of making sure more coal-fired power plants can
be built.

“The Bush administration is doing everything they can to smooth a way to site an
additional 20 plants in the near term from their point of view, before they leave office.
And that’s an awful lot of greenhouse gases and that’s where the fight is.”

This ruling will likely be overturned in the courts, eventually – but probably not before the
coal-burning plants have been approved.

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Offshore Oil Estimates Don’t Add Up

  • The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants Congress to lift its ban. (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)

President George Bush says Congress
should remove the ban on offshore drilling
because there might be a decade’s worth of
oil off the US coasts. Lester Graham
reports that might be an optimistic estimate:

Transcript

President George Bush says Congress
should remove the ban on offshore drilling
because there might be a decade’s worth of
oil off the US coasts. Lester Graham
reports that might be an optimistic estimate:

The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants
Congress to lift its ban.

At an Ohio factory, President Bush talked about wanting to find more oil in the U.S.

“One place where there is, the experts say is, a bountiful supply of oil, perhaps as much
as 10 years’ worth at current consumption rates, is the Outer Continental Shelf. That
would be offshore America.”

But the President’s numbers don’t add up.

The Energy Information Administration estimates off-shore there’s 18-billion barrels of
crude oil that are currently off-limits. The U.S. consumes more than seven-and-a-half
billion barrels a year. That means 18-billion barrels would only last the U.S. less than
two-and-a-half years – not the ten years the President suggests.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

GOP ENVIROS FOR McCAIN

  • John McCain is giving Republicans for Environmental Protection a candidate to endorse. (Photo by Vincent Duffy)

The conservation movement started with
Republican president Teddy Roosevelt. But these
days it’s the Democrats who have the environmental
vote. That conventional wisdom might not be as
accurate this year. As Vincent Duffy reports,
Republican presidential candidate John McCain is
sounding like an environmentalist:

Transcript

The conservation movement started with Republican president Teddy
Roosevelt. But these days it’s the Democrats who have the environmental
vote. That conventional wisdom might not be as accurate this year. As
Vincent Duffy reports, Republican presidential candidate John McCain is
sounding like an environmentalist:


The last time we had a presidential election, George Bush was the
Republican candidate. That was a problem for Jim DiPeso. He’s the policy
director for a group called Republicans for Environmental Protection. Given
Bush’s track record on the environment, DiPeso and his group could not endorse
him. And with a name like Republicans for Environmental Protection, there was
no way they were going to endorse a Democrat.


This election, DiPeso says his job is easier. His group is endorsing John
McCain:


“He clearly is the one with the best environmental record. He is the one who has done the most serious thinking
about the issue. He has offered serious proposals and we think that with John
McCain as President, our country’s environment would be in very good
hands.”


John McCain: “Now, my dear friends, I believe that climate change is real…”


That’s John McCain on the campaign trail. He was talking to voters in
Michigan where cars are still a big part of the economy. Cars that emit
greenhouse gasses. Cars that are blamed for global warming:


“And I’ll be glad to argue that with you, and discuss it, and debate it more.
But let’s suppose that I am wrong, so we mover forward with these green
technologies and all we’ve done is given our young people a cleaner planet.
But suppose we are right and do nothing, then what kind of a planet are we
going to hand these young people?”


Tailoring his speech a bit for a Michigan audience, McCain said there’s still
a future for the auto industry. But he says that future needs to use the green
technology on display at this year’s auto shows:


“You’ll see that there are hybrid cars. You’ll see that there are battery driven
cars. You’ll see that we can develop ethanol-driven automobiles. It can begin
here in Michigan and it can begin with green technologies.”


And McCain isn’t getting endorsements from environmental groups just
because he mentions global warming and green technologies on the
campaign trail. Allan Lichtman is a history professor at American University
and writes books on American politics. He says McCain’s legislative record
backs up his speeches about the environment:


“John McCain, at least since 2000, has been one of the strongest advocates
of action on global warming and action on the environment. Indeed, a few
years ago he teamed up with Senator Joe Lieberman, then a democrat, for a
bipartisan proposal, a modest proposal, on global warming that didn’t pass,
but certainly put John McCain at the forefront.”


Republicans for Environmental Protection want to point out that while
McCain might share the Democrats’ concern for the environment, his
solutions are Republican solutions. For instance, here’s an example of what
McCain calls green technology:


“And by the way one of them is nuclear power. Uh, I believe we have to go
back to nuclear power and my friends, it’s safe. We’ve sailed navy ships
(interrupted by applause). We have sailed navy ships around the world for
sixty years with nuclear power plants on them and we’ve never had an
accident.”


McCain says nuclear power is better for the environment because it doesn’t
produce the greenhouse gasses believed to cause global warming. Professor
Lichtman says the issue of nuclear power is still a major disagreement
between the parties:


“Uh, Republican environmentalists pretty much strongly come down on the
side of nuclear power which obviously helps cement their alliance with at
least an important industry. While those on the Democratic side and
traditional organizations tend to be much more leery of nuclear power and
favor putting emphasis on things like solar energy, geothermal energy,
biomass energy and wind energy.”


Nuclear power is not the only issue where McCain and many environmental
activists disagree. McCain says he would repeal President Clinton’s ban on
building roads in national forest preserves. He also opposes a carbon tax on
polluters. But for Jim DiPeso and his colleagues at Republicans For
Environmental Protection, McCain does solve a problem. It gives them
someone they can endorse.


For the Environment Report, I’m Vincent Duffy.

Related Links

Power Plant Tests Carbon Capture

  • A pipe has been connected to the flue gas duct at We Energies' coal-burning power plant near Milwaukee. The pipe will suck out a small amount of gas and treat it with chilled ammonia, allowing CO2 to be separated and captured. (Photo by Erin Toner)

Coal-burning power plants have done a lot to reduce
pollution that leaves their smokestacks. But the power
industry is not controlling the main greenhouse gas –
carbon dioxide. That could change in the next decade.
One utility is about to begin the first test ever of technology
to reduce CO2 emissions at power plants. Erin Toner
reports:

Transcript

Coal-burning power plants have done a lot to reduce
pollution that leaves their smokestacks. But the power
industry is not controlling the main greenhouse gas –
carbon dioxide. That could change in the next decade.
One utility is about to begin the first test ever of technology
to reduce CO2 emissions at power plants. Erin Toner
reports:


When you think about air pollution, you might think of
power plants with giant brick chimneys pumping dark
smoke into the sky. here’s not as much of that stuff being released
into the air as 30 years ago. That’s because power plants have added equipment to control certain types of pollution:


“Okay, just to give you an idea of what we’re looking at,
this big silver building is where all the particulate is
removed, we’re going from that toward the stacks, so
we’re looking at the discharge emissions control
devices…”


Ed Morris oversees environmental projects at We Energies’
coal-burning power plant in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin. In
the past few years, it’s installed equipment that’s cut sulfur
and nitrogen emissions by up to 95 percent. Now it’s going
after carbon dioxide, or CO2, the most prevalent manmade
greenhouse gas that no utility has yet controlled.


By the end of the year, the We Energies plant will begin the
first test in the country of a new technology called “carbon
capture:”


“We are designing the technology to achieve up to 90
percent CO2 removal.”


Sean Black is with Alstom, the company that designed the
process. It will inject chilled ammonia into a tiny stream of
boiler gas. This will theoretically allow the CO2 to be
separated and captured. The test will see how much can be
removed before the gas is sent up the chimney.


Black says after the test in Wisconsin, it’ll go on to a full-
scale demonstration at an American Electric Power coal-
burning plant in West Virginia:


“And that will provide the marketplace with the
credibility that this technology is ready for commercial
deployment.”


The coal-burning power industry is trying to get carbon
capture ready because it believes the government will soon
start regulating CO2 emissions.


Kris McKinney manages environmental policy for We
Energies, and its pilot CO2 program:


“Technology doesn’t exist today to capture, let alone
store, the CO2 emissions, reductions that would be
required in the event that federal legislation is passed.”


Power companies have been criticized for moving too
slowly on cutting CO2 pollution. Some environmentalists
say utilities could have been doing more earlier, but won’t
spend the money on new technology if they’re not required
to by the government.


We Energies’ Kris McKinney says they’re wrong about the
status of the technology, but right about the money. He
says that’s because the cost of adding the CO2 reduction
equipment has to be passed on to customers:


“Whatever happens has to happen over a longer period
of time…it needs to be thought out in a way that doesn’t
cause dramatic cost impacts, unanticipated cost
impacts.”


McKinney says rushing to add new pollution controls
would be a huge risk. And in the case of carbon capture,
he could be right.


The government’s
has raised concerns about the chilled ammonia process. A
report that has not been made public says 90 percent CO2
reduction has not happened in early testing, and might not
be possible.


It also says carbon capture could dramatically increase the
energy needed to run a power plant.


George Peridas is a science fellow with the
Natural
Resources Defense Council
, an environmental
organization:


“The publicity that this is receiving is disproportionate
to the actual results that they have achieved. And there
are fundamental scientific reasons to question whether
this can be done.”


Alstom, the company developing chilled ammonia carbon
capture, says it won’t comment on the government’s report
because it hasn’t been made public. Company officials do say they’re confident the technology will work. They’re predicting the full-scale process will be
ready to retrofit existing plants or to build into new ones in
five years.


If so, it’ll be one option for a power industry that’s under
increasing pressure – and likely government mandates – to
clean up its dirty legacy.


For the Environment Report, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links

Inner City Church to Turn Water Into Heat?

Underground mines that were abandoned long ago are coming back to haunt the people and places above them. The voids and toxic metals left behind are posing new kinds of environmental challenges. But one church that was almost destroyed by a mine is now trying to turn it into a new kind of green resource. Katherine Fink reports:

Transcript

Underground mines that were abandoned long ago are coming back to haunt the people and places above them. The voids and toxic metals left behind are posing new kinds of environmental challenges. But one church that was almost destroyed by a mine is now trying to turn it into a new kind of green resource. Katherine Fink reports:


John Wesley A.M.E. Zion Church is on a street where cars don’t stop. Crime rates are high here. A faded sign with graffiti on it indicates where a convenience store used to be. Most of the church’s stained glass windows are either missing or covered with plywood. Pastor Calvin Cash says he remembers when things were different.


“This was once a thriving community. Stores, residential homes, businesses, the whole bit.”


Cash was first assigned to the church in 1996. It had been closed for a couple years. He found 18 inches of orange water in the basement. Moss was growing on the walls. Cash says church leaders had known about the water problem, but thought they had it under control.


“For years, they had sump pumps down in the basement. And when the water reaches a certain level, the sump pumps would come on, and carry it away.”


Meanwhile, state environmental workers were investigating another mysterious pool of water down the street. They suspected an old underground mine had filled with water and was starting to burst. One of those workers, Charles Johnson, noticed the church nearby.


“I left a card inside of the mailbox with my number on it and said if you are having any water problems in your basement, give me a call… so within two days, reverend Cash gave me a call and said, ‘you got to see this.'”


Mine-related issues are not new for the Pittsburgh area, which has one of the largest coal seams in the country. But water problems like these are becoming increasingly common as more and more mine voids fill to capacity. Johnson says in the church’s case, the need for a fix was urgent.


“The pressure on the building from the water; it was just a matter of time before the pressure would just collapse the whole building.”


Workers redirected the water into local storm sewers, relieving the pressure on the church.


Since then, Johnson says they’ve learned that mine water can actually be useful. Its constant 57-degree temperature makes it an attractive candidate for geothermal heating, which uses the earth’s natural warmth.


George Watzlaf with the National Energy Technology Laboratory has studied the idea.


“We could probably reduce their heating and cooling costs 60, 70, maybe 80 percent; the annual cost.”


Geothermal heat is becoming increasingly common as a lower-cost alternative to natural gas. Pipes filled with an antifreeze solution carry heat from deep in the earth up into buildings. Instead of using antifreeze, Watzlaf says he wants to build a system that draws in mine water:


“We’re trying to put together a small project where we price everything out to say, okay, all we need is $10,000 to go out and put in a small system somewhere, heat a shed or something like that. Just to, no pun intended, get our feet wet and just learn some things about some of the potential problems and how we can overcome those problems.”


Reverend Cash wants his church to be that demonstration project. Since learning about geothermal heat and its potential cost savings, Cash is convinced it could save his blighted neighborhood. He’s become a convert to all things green.


“We are responsible for this world, and God expects us to take care of it.”


On this night, Cash is holding a workshop at the church to help residents learn how to make their homes more energy efficient. Only one person came. Trays full of untouched sandwiches, fried chicken and cookies are being wrapped up for another day, but reverend Cash says he’s not discouraged. Sometimes, he says it takes something big to get people’s attention:


“One of the best proofs of it, when they were taking that water out of there, we had all that heavy equipment active out there, and if 10 cars went by, nine of then slowed down or stopped to see what was going on. And I think when we start building back this community, that curiosity will grow, and benefit us. So we’ll hold on and see.”


Cash is hoping to convince the state to have faith in geothermal heat. His church is applying for a grant this year.


For the Environment Report, I’m Katherine Fink.

Related Links

The HIDDEN COSTS OF &Quot;JUNK" MAIL

  • Mixed paper (including "junk" mail) gets trucked to recycling facilities like this one for recycling. First, it's unloaded in big piles, then pulled up a conveyor belt for sorting. (Photo courtesy of the City of Ann Arbor)

If it seems like your mailbox is stuffed with more shiny credit card offers and catalogs than ever before, you’re right. The U.S. Postal Service says the volume of advertising mail outpaced first class mail for the first time last year. The GLRC’s Rebecca Williams reports… city waste managers and environmental groups are concerned that all that mail is going to add up to a lot more waste:

Transcript

If it seems like your mailbox is stuffed with more shiny credit card offers
and catalogs than ever before, you’re right. The U.S. Postal Service says
the volume of advertising mail outpaced first class mail for the first time
last year. The GLRC’s Rebecca Williams reports… city waste managers and
environmental groups are concerned that all that mail is going to add up to
a lot more waste:


(Sound of squeaky mailbox opening)


Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like no one sends me letters anymore.
Which means my mailbox is all coupons and catalogs and pizza ads. That’s
not all bad, but honestly, most of it goes right to the shredder.


(Sound of shredder)


According to the Environmental Protection Agency, that’s a pretty common
reaction. The EPA points to one study showing that 44 percent of advertising mail
is thrown away without being opened or read.


And there’s a lot coming in. Last year, marketers and non-profit groups sent
about 101 billion pieces of mail. That’s billion with a “B.”


You might call this junk mail, but people in the business have a more
affectionate name for it: direct mail.


Pat Kachura is with the Direct Marketing Association. She says direct mail
yields a very high return on investment.


“Marketers yield about a 7 dollar return on investment for every dollar
spent on catalog marketing, and about 15, almost 16 dollars return for every
dollar spent on non-catalog direct mail marketing.”


The Association’s annual report says those hefty returns are based on an
average of just 2.7 percent of people responding to the ads they get in the
mail. Last year, that meant more than 600 billion dollars in sales.


So, it’s profitable for marketers to fill up your mailbox.


But critics say there are hidden costs that marketers aren’t paying. Some
of those costs also arrive in your mailbox in the form of a bill from your
city for solid waste disposal or recycling.


(Sound of paper pouring into bunker from conveyor belt)


If your city accepts mixed paper for recycling, your junk mail comes to a
facility like this one where it’s sorted and packaged into giant bales
weighing one ton each.


Bryan Weinert is the solid waste coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor,
Michigan.


“We end up getting about $70 a ton back in the value of the junk mail that’s
recycled. But remember it’s costing the city roughly $125 a ton or so to
pick it up.”


Weinert says his city is lucky because it has double the nation’s average
recycling rate. He says communities that don’t have a recycling program
bear even higher costs to dispose of mixed paper.


In this case, the bales of paper get made into Kellogg’s cereal boxes.


Tom Watson is with the National Waste Prevention Coalition. He says it’s
good when there’s a local market for recycled junk mail, but much of it
actually gets sent overseas.


“The unwanted mail, the mixed paper, generally has a very low value, that is often
shipped to China and it comes back to us in the kind of mottled packaging found on
the products that we buy from China. So, it comes full circle but it’s not
very efficient, all the costs of the transportation and recycling.”


Watson says it’d be much more efficient to cut back on all that mail in the
first place.


The Direct Marketing Association does offer an opt-out service. The group
says their members aren’t allowed to send any new mailings to people who
sign up. The fastest way to sign up is online, but you have to pay a $5
charge.


Tom Watson with the National Waste Prevention Coalition says that charge
might put people off. He says he’d like to see a national Do Not Mail list.
One that isn’t controlled by the industry.


“It’s very common in other countries, you can’t send mail to someone unless
they say in advance, yes I want to receive that mail from you.”


You might expect that the folks at the Direct Marketing Association aren’t
fans of the Do Not Mail list idea, but they’re not the only ones.


“What is our position on that? (laughs) I wouldn’t like that to occur.”


George Hurst is the brand manager of direct mail for the Postal Service.
It’s his job to get direct mailers to send more mail. That’s because it’s
the second largest source of revenue for the Postal Service, in the tens of
billions of dollars.


Hurst says new laws aren’t needed. Instead, he says marketers just need to
know their audiences.


“The ones that don’t do it too well, and just blanket the earth with a message,
God bless ’em, we love the postage. But you gotta know that if you’re
talking to someone who is say, 100 miles away, about coming to your
dry cleaners, you’re probably missing the mark.”


But critics say consumers deserve to have more say over the mail they bring
into their homes. They say marketers make so much money from the mail they
send… that for that small chance you might be interested in a coupon book or
sale notice, you shouldn’t have to pay the cost to throw it away or recycle
it.


For the GLRC, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Coalition Urges Fda to Regulate Nanotech

A coalition of environmental groups is urging the Food and Drug Administration to regulate nano-technology. The coalition wants to start with a recall of sunscreens that use nano-materials. The GLRC’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A coalition of environmental groups is urging the Food and Drug
Administration to regulate nanotechnology. The coalition wants to start
with a recall of sunscreens that use nanomaterials. The GLRC’s Lester
Graham reports:


Nanotechnology uses materials as small as a protein molecule… about
one 80-thousandth of the width of a hair. The consumer advocates and
environmental groups say the use of nanomaterials has not been tested
for safety for human use or their impact on the environment.


George Kimbrell is the one of the groups, the Center for Technology
Assessment…


“We’re asking the agency to look into those effects as well, that is
environmental impacts as well as human health impacts of these products.”


Nanotechnology is being used in a variety of lotions and cosmetics and is
promoted as revolutionary technology. That’s because the particles can
get into the skin at the cellular level much more easily.


The environmental groups want the FDA to more strictly regulate
products containing nanomaterials until they are tested for safety.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links