Keeping Your Lawn From Bugging You

  • There's a movement to stop using pesticides and sprays on your lawn. (Photo courtesy of Horia Varlan CC-BY)

A lot of us have a love-hate relationship with our lawns. We love them when they’re lush. We hate them when they’re full of dandelions and dead patches. It’s easy to have someone come out and spray pesticides to take care of weeds and bugs. But some people say it’s not necessary and could do more harm than good. Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

A lot of us have a love-hate relationship with our lawns. We love them when they’re lush. We hate them when they’re full of dandelions and
dead patches. It’s easy to have someone come out and spray pesticides to take care of weeds and bugs. But some people say it’s not necessary and could
do more harm than good. Rebecca Williams reports:

So, you might be using pesticides on your lawn right now. And of
course, the pesticide industry says that’s okay.

The industry says the chemicals are safe to use on the lawn if you use
them correctly.

Alan James is president of Responsible Industry for a Sound
Environment, or RISE. It’s a trade group for pesticide companies.

“If individuals or professional applicators read the labels and follow
labels, the likelihood of misuse of pesticides is virtually zero because the
labels provide all the information a consumer or professional needs to
apply products both efficiently and safely.”

But the problem is, not everybody reads the label.

Alan James says if you’re hiring someone to spray your lawn you should
make sure they’re certified and insured. You should also take your kids’
and pet’s toys off the lawn before they spray.

But a lot of people say there’s no point in using chemicals just to make
your lawn look good.

Jay Feldman is with the group Beyond Pesticides. He says of the 30
most common lawn pesticides, most of them are suspected by the
Environmental Protection Agency to cause cancer, birth defects or other health problems.

“There’s a range of adverse effects that are indicated as a part of the
pesticide registration program at EPA. EPA knows this information.
Why not remove pesticides from the equation, especially in light of the
fact that they’re not really necessary?”

There’s a movement to stop using pesticides in North America. Both
Ontario and Quebec have banned the sale and cosmetic use of
pesticides.

So if you’re not going to use pesticides, what do you do?

That’s a question Kevin Frank gets a lot. He’s an extension agent at
Michigan State University and an expert on lawns.

“I love to mow my lawn on the weekends because nobody can call me on
the phone or email me with questions.”

He’s been showing me green, healthy test plots of grass and some that
look sad and neglected. The scientists here have been working to find
ways to have good-looking lawns without a lot of chemicals.

Back in his office, Kevin Frank says he tells people they shouldn’t be
afraid to experiment.

“Do you have it in you to let it go for one season and see what happens?
And it could be ugly, so you’ve got to be prepared for that!”

He says a healthy, dense lawn is actually really good at fighting off
weeds and pests all on its own. So, how do you get a healthy, dense lawn
without a lot of chemicals? Frank says it might take a couple years to get
there. And it means going against conventional lawn advice.

“We’ve done a great deal of research here at Michigan State that runs
contrary to what I call ‘turf dogma’. You know: water deeply and
infrequently – and we’ve shown if you do it on a more frequent basis you
end up with a healthier plan overall.”

He recommends watering lightly – just 10 minutes – every day instead
of soaking the lawn once a week. Frank says it’s also good to fertilize
twice a year, use a mulch mower, and mow high instead of giving the
grass a buzz cut.

He says that could make your lawn so healthy, it might mean you won’t
need to spray or hire someone to spray your lawn.

He says the biggest adjustment in reducing pesticide use is managing
your expectations, and deciding how many weeds and bugs you can live
with.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Congress Considering Chemical Law

  • There are 80,000 chemicals on the market. But the Environmental Protection Agency has only tested 200 of them for safety to humans - and banned only 5. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Congress might make our federal
chemical laws tougher. Rebecca
Williams has more:

Transcript

Congress might make our federal
chemical laws tougher. Rebecca
Williams has more:

There are 80,000 chemicals on the market. But the Environmental Protection Agency has only tested 200 of them for safety to humans – and banned only 5 of the toxic chemicals.

Senator Frank Lautenberg is a Democrat from New Jersey. During a recent hearing, he said the EPA is doing what it can. But its power is limited by the nation’s outdated chemical laws.

“They cannot protect our children with one hand tied behind their back. That’s why I’ll soon introduce a bill that will overhaul our nation’s chemical laws.”

The bill will likely require companies to prove a chemical is safe before manufacturing it or using it. Right now, it’s up to the government to prove a chemical is harming people or the environment before it’s banned.

Some Conservatives in Congress are opposed to this idea. They say this kind of bill would kill industry innovation.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Part 2: Food Ads and Kids

  • Researchers say food advertisers convince kids they need different food than adults. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

Lots of people are concerned
that American children are
getting fat. More than one-
third are considered overweight
or obese. And some are pointing
the finger at those who manufacture
and advertise food for kids. In
the second part of our two-part
series on food and health, Julie
Grant reports on efforts to crack
down on food marketing targeted
at children:

Transcript

Lots of people are concerned
that American children are
getting fat. More than one-
third are considered overweight
or obese. And some are pointing
the finger at those who manufacture
and advertise food for kids. In
the second part of our two-part
series on food and health, Julie
Grant reports on efforts to crack
down on food marketing targeted
at children:

Have you ever tried going to the supermarket with a five year old? They’re cuckoo for cocoa puffs, and everything else on the shelves that’s colorful with big cartoon characters – strategically placed right at kids-eye level. So, They beg. They plead. Some even just grab what they want.

It’s called parent pestering.

Marion Nestle is Professor of Public Health Nutrition at New York University and author of several books on food politics. She says food advertisers convince kids they need different food than adults. And they want kids to pester their parents.

“I hear parents tell me all the time that the kids won’t even taste things because they say they’re not supposed to be eating that. They’re supposed to be eating chicken fingers, or things that come in packages with cartoons on them.”


Nestle says marketers are just trying to sell products – they’re not worried about obesity and other health problems caused by the processed food targeted to children. She’d like to see some big changes.

“If I were food czar, I would just say, ‘you can’t advertise to children, period.’ They’re not capable of making intelligent, adult decisions about what they’re eating.”

The Federal Trade Commission agrees the ads are a contributing factor to growing problem of childhood obesity. The FTC, the Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies will recommend changes to food marketing rules to Congress later this year.


Most people in the food and advertising industries say cutting off all marketing to kids would go way too far.

Elaine Kolish is Director of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. It’s part of the Better Business Bureau. She’s been working with 16 of the major U.S. food manufacturers to change what is advertised to children.

Over the past few years, she says food manufacturers have spent millions of dollars to reformulate kids products – like cereals – to make them healthier.

“Before the initiative, cereals that were advertised to children might have had as much as 16 grams of sugar per serving. Now the maximum that anyone could have is 12 grams of sugar per serving. In fact, more of the cereals have less. So that’s a big improvement right there.”

And Kolish says advertising can actually help to get kids to eat healthier. For example, the McDonalds happy meal. Instead of offering kids French fries and a soft drink, the default happy meal now includes skim milk and apples – although it includes a side of caramel dipping sauce.

“I think now because of Burger King and McDonalds, alone, there’s probably more fruit advertising than ever before…and the sales and the trend data is really good. McDonalds has sold over 100-million orders of apple dippers in the last two years. That’s a lot of apples.”

But recent surveys at the University of Arizona and at Yale show that TV and online marketing toward children is still for foods that are not healthy for children. It’s mostly for things that are high in sugar, fat and salt.

Mary Engle is Associate Director for Advertising at the FTC. She says, for the most part, food companies have been taking foods that are bad for kids and only managing to make them less unhealthy.

“Whereas the proposal that the government group came up with is to only allow the marketing of truly healthful foods to children – foods that actually make a positive contribution to a healthy diet. So it’s much more limited which kinds of foods could be marketed to kids.”

Some food makers call the government proposal extreme. But government officials say they wouldn’t ban all ads – just those that encourage kids to eat bad food.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Part 1: Regulating Sweet Foods

  • Researchers say science is starting to show that people can become addicted to sugar, fat and salt. (Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)

More people are becoming concerned
about the growing problems of obesity
and diabetes. Some even compare
foods that contribute to these health
problems to nicotine and tobacco. In
the first part of our series on food and
health, Julie Grant reports on efforts
to regulate foods that are bad for you
in the same way as cigarettes:

Transcript

More people are becoming concerned
about the growing problems of obesity
and diabetes. Some even compare
foods that contribute to these health
problems to nicotine and tobacco. In
the first part of our series on food and
health, Julie Grant reports on efforts
to regulate foods that are bad for you
in the same way as cigarettes:

Yale University professor Kelly Brownell has been watching for a long time as Americans gain weight. He says obesity and diabetes are creating debilitating health problems. And the food industry is largely to blame.

Brownell says science is starting to show that people can become addicted to sugar, fat and salt: the same stuff that’s in most processed foods.

“Certain parts of the brain get activated by food constituents, particularly sugar, that look like the same activation that occurs with heavily addictive substances like nicotine, alcohol or morphine.”


Brownell says the science is not definitive at this point. And he doesn’t expect it will ever show that donuts are as addictive as cigarettes. But he expects something similar. And so, he’s advocating that society treat these treats the same way as cigarettes: tax them. And put the money toward prevention programs.

Brownell is specifically pushing for a tax on sugary drinks. He says this approach worked for smokes, so why not soda pop.

“Oh, there’s no question about it. The rate of people smoking in the United States is about half of what it was in the 1950s and 60s. And that’s attributable to a number of things. But economists have figured that the taxes were the single most effective contributor to that.”

Brownell says California has held hearings on the idea, the New York state legislature is considering a tax on sugary drinks, and New Hampshire has just introduced legislation. And he says that’s just the tip of the iceberg. More sugar taxes are on the way.

We tried to reach the food industry’s major trade group: the grocery manufacturers association to comment for this story – but they didn’t respond. We also didn’t hear back from General Mills – a company that recently announced plans to lower the sugar content in its cereals.

We did speak with John Feldman. He’s an attorney who represents some of the major food manufacturers. He says they make foods that have salt, fat and sugar because people like them.

“There are products that people want to buy because they taste good or they are fun or they are attractive, of course. If they didn’t sell, people wouldn’t make ‘em.”

Feldman says any laws limiting or taxing certain foods must be based on scientific evidence: facts that show the foods are causing health problems. He says science hasn’t proven that with sugar, salt and fat.

Consumers at one Ohio supermarket also want sugary drink tax idea to fizzle out. College student Alicia Cobb is looking at the sweetened teas. She says beverages are only one of the reasons Americans are overweight.

“Well, so is McDonalds and Burger King and not working out and being a lazy bum.”

“How they think people supposed to live, taxing everything?”

Marie Holloway has a 12-pack of ginger ale in her cart. She says she’s not supposed to have sugar – because her doctor is concerned she’s developing diabetes.

“I only get a small income. By the time my doctor takes all of my money for copayments and doctor bills and stuff then I don’t have anything left because they’ve taxed everything so high. I think it’s terrible.”

Some TV pundits call the soda tax part of the Obama nanny state – telling people what’s good for them and limiting their choices. But those who support the sugar beverage tax say it doesn’t take away choice: it just helps people break what might be an addictive habit. One that’s costing everyone lots of money in health care costs.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Heart Health and Family Environment

  • Debbie Joy, a participant in the University of Ottawa Heart Institute's prevention program for family members. (Photo by Karen Kelly)

Every year, more than one million
Americans have a heart attack.
The majority survive, thanks
in part to advances in modern
medicine. But Karen Kelly reports
on a program that’s shifting
its focus from miraculous cures
to persuasion – getting the family
of patients with heart disease
to change the ways they live:

Transcript

Every year, more than one million
Americans have a heart attack.
The majority survive, thanks
in part to advances in modern
medicine. But Karen Kelly reports
on a program that’s shifting
its focus from miraculous cures
to persuasion – getting the family
of patients with heart disease
to change the ways they live:

(sound of aerobics class)

It’s a frigid January night in Ottawa, Canada. Most people are curled up on the couch. Debbie Joy is doing push-ups, lifting weights, even hula-hooping.

“After long day – I get up at 5:30, I get to the office at 7:30, I don’t leave there until 4:30, quarter to five. It takes a lot for me to go out and exercise. You just have to be motivated and do it.”

A couple of years ago, Joy didn’t have that motivation. But she did worry.
Both of her parents had died young of heart disease and, in the back of her mind, she knew what she should be doing to take care of herself.

Then she saw an article about a study at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute for the family members of current and former patients.
Bob Reid is directing the study.

He says research has found that family members of patients have a 30 percent chance of contracting heart disease themselves within 10 years.
But there’s been very little focus on this group.
Reid says he and his colleagues realized that if they wanted to focus on prevention, they had a major high-risk group already coming through the door.

“I think anybody who’s practiced in a hospital for any length of time recognizes that sometimes our patients of tomorrow are the family members of our patients today. Families tend to have very similar smoking habits, very similar eating habits, very similar activity habits. This really is a group that can benefit from fairly close attention.”

Close attention is the key to the heart institute’s program.
Family members work with a dietician, a nurse, and personal trainers to set up a new lifestyle. Then, they keep working with them.
Participants keep close track of exercise and their diet. The professionals track blood lipids, weight, and cholesterol levels.

Debbie Joy says it worked.

“The fact that you were watched, you were called every week, it made you follow the program. Then they got you into a routine. So they called you every week for 6 months, then it was dropped to once a month. At that point, you were in a routine and it was easier to follow.”


After three months, Joy’s weight and cholesterol levels dropped – and stayed there. One year later, she’s still exercising four days a week and eating well. It’s a part of her life now – she’s made friends at the gym and her family has adjusted to her new cooking methods.

The ultimate goal for the heart institute is to demonstrate that this works, and to justify funding the family prevention programs full-time.

The ultimate goal for Debbie Joy is quite simply, to live longer.

“You know, I have two kids and I want to be around for my grandchildren. So, it’s never too late.”

For The Environment Report, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

Heavy Metal in Toy Jewelry

  • A nugget of cadmium. (Photo courtesy of the US Dept. of Interior)

The Consumer Product Safety
Commission has been working
to get lead out of kids’ toys.
Now, the government agency
is trying to determine whether
it can do anything about another
toxic chemical found in toys –
a heavy metal called cadmium.
Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

The Consumer Product Safety
Commission has been working
to get lead out of kids’ toys.
Now, the government agency
is trying to determine whether
it can do anything about another
toxic chemical found in toys –
a heavy metal called cadmium.
Mark Brush has more:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission is reacting to a report by the Associated Press that found 12% of children’s jewelry had high levels of cadmium. Some of the pieces tested were almost completely made of cadmium. The heavy metal can cause kidney disease and it’s known to cause cancer.

Scott Wolfson is with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. He says that because of all the problems with lead in toy jewelry – the bottom line is that parents should just stay away.

“Over the past four years, we have done more than 50 recalls of more than 180 million units of jewelry. That’s astounding. It reached a point, where CPSC has been recommending to parents that they stop buying children’s metal jewelry for the youngest of kids.”

And some experts say – if you’ve got old toy jewelry in the house – it’s probably a good idea to get rid of it.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

How Many Calories Is That?

  • The study showed that in some cases, dishes had twice as many calories as they were supposed to. (Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)

Counting calories is easier
to do now that more restaurants
are publicly posting calorie
information about their food.
But Samara Freemark
tells us why those numbers might
be misleading:

Transcript

Counting calories is easier
to do now that more restaurants
are publicly posting calorie
information about their food.
But Samara Freemark
tells us why those numbers might
be misleading:

18% – a new study says that’s the average amount that restaurants underreport the calories in their dishes.

Researchers at Tufts University analyzed the calorie content of meals from chain restaurants. Then they compared those numbers to the calorie counts posted publicly by restaurants on websites and menus.

Susan Roberts is the senior author of the study. She says in some cases, dishes had twice as many calories as they were supposed to.

“You just assume that the numbers are right, you don’t really think about, well, is this number only half what it really is? To have the calories on the web or in the restaurant, that would be a great thing. But they do have to be accurate.”

Roberts says the biggest culprit is portion size – restaurants serve larger amounts of food than advertised. She says the researchers also found that many restaurants served extra side dishes that weren’t included in posted calorie counts.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Coal Ash Contamination

  • 2.6 billion pounds of arsenic and other toxic pollutants flooded over nearby farmland and into the river. (Photo courtesy of the Tennessee Department Of Health)

When a dam broke a year ago in Kingston,
Tennessee, the town experienced one
of the biggest environmental disasters
in US history. Billions of gallons
of waterlogged coal ash from a nearby
power plant streamed into the Emory
River. Tanya Ott reports
the contamination was even greater
than originally thought:

Transcript

When a dam broke a year ago in Kingston,
Tennessee, the town experienced one
of the biggest environmental disasters
in US history. Billions of gallons
of waterlogged coal ash from a nearby
power plant streamed into the Emory
River. Tanya Ott reports
the contamination was even greater
than originally thought:

2.6 billion pounds of arsenic and other toxic pollutants. That’s how much
contamination flooded over nearby farmland and into the river.

That comes
from a report by the Environmental Integrity Project.

Eric Schaeffer is the
project’s Executive Director and a former official with the Environmental
Protection Agency. He says 2.6 billion pounds is more than the total
discharges from all U-S power plants last year.

“The toxic metals, once they get into the environment,
and especially once they get into sediment, are notoriously difficult to
clean up.”

Difficult and expensive. The Tennessee Valley Authority puts the price tag
at about a billion dollars.

The EPA was supposed to propose tougher
disposal standards for toxic ash by the end of 2009. But the agency delayed
that decision.

For The Environmental Report, Im Tanya Ott.

Related Links

Cleaning Up Dioxin

  • West Michigan Park lies along the Tittabawassee River. Large swaths of its soil was removed and re-sodded due to dioxin contamination. The removal was part of a US EPA effort to have Dow clean up several hot spots in the rivershed. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

One thing we hear over and over
from the Obama Administration
is that when it comes to the
environment, science should set
the agenda. Right now, though,
the chemical industry is accusing
the administration of abandoning
that idea. Shawn Allee reports it has to do with the science
behind a potent toxin:

Transcript

One thing we hear over and over
from the Obama Administration
is that when it comes to the
environment, science should set
the agenda. Right now, though,
the chemical industry is accusing
the administration of abandoning
that idea. Shawn Allee reports it has to do with the science
behind a potent toxin:

President George W. Bush took it on the chin when it came to the environment. One accusation is that he ignored science that suggested we should get tougher on green house gas emissions.

President Obama’s Administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency is Lisa Jackson. She said things would be different.

“On my first day, I sent a memo to every EPA employee stating that our path would be guided by the best science and by the rule of law, and that every action we took would be subject to unparalleled transparency.”

It hasn’t taken long for the chemical industry to say Obama’s Administration is back-tracking.

“There’s been this notion to get things done, and it get it done fast.”

That’s David Fischer, an attorney for the American Chemistry Council. Fischer’s concerned about new standards on dioxins.

Dioxins are by-products from producing chemicals. They also get into the environment from burning trash and wood.

The government says dioxin causes cancer and reproductive and developmental diseases.

It’s known this for decades, but it’s been finishing a report to show exactly how toxic dioxins are. It’s been writing this dioxin reassessment for 18 years, and it was supposed to put out a draft last week.

But it didn’t do that, and it hasn’t said when it will.

That didn’t stop the EPA from proposing a new rule about how much dioxin should be allowed in the soil in peoples’ yards.

Fischer says that rule should wait.

“If they’re going to base goals based on the best available science, and they have, in fact, stated they plan to, it’s hard to imagine how you can do that before the reassessment’s finished because that does after all represent or should represent the best available science.”

The chemical industry’s concerned because dozens of sites across the country are contaminated with dioxins. And the rule would lower the amount of dioxin allowed in residential soil. It would go from 1000 parts per trillion to 72 parts per trillion – that’s a drop of more than 90%.

Fischer says that could cost companies millions of dollars in extra clean-up costs.

“Again, that begs the question, Why?”

One accusation is that the Obama administration wanted to finalize dioxin soil regulations in time to coincide with controversial, on-going dioxin clean-ups, such as one in central Michigan.

The EPA didn’t answer this question directly and wouldn’t provide an interview in time for this report. But it did say it’s got sound science to justify the proposed dioxin soil rule.

You might ask why this matters. Well, just look at central Michigan, where there’s a large, on-going dioxin cleanup.

Linda Dykema works with Michigan’s Department of Community Health. She creates state standards on how much dioxin should be allowed in water, fish, and soil. To protect people in Michigan, she needs help from the EPA.

“We rely a great deal on federal agencies to provide us with some hazard assessment for chemicals. The ability of the state to public health staff to do those kinds of assessments is pretty limited. They can do what needs to be done and what we can’t do here at the state.”

And a ruling on dioxin levels in soil should help Dykema. But this move by the EPA might cause more problems than it solves. For years, the chemical industry’s argued that the science behind dioxin isn’t complete.

This proposed soil rule gives the chemical industry another chance to say, ‘here we go again.’ And the justification it needs to keep fighting a rule the EPA insists protects people’s health.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

A Tough New Chemical Law

  • Lena Perenius and Franco Bisegna are with CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council in Brussels, Belgium. (Photo by Liam Moriarty)

There are tens of thousands of
chemical compounds on the market
these days. And, for the most part,
unless regulators can prove a chemical
is harmful, it stays there. Now, Europe
has turned that way of doing things
on its head, and the US is showing
signs of moving in that direction, too.
Liam Moriarty has this report:

Transcript

There are tens of thousands of
chemical compounds on the market
these days. And, for the most part,
unless regulators can prove a chemical
is harmful, it stays there. Now, Europe
has turned that way of doing things
on its head, and the US is showing
signs of moving in that direction, too.
Liam Moriarty has this report:

(sounds of a street)

Brussels, Belgium is sort of like the Washington, DC of Europe. It’s here – in the seat of the European Union – that the 27 nations that make up the EU hash out their common policies.

I’m sitting in the office of Bjorn Hansen. He keeps an eye on chemicals for the European Commission’s Directorate General for the Environment. To give me an idea of how ubiquitous chemicals are in our everyday lives, Hansen points around his office.

“Just us sitting here, you are probably exposed to chemicals, which come from the office furniture, which have been used to color the textile, which has been used to create the foam, the glue under the carpet that we’re sitting – you name it, you’re exposed.”

The big question is whether all this exposure is harming our health or the environment. The answer?

“We, by far, do not know what chemicals are out there, what the effects of those chemicals are, and what the risks associated with those chemicals.”

In the European Union, that uncertainty led to a new law known by its acronym, REACH. That’s R-E-A-C-H. REACH requires that tens of thousands of chemicals used in everyday products in the EU be studied and registered. If a substance cannot be safely used, manufacturers will have to find a substitute, or stop using it. REACH has, at its core, a radical shift: it’s no longer up to the government to prove a chemical is unsafe.

“The burden of proof is on industry to demonstrate safety. And by demonstrating the safety that they think, they also take liability and responsibility for that safety.”

Even for industries accustomed to tougher European regulations, REACH was alarming.

“There were very, quite violent opposition in the beginning.”

Lena Perenius is with CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council.

“In the EU, we already had a very comprehensive set of regulations for ensuring safe use of chemicals. And the industry saw that this was putting an unreasonable burden on the companies.”

Corporations may not have liked it, but the measure had strong public support. After several contentious rounds of negotiations, Perenius says the industry feels it got key concessions that’ll make the far-reaching law workable. Now, she says, the industry has come to see the up-side of REACH.

“Now, when we have the responsibility, that gives us a little bit of freedom to demonstrate, in the way we believe is appropriate, how a substance can be used safely.”

Here in the US, there are signs of political momentum building around taking a more REACH-like approach to regulating the chemicals in everyday products. New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg recently said he’d introduce a bill that would shift the burden of proof for safety onto chemical manufacturers.

“Instead of waiting for a chemical to hurt somebody, it will require companies to prove their products are safe before they end up in the store, in our homes, and in our being.”

Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson recently told a Senate committee that – out of an estimated 80,000 chemicals in use – existing law has allowed the EPA to ban only 5, and to study just 200.

“Though many of these chemicals likely pose little or no risk, the story is clear – we’ve only been able to effectively regulate a handful of chemicals, and we know very little about the rest.”

More than a dozen states from Maine to California have already moved to toughen safety standards for chemicals. Even the American Chemistry Council has agreed to support more vigorous regulations to assure consumers that the chemicals in the products they use are safe.

As always, the devil is in the details. But the coming reform is shaping up to look a lot like what Europe is already putting in place.

For The Environment Report, I’m Liam Moriarty.

Related Links