Safe Chemical Act Moves Forward
Kid Safe Chemicals Campaign
On big Tax day in the U.S. a big event took place that pertains to the health of all living in the USA: more than 85,000 signatures were presented to congress today in support of the Kid-Safe Chemicals Campaign by the staff of Environmental Working Group (EWG).
This coincided with a chemical regulatory reform bill led by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Environmental Health, to update the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. Per the EWG blog:
The current law is riddled with loopholes; over the past thirty years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been able to regulate only five of the 83,000 chemicals in use in consumer goods.
Not familiar with EWG? Stands for Environmental Working Group, a dedicated research and action oriented organization helping to improve the quality of life. The backbone of this group, spearheaded by President & Co-founder, Ken Cooke, are average concerned citizens who support their work with donations.
Chemicals and industrial pollution permeate every aspect of life; quality of life has greatly diminished because of them. But when babies are born pre-polluted, a horrible thought, nevertheless true, we as consumers have to stand and yell: ENOUGH! And for non-activist types speaking with our wallets can do a helluva lot.
Want to help? It’s not too late to lend your support by adding your signature to the Kid Safe Chemicals Act on the EWG.org blog site. Therein you’ll find more information related to what chemicals are doing to infants and children and the ability to donate. (there’s a video too)
If we support orgs like EWG to help fix the problem of chemicals, we could see laws protect children and not the companies producing and using them.
What will you do?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e23dfbc4-a368-43f4-b67a-8c7fbd1b6522)
Thanks, Rebe!!
Agree with you 100%, Rhiana! Animal testing is archaic and cruel. Not only for industrial chemicals, but the skin care industry, as well. Often I get on my soap box encouraging others to take the time to learn what those scientific terms listed on labels equate to. Whether it’s cleaning products, cosmetics, processed food (yuk!)…we should all become familiar with those chemicals which pose a health risk to our planet, ourselves, our children (including the unborn) and our pets!
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Making industrial chemicals safer is something we can all get behind. If we want safer chemicals and a safer environment then we must use nonanimal methods of testing.
Currently, many toxicity tests are based on experiments in animals and use methods that were developed as long ago as the 1930’s; they and are slow, inaccurate, open to uncertainty and manipulation, and do not adequately protect human health. These tests take anywhere from months to years, and tens of thousands to millions of dollars to perform. More importantly, the current testing paradigm has a poor record in predicting effects in humans and an even poorer record in leading to actual regulation of dangerous chemicals.
The blueprint for development and implementation for nonanimal testing is the National Research Council report, “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy in 2007.” This report calls for a shift away from the use of animals in toxicity testing. The report also concludes that human cell- and computer-based approaches are the best way to protect human health because they allow us to understand more quickly and accurately the varied effects that chemicals can have on different groups of people. They are also more affordable and more humane.
These methods are ideal for assessing the real world scenarios such as mixtures of chemicals, which have proven problematic using animal-based test methods. And, they’re the only way we can assess all chemicals on the market.