Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 13:32:28 EDT
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: ACTSNYC**At_Symbol_Here**CS.COM
Subject: Re: New York to Require Disclosure of Chemicals in Cleansers

Oh, hot damn. A more direct source for this info is Earthjustice's press release.

I was holding off writing in my newsletter about the July 30 Supreme Court denial of Earthjustice's petition, probably because it pains me and because it's a complicated decision, based on Earthjustice's standing as an injured party. 

Now the story has a happy ending because DEC has decided to enforce the law without being required to by citizen's groups--something they should have been doing during the more than 30 years since this law was passed.  Hooray for our side.

It doesn't matter that this is a state law either, anymore than it matters that Proposition 65 is a California law.  Anyone distributing nationally has to meet these laws.

Back when Earthjustice filed their petition to force disclosures from P&G and some of the other biggies, I was sent copies of the ingredient lists that were already filed with the DEC by the smaller cleaning product companies that compiled them willingly.  The difference between the MSDSs and the complete ingredient disclosures required by this law are striking. 

I'd willingly trade the crap that passes for US MSDSs for a simple list of all the ingredients.  We can look up what is known or not known about them and make our own decisions. 

And the limits on declaring chemicals trade secrets should be enforced.  Manufacturers should have to PROVE that their competitors would have an advantage in knowing what was in the product.  And part of that proof should require filing the same torturous economic impact statement industry has forced EPA to file before they can even ask a manufacturer to test one of their chemicals for toxicity under TSCA.

Then I could have a smile on my face when the coroner zips up my black bag.


In a message dated 9/12/2010 9:53:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ecgrants**At_Symbol_Here**UVM.EDU writes:

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.