Safety Emporium eyewashes
Safety Emporium eyewashes

Interactive Learning Paradigms, Incorporated

DCHAS-L Discussion List Archive


Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 14:49:57 -0600
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: Alan Hall <ahalltoxic**At_Symbol_Here**MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Exposure Elimination Act of
2011
In-Reply-To: <CAPmBVFKXRwo2peRF+sJptnR9G7bkTdnLDB6CkZUO-YizJthEew**At_Symbol_Here**mail.gmail.com>

All,
 
This whole area has for years been more media hype and popular uninformed h ysteria than science.  Double-headed frogs, mutant alligators, e tc. and the whole rather debatable issues of decreasing sperm counts (like we need more people on this finite-resource planet w hen we may have already exceeded its "carrying capacity"?) are not&n bsp;issues that should be ignored, but neither should they be ar eas for vote-generating hype and hysteria without solid science and peer re view (not just some limited and perhaps politically-appointed "expert panel s'" review and the arbitrary decisions of NIEHS), but rather that of a co nsensus of the scientific community overall.  This comes to a vote , I know at least one ACS member who'll be contacting his elected represe ntatives to vote for a resounding "Nay".
 
For all the faults of the current situation in Washington, DC, I'd gues s this is a non-issue, but one which D-CHAS and ACS members should be awa re of.
 
All of us are, I think, committed to making the environment in which we , our families, and our children's children can "live long and p rosper", but hype, "junk science", and arbitrary decisions based on p olitically correct expediency have no place in the process.
 
Me must all collectively be "The Voices of Reason."
 
Alan
Alan H. Hall, M.D.
Medical Toxicologist
TCMTS, Inc.
Laramie, WY
Clinical Assistant Professor
Colorado School of Public Health
University of Colorado-Denver
Denver, CO 
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:57:16 -0500
From: gla**At_Symbol_Here**EHSSTRATEGIES.COM
Su bject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Exposure Elimination Ac t of 2011
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU

ACS has a position statement o n endocrine disruptors: http://portal.acs.org/portal/ac s/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_i d=2226&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=4 d680e34-14f1-4a22-83cb-64f7716d6e26

I very much doubt ACS would go further than this or would be ready to support such a bill, other than to support further research into a still controversial area.  Ray G arant, Assistant Director of Public Policy and CEI Staff Liaison, may a lso want to comment.

Further, my bias is strongly toward the publi c notice and comment rulemaking process and I would lobby against any kind of automatic ban authority being delegated to a small group of government e mployees.  Bans (and even black-listing) entail major costs and bene fits considerations that require input from all affected stakeholders.
< BR>Disclosures: I'm on the ACS Committee for Environmental Improvement, t each a course on environmental regulations at the Univ of Minnesota and am a business consultant, specializing in TSCA and product stewardship.
< BR>Georjean Adams

EHS Strategies, Inc.
651-204-3371

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 9:59 PM, ILPI <info**At_Symbol_Here**ilpi.com>< /SPAN> wrote:
This is a fascinating paradigm shift, although I would be genuinely surprised if such legislation could make it  out of committee, let alone through the House.   Does the ACS have a position on this or is it too hot an issue for them to touch given the ACC's strong opposition?

Rob Toreki

See http://www.cnn.com/201 1/HEALTH/07/08/chemical.bans/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 and the current ver sion of the as-yet-unsubmitted bill at http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/ 2011/images/07/08/endocrine.disrupting.chemicals.exposure.elimination.act.o f.2011-jun.24.pdf

Bill would let federal health researchers ban certain chemicals

(CNN) -- A new bill could alter the landscape of chemical regulation i n the United States by empowering researchers to take swift action against the most potentially harmful chemicals in use today.

The bill, to be introduced later this month, would give the direct or of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and a pane l of experts selected by the director, the power to ban up to 10 chemical s from commerce each year by categorizing them as being of high concern.

Those chemicals would become unlawful to use 24 months after receiving that designation.

Among the chemicals that could be subject to a ban is bisphenol A, o r BPA, a hormone-disrupting substance widely used in plastics that has be en the target of controversy in recent months.

The bill is to be introduced by Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia, and Se n. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, later this month.

The fate of the legislation, though, is far from certain. It will have to make its way through committee in both the Republican-controlled Ho use and the Senate, where Democrats have a small majority.

CNN received an advance copy of the bill*, called the Endocrine-Disr upting Chemicals Exposure Elimination Act of 2011, which has a self-execu ting statute under which the listing of high concern by the NIEHS automatic ally would outlaw the chemical or class of chemicals, and would require e ach regulatory agency to take action to prohibit the chemical.

*Editor's note: This is an advanced draft of the bill. It could change before being introduced.

If the bill were to become law, the NIEHS, a part of the National Institutes of Health, could have chemicals outlawed much sooner than othe rwise possible...

(much more in the rest of the article; see link above).


  ================== ========================= ===========
Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names
you know and trust.  Visit us at http://www.SafetyEmporium.com
Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood , NJ 08012


Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post