Re: Credibility Gap: Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging and DuPont’s ... By admin in Free D People - http://freedpeople.coloradofreeradio.com. From A Google Blog Alerts for Section 8...--6.30.08

[Guest guest]

I wonder why it takes 7 years to get rid of a toxic substance?Trina “The claim of no health effects is not supported by available facts (factual inappropriateness) … Such a statement is misleading, whether intentionally or not, and it is unacceptable to mislead in this way (moral inappropriateness) .†In fact, to date at least 10 studies of people show significant health risks of PFOA, including

elevated risk for obesity, heart disease, endocrine disorders, and infectious diseases in a study of 4538 children younger than 10 years of age living near a DuPont plant in West Virginia.* From January 2007 to April 2008, chemical manufacturers reported to the EPA 19 studies on PFC chemicals that showed “substantial risk†to human health or the environment under section 8(e) of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). The health effects reported in these studies of anonymous PFCs include the deaths of laboratory animals as well as damage to the liver, thyroid and prostate. Yet under EPA regulations shielding confidential business information, in 17 of 19 cases the exact name of the chemical is not identified and in 13 of 19 cases the manufacturer is not identified. This information is secret not only from the public, but from health officials in states, like California, that are considering laws to ban PFCs in food packaging. These reports are

doubly troubling: Not only is information being hidden that is important to public health, but by their own admission companies are finding substantial health risks for chemicals they may well be using as PFOA replacements.* From 2005 through November 2007 FDA approved 8 new food packaging fluorochemicals that may replace older, PFOA-contaminated or C8-based PFCs. These approvals were granted with no public record of any health risk assessment from exposures to the contaminant residues and breakdown products of greatest concern, according to documents EWG obtained from the Food and Drug Administration. Since that time FDA has approved 2 additional substitute chemicals, and DuPont has announced that its new PFOA replacement, the CapstoneTM grease-proofing chemicals, will be available for packaging products beginning in 2009. This dramatic shift in the market and in human exposures has occurred with no public assessment of the safety of the

replacements.* A similar pattern of unproven claims and secrecy is found in reports filed by chemical makers on the progress of the PFOA phaseout. Since the phaseout is voluntary, EPA has no authority to verify claims of reduced PFOA use or releases. Some companies report little or no progress. Others claim significant reductions, but again hide the details as confidential business information. Worse, the industry’s claims that the phaseout will eliminate PFOA by 2015 are shattered by the fact that no company from China, the third-largest producer of packaging in the world, is a party to the agreement.The industry’s contention that its PFOA replacements are safer rests on two atoms of carbon. PFOA is sometimes called C8 because it has 8 carbon atoms. A key replacement chemical, perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), contains 6 carbon atoms and is often called C6. The chemical industry would have us believe that the removal of two carbon atoms

removes human health risks.On April 23, 2008, a scientist representing the Telomer Research Program, a chemical industry group that includes DuPont and other PFC makers, testified before the Health Committee of the California State Senate against a bill to ban both PFOA/C8 and PFHxA/C6 in food packaging. He repeated the claim that PFOA is not harmful to humans, and that a ban is is not needed because of the voluntary phaseout program. He also repeatedly described C6 as an example of the “green chemistry†approach the state is developing to encourage the production of safer alternative chemicals:[The bill] would derail a promising example of green chemistry at work . . . y targeting perflourinated compounds with chain links of 6 or higher in this legislation, the bill would frustrate the conversion from the C8 based products, that are the source of the PFOA, to a set of effective C6 based compounds whose breakdown products are

much, much less toxic and don’t have the same persistence issues that PFOA and some of the C8s have. . . . [O]ur companies are addressing the concerns about PFOA; we’re aggressively doing so. And we believe the proposed legislation would actually do harm to an effective green chemistry strategy for reducing the concerns about this chemical. (Lawyer 2008)This is greenwashing – claiming environmental benefits for a product that’s little better than its replacement – at its worst. PFOA is so remarkably persistent in the environment and broadly toxic to living organisms that using it as a bar against which to judge “green chemistry†is like calling anything under 200 miles per hour a safe speed limit. For C6 replacements, the full extent of the public record on their safety consists of a PowerPoint presentation delivered by Asahi Glass Company to the Environmental Protection Agency. Public records show that DuPont, Asahi, and Clariant

are all shifting from PFOA to C6 chemistries despite an absolute dearth of public safety data, and despite the fact that on 3 critical counts, C6 may be as great a concern as PFOA:* C6, like all the other PFCs, is extraordinarily persistent in the environment (NAS 1972).* C6 is potentially 3 to 5 times more toxic than C8 to aquatic organisms (Asahi 2006).* C6 crosses the placenta to contaminate children before birth, according to an EWG study of umbilical cord blood from 10 newborn babies (EWG 2005). While many studies of thousands of people by CDC, industry, and academic university researchers show that PFOA contaminates nearly the entire U.S. population, industry has failed to publish even a single study of C6 in people. EWG’s tests of cord blood show it to be potentially as great a concern as PFOA.Truly green chemistry is sustainable chemistry with products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of

hazardous substances. Much remains unknown about C6, but what is known – that it is bioaccumulative, persistent and crosses the placenta to pollute human blood – is enough to disqualify it as green chemistry. Promoting a PFOA replacement that raises such serious safety concerns while simultaneously withholding critical toxicity data violates the spirit of the PFOA phaseout agreement and undermines the credibility of the entire industry.More at: http://www.ewg. org/node/ 26642

[Guest guest]

I wonder why it takes 7 years to get rid of a toxic substance?Trina “The claim of no health effects is not supported by available facts (factual inappropriateness) … Such a statement is misleading, whether intentionally or not, and it is unacceptable to mislead in this way (moral inappropriateness) .†In fact, to date at least 10 studies of people show significant health risks of PFOA, including

elevated risk for obesity, heart disease, endocrine disorders, and infectious diseases in a study of 4538 children younger than 10 years of age living near a DuPont plant in West Virginia.* From January 2007 to April 2008, chemical manufacturers reported to the EPA 19 studies on PFC chemicals that showed “substantial risk†to human health or the environment under section 8(e) of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). The health effects reported in these studies of anonymous PFCs include the deaths of laboratory animals as well as damage to the liver, thyroid and prostate. Yet under EPA regulations shielding confidential business information, in 17 of 19 cases the exact name of the chemical is not identified and in 13 of 19 cases the manufacturer is not identified. This information is secret not only from the public, but from health officials in states, like California, that are considering laws to ban PFCs in food packaging. These reports are

doubly troubling: Not only is information being hidden that is important to public health, but by their own admission companies are finding substantial health risks for chemicals they may well be using as PFOA replacements.* From 2005 through November 2007 FDA approved 8 new food packaging fluorochemicals that may replace older, PFOA-contaminated or C8-based PFCs. These approvals were granted with no public record of any health risk assessment from exposures to the contaminant residues and breakdown products of greatest concern, according to documents EWG obtained from the Food and Drug Administration. Since that time FDA has approved 2 additional substitute chemicals, and DuPont has announced that its new PFOA replacement, the CapstoneTM grease-proofing chemicals, will be available for packaging products beginning in 2009. This dramatic shift in the market and in human exposures has occurred with no public assessment of the safety of the

replacements.* A similar pattern of unproven claims and secrecy is found in reports filed by chemical makers on the progress of the PFOA phaseout. Since the phaseout is voluntary, EPA has no authority to verify claims of reduced PFOA use or releases. Some companies report little or no progress. Others claim significant reductions, but again hide the details as confidential business information. Worse, the industry’s claims that the phaseout will eliminate PFOA by 2015 are shattered by the fact that no company from China, the third-largest producer of packaging in the world, is a party to the agreement.The industry’s contention that its PFOA replacements are safer rests on two atoms of carbon. PFOA is sometimes called C8 because it has 8 carbon atoms. A key replacement chemical, perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), contains 6 carbon atoms and is often called C6. The chemical industry would have us believe that the removal of two carbon atoms

removes human health risks.On April 23, 2008, a scientist representing the Telomer Research Program, a chemical industry group that includes DuPont and other PFC makers, testified before the Health Committee of the California State Senate against a bill to ban both PFOA/C8 and PFHxA/C6 in food packaging. He repeated the claim that PFOA is not harmful to humans, and that a ban is is not needed because of the voluntary phaseout program. He also repeatedly described C6 as an example of the “green chemistry†approach the state is developing to encourage the production of safer alternative chemicals:[The bill] would derail a promising example of green chemistry at work . . . y targeting perflourinated compounds with chain links of 6 or higher in this legislation, the bill would frustrate the conversion from the C8 based products, that are the source of the PFOA, to a set of effective C6 based compounds whose breakdown products are

much, much less toxic and don’t have the same persistence issues that PFOA and some of the C8s have. . . . [O]ur companies are addressing the concerns about PFOA; we’re aggressively doing so. And we believe the proposed legislation would actually do harm to an effective green chemistry strategy for reducing the concerns about this chemical. (Lawyer 2008)This is greenwashing – claiming environmental benefits for a product that’s little better than its replacement – at its worst. PFOA is so remarkably persistent in the environment and broadly toxic to living organisms that using it as a bar against which to judge “green chemistry†is like calling anything under 200 miles per hour a safe speed limit. For C6 replacements, the full extent of the public record on their safety consists of a PowerPoint presentation delivered by Asahi Glass Company to the Environmental Protection Agency. Public records show that DuPont, Asahi, and Clariant

are all shifting from PFOA to C6 chemistries despite an absolute dearth of public safety data, and despite the fact that on 3 critical counts, C6 may be as great a concern as PFOA:* C6, like all the other PFCs, is extraordinarily persistent in the environment (NAS 1972).* C6 is potentially 3 to 5 times more toxic than C8 to aquatic organisms (Asahi 2006).* C6 crosses the placenta to contaminate children before birth, according to an EWG study of umbilical cord blood from 10 newborn babies (EWG 2005). While many studies of thousands of people by CDC, industry, and academic university researchers show that PFOA contaminates nearly the entire U.S. population, industry has failed to publish even a single study of C6 in people. EWG’s tests of cord blood show it to be potentially as great a concern as PFOA.Truly green chemistry is sustainable chemistry with products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of

hazardous substances. Much remains unknown about C6, but what is known – that it is bioaccumulative, persistent and crosses the placenta to pollute human blood – is enough to disqualify it as green chemistry. Promoting a PFOA replacement that raises such serious safety concerns while simultaneously withholding critical toxicity data violates the spirit of the PFOA phaseout agreement and undermines the credibility of the entire industry.More at: http://www.ewg. org/node/ 26642

[Guest guest]

I wonder why it takes 7 years to get rid of a toxic substance?Trina “The claim of no health effects is not supported by available facts (factual inappropriateness) … Such a statement is misleading, whether intentionally or not, and it is unacceptable to mislead in this way (moral inappropriateness) .†In fact, to date at least 10 studies of people show significant health risks of PFOA, including

elevated risk for obesity, heart disease, endocrine disorders, and infectious diseases in a study of 4538 children younger than 10 years of age living near a DuPont plant in West Virginia.* From January 2007 to April 2008, chemical manufacturers reported to the EPA 19 studies on PFC chemicals that showed “substantial risk†to human health or the environment under section 8(e) of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). The health effects reported in these studies of anonymous PFCs include the deaths of laboratory animals as well as damage to the liver, thyroid and prostate. Yet under EPA regulations shielding confidential business information, in 17 of 19 cases the exact name of the chemical is not identified and in 13 of 19 cases the manufacturer is not identified. This information is secret not only from the public, but from health officials in states, like California, that are considering laws to ban PFCs in food packaging. These reports are

doubly troubling: Not only is information being hidden that is important to public health, but by their own admission companies are finding substantial health risks for chemicals they may well be using as PFOA replacements.* From 2005 through November 2007 FDA approved 8 new food packaging fluorochemicals that may replace older, PFOA-contaminated or C8-based PFCs. These approvals were granted with no public record of any health risk assessment from exposures to the contaminant residues and breakdown products of greatest concern, according to documents EWG obtained from the Food and Drug Administration. Since that time FDA has approved 2 additional substitute chemicals, and DuPont has announced that its new PFOA replacement, the CapstoneTM grease-proofing chemicals, will be available for packaging products beginning in 2009. This dramatic shift in the market and in human exposures has occurred with no public assessment of the safety of the

replacements.* A similar pattern of unproven claims and secrecy is found in reports filed by chemical makers on the progress of the PFOA phaseout. Since the phaseout is voluntary, EPA has no authority to verify claims of reduced PFOA use or releases. Some companies report little or no progress. Others claim significant reductions, but again hide the details as confidential business information. Worse, the industry’s claims that the phaseout will eliminate PFOA by 2015 are shattered by the fact that no company from China, the third-largest producer of packaging in the world, is a party to the agreement.The industry’s contention that its PFOA replacements are safer rests on two atoms of carbon. PFOA is sometimes called C8 because it has 8 carbon atoms. A key replacement chemical, perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), contains 6 carbon atoms and is often called C6. The chemical industry would have us believe that the removal of two carbon atoms

removes human health risks.On April 23, 2008, a scientist representing the Telomer Research Program, a chemical industry group that includes DuPont and other PFC makers, testified before the Health Committee of the California State Senate against a bill to ban both PFOA/C8 and PFHxA/C6 in food packaging. He repeated the claim that PFOA is not harmful to humans, and that a ban is is not needed because of the voluntary phaseout program. He also repeatedly described C6 as an example of the “green chemistry†approach the state is developing to encourage the production of safer alternative chemicals:[The bill] would derail a promising example of green chemistry at work . . . y targeting perflourinated compounds with chain links of 6 or higher in this legislation, the bill would frustrate the conversion from the C8 based products, that are the source of the PFOA, to a set of effective C6 based compounds whose breakdown products are

much, much less toxic and don’t have the same persistence issues that PFOA and some of the C8s have. . . . [O]ur companies are addressing the concerns about PFOA; we’re aggressively doing so. And we believe the proposed legislation would actually do harm to an effective green chemistry strategy for reducing the concerns about this chemical. (Lawyer 2008)This is greenwashing – claiming environmental benefits for a product that’s little better than its replacement – at its worst. PFOA is so remarkably persistent in the environment and broadly toxic to living organisms that using it as a bar against which to judge “green chemistry†is like calling anything under 200 miles per hour a safe speed limit. For C6 replacements, the full extent of the public record on their safety consists of a PowerPoint presentation delivered by Asahi Glass Company to the Environmental Protection Agency. Public records show that DuPont, Asahi, and Clariant

are all shifting from PFOA to C6 chemistries despite an absolute dearth of public safety data, and despite the fact that on 3 critical counts, C6 may be as great a concern as PFOA:* C6, like all the other PFCs, is extraordinarily persistent in the environment (NAS 1972).* C6 is potentially 3 to 5 times more toxic than C8 to aquatic organisms (Asahi 2006).* C6 crosses the placenta to contaminate children before birth, according to an EWG study of umbilical cord blood from 10 newborn babies (EWG 2005). While many studies of thousands of people by CDC, industry, and academic university researchers show that PFOA contaminates nearly the entire U.S. population, industry has failed to publish even a single study of C6 in people. EWG’s tests of cord blood show it to be potentially as great a concern as PFOA.Truly green chemistry is sustainable chemistry with products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of

hazardous substances. Much remains unknown about C6, but what is known – that it is bioaccumulative, persistent and crosses the placenta to pollute human blood – is enough to disqualify it as green chemistry. Promoting a PFOA replacement that raises such serious safety concerns while simultaneously withholding critical toxicity data violates the spirit of the PFOA phaseout agreement and undermines the credibility of the entire industry.More at: http://www.ewg. org/node/ 26642

[Guest guest]

I wonder why it takes 7 years to get rid of a toxic substance?Trina “The claim of no health effects is not supported by available facts (factual inappropriateness) … Such a statement is misleading, whether intentionally or not, and it is unacceptable to mislead in this way (moral inappropriateness) .†In fact, to date at least 10 studies of people show significant health risks of PFOA, including

elevated risk for obesity, heart disease, endocrine disorders, and infectious diseases in a study of 4538 children younger than 10 years of age living near a DuPont plant in West Virginia.* From January 2007 to April 2008, chemical manufacturers reported to the EPA 19 studies on PFC chemicals that showed “substantial risk†to human health or the environment under section 8(e) of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). The health effects reported in these studies of anonymous PFCs include the deaths of laboratory animals as well as damage to the liver, thyroid and prostate. Yet under EPA regulations shielding confidential business information, in 17 of 19 cases the exact name of the chemical is not identified and in 13 of 19 cases the manufacturer is not identified. This information is secret not only from the public, but from health officials in states, like California, that are considering laws to ban PFCs in food packaging. These reports are

doubly troubling: Not only is information being hidden that is important to public health, but by their own admission companies are finding substantial health risks for chemicals they may well be using as PFOA replacements.* From 2005 through November 2007 FDA approved 8 new food packaging fluorochemicals that may replace older, PFOA-contaminated or C8-based PFCs. These approvals were granted with no public record of any health risk assessment from exposures to the contaminant residues and breakdown products of greatest concern, according to documents EWG obtained from the Food and Drug Administration. Since that time FDA has approved 2 additional substitute chemicals, and DuPont has announced that its new PFOA replacement, the CapstoneTM grease-proofing chemicals, will be available for packaging products beginning in 2009. This dramatic shift in the market and in human exposures has occurred with no public assessment of the safety of the

replacements.* A similar pattern of unproven claims and secrecy is found in reports filed by chemical makers on the progress of the PFOA phaseout. Since the phaseout is voluntary, EPA has no authority to verify claims of reduced PFOA use or releases. Some companies report little or no progress. Others claim significant reductions, but again hide the details as confidential business information. Worse, the industry’s claims that the phaseout will eliminate PFOA by 2015 are shattered by the fact that no company from China, the third-largest producer of packaging in the world, is a party to the agreement.The industry’s contention that its PFOA replacements are safer rests on two atoms of carbon. PFOA is sometimes called C8 because it has 8 carbon atoms. A key replacement chemical, perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), contains 6 carbon atoms and is often called C6. The chemical industry would have us believe that the removal of two carbon atoms

removes human health risks.On April 23, 2008, a scientist representing the Telomer Research Program, a chemical industry group that includes DuPont and other PFC makers, testified before the Health Committee of the California State Senate against a bill to ban both PFOA/C8 and PFHxA/C6 in food packaging. He repeated the claim that PFOA is not harmful to humans, and that a ban is is not needed because of the voluntary phaseout program. He also repeatedly described C6 as an example of the “green chemistry†approach the state is developing to encourage the production of safer alternative chemicals:[The bill] would derail a promising example of green chemistry at work . . . y targeting perflourinated compounds with chain links of 6 or higher in this legislation, the bill would frustrate the conversion from the C8 based products, that are the source of the PFOA, to a set of effective C6 based compounds whose breakdown products are

much, much less toxic and don’t have the same persistence issues that PFOA and some of the C8s have. . . . [O]ur companies are addressing the concerns about PFOA; we’re aggressively doing so. And we believe the proposed legislation would actually do harm to an effective green chemistry strategy for reducing the concerns about this chemical. (Lawyer 2008)This is greenwashing – claiming environmental benefits for a product that’s little better than its replacement – at its worst. PFOA is so remarkably persistent in the environment and broadly toxic to living organisms that using it as a bar against which to judge “green chemistry†is like calling anything under 200 miles per hour a safe speed limit. For C6 replacements, the full extent of the public record on their safety consists of a PowerPoint presentation delivered by Asahi Glass Company to the Environmental Protection Agency. Public records show that DuPont, Asahi, and Clariant

are all shifting from PFOA to C6 chemistries despite an absolute dearth of public safety data, and despite the fact that on 3 critical counts, C6 may be as great a concern as PFOA:* C6, like all the other PFCs, is extraordinarily persistent in the environment (NAS 1972).* C6 is potentially 3 to 5 times more toxic than C8 to aquatic organisms (Asahi 2006).* C6 crosses the placenta to contaminate children before birth, according to an EWG study of umbilical cord blood from 10 newborn babies (EWG 2005). While many studies of thousands of people by CDC, industry, and academic university researchers show that PFOA contaminates nearly the entire U.S. population, industry has failed to publish even a single study of C6 in people. EWG’s tests of cord blood show it to be potentially as great a concern as PFOA.Truly green chemistry is sustainable chemistry with products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of

hazardous substances. Much remains unknown about C6, but what is known – that it is bioaccumulative, persistent and crosses the placenta to pollute human blood – is enough to disqualify it as green chemistry. Promoting a PFOA replacement that raises such serious safety concerns while simultaneously withholding critical toxicity data violates the spirit of the PFOA phaseout agreement and undermines the credibility of the entire industry.More at: http://www.ewg. org/node/ 26642

[Guest guest]

Probably because it gets generated and then re generated several

times over.. There seems to be no place to put this toxic stuff that

would no longer harm the environment or humans.. That is one of my

peeves about it.. I have all of these toxic cleaners and things from

around the house that I no longer want to use.. Where do I dispose

of it to where it isn't regenerated back into the world???!!!!

“The claim of no health effects is not supported by available facts

(factual inappropriateness) … Such a statement is misleading,

whether intentionally or not, and it is unacceptable to mislead in

this way (moral inappropriateness) .†In fact, to date at least 10

studies of people show significant health risks of PFOA, including

elevated risk for

> obesity, heart disease, endocrine disorders, and infectious

diseases in a study of 4538 children younger than 10 years of age

living near a DuPont plant in West Virginia.

> * From January 2007 to April 2008, chemical manufacturers reported

to the EPA 19 studies on PFC chemicals that showed “substantial

risk†to human health or the environment under section 8(e) of the

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). The health effects reported in

these studies of anonymous PFCs include the deaths of laboratory

animals as well as damage to the liver, thyroid and prostate. Yet

under EPA regulations shielding confidential business information, in

17 of 19 cases the exact name of the chemical is not identified and

in 13 of 19 cases the manufacturer is not identified. This

information is secret not only from the public, but from health

officials in states, like California, that are considering laws to

ban PFCs in food packaging. These reports are doubly troubling: Not

only is information being hidden that is important to public health,

but by their own admission companies are finding substantial health

risks for chemicals they may well

> be using as PFOA replacements.

> * From 2005 through November 2007 FDA approved 8 new food packaging

fluorochemicals that may replace older, PFOA-contaminated or C8-based

PFCs. These approvals were granted with no public record of any

health risk assessment from exposures to the contaminant residues and

breakdown products of greatest concern, according to documents EWG

obtained from the Food and Drug Administration. Since that time FDA

has approved 2 additional substitute chemicals, and DuPont has

announced that its new PFOA replacement, the CapstoneTM grease-

proofing chemicals, will be available for packaging products

beginning in 2009. This dramatic shift in the market and in human

exposures has occurred with no public assessment of the safety of the

replacements.

> * A similar pattern of unproven claims and secrecy is found in

reports filed by chemical makers on the progress of the PFOA

phaseout. Since the phaseout is voluntary, EPA has no authority to

verify claims of reduced PFOA use or releases. Some companies report

little or no progress. Others claim significant reductions, but again

hide the details as confidential business information. Worse, the

industry’s claims that the phaseout will eliminate PFOA by 2015 are

shattered by the fact that no company from China, the third-largest

producer of packaging in the world, is a party to the agreement.

>

> The industry’s contention that its PFOA replacements are safer

rests on two atoms of carbon. PFOA is sometimes called C8 because it

has 8 carbon atoms. A key replacement chemical, perfluorohexanoic

acid (PFHxA), contains 6 carbon atoms and is often called C6. The

chemical industry would have us believe that the removal of two

carbon atoms removes human health risks.

>

> On April 23, 2008, a scientist representing the Telomer Research

Program, a chemical industry group that includes DuPont and other PFC

makers, testified before the Health Committee of the California State

Senate against a bill to ban both PFOA/C8 and PFHxA/C6 in food

packaging. He repeated the claim that PFOA is not harmful to humans,

and that a ban is is not needed because of the voluntary phaseout

program. He also repeatedly described C6 as an example of the

“green chemistry†approach the state is developing to encourage

the production of safer alternative chemicals:

>

> [The bill] would derail a promising example of green chemistry at

work . . . y targeting perflourinated compounds with chain links

of 6 or higher in this legislation, the bill would frustrate the

conversion from the C8 based products, that are the source of the

PFOA, to a set of effective C6 based compounds whose breakdown

products are much, much less toxic and don’t have the same

persistence issues that PFOA and some of the C8s have. . . . [O]ur

companies are addressing the concerns about PFOA; we’re

aggressively doing so. And we believe the proposed legislation would

actually do harm to an effective green chemistry strategy for

reducing the concerns about this chemical. (Lawyer 2008)

>

> This is greenwashing †" claiming environmental benefits for a

product that’s little better than its replacement †" at its worst.

PFOA is so remarkably persistent in the environment and broadly toxic

to living organisms that using it as a bar against which to judge

“green chemistry†is like calling anything under 200 miles per

hour a safe speed limit. For C6 replacements, the full extent of the

public record on their safety consists of a PowerPoint presentation

delivered by Asahi Glass Company to the Environmental Protection

Agency. Public records show that DuPont, Asahi, and Clariant are all

shifting from PFOA to C6 chemistries despite an absolute dearth of

public safety data, and despite the fact that on 3 critical counts,

C6 may be as great a concern as PFOA:

>

> * C6, like all the other PFCs, is extraordinarily persistent in the

environment (NAS 1972).

> * C6 is potentially 3 to 5 times more toxic than C8 to aquatic

organisms (Asahi 2006).

> * C6 crosses the placenta to contaminate children before birth,

according to an EWG study of umbilical cord blood from 10 newborn

babies (EWG 2005). While many studies of thousands of people by CDC,

industry, and academic university researchers show that PFOA

contaminates nearly the entire U.S. population, industry has failed

to publish even a single study of C6 in people. EWG’s tests of cord

blood show it to be potentially as great a concern as PFOA.

>

> Truly green chemistry is sustainable chemistry with products and

processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of

hazardous substances. Much remains unknown about C6, but what is

known †" that it is bioaccumulative, persistent and crosses the

placenta to pollute human blood †" is enough to disqualify it as

green chemistry. Promoting a PFOA replacement that raises such

serious safety concerns while simultaneously withholding critical

toxicity data violates the spirit of the PFOA phaseout agreement and

undermines the credibility of the entire industry.

>

> More at: http://www.ewg. org/node/ 26642

>

[Guest guest]

Probably because it gets generated and then re generated several

times over.. There seems to be no place to put this toxic stuff that

would no longer harm the environment or humans.. That is one of my

peeves about it.. I have all of these toxic cleaners and things from

around the house that I no longer want to use.. Where do I dispose

of it to where it isn't regenerated back into the world???!!!!

“The claim of no health effects is not supported by available facts

(factual inappropriateness) … Such a statement is misleading,

whether intentionally or not, and it is unacceptable to mislead in

this way (moral inappropriateness) .†In fact, to date at least 10

studies of people show significant health risks of PFOA, including

elevated risk for

> obesity, heart disease, endocrine disorders, and infectious

diseases in a study of 4538 children younger than 10 years of age

living near a DuPont plant in West Virginia.

> * From January 2007 to April 2008, chemical manufacturers reported

to the EPA 19 studies on PFC chemicals that showed “substantial

risk†to human health or the environment under section 8(e) of the

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). The health effects reported in

these studies of anonymous PFCs include the deaths of laboratory

animals as well as damage to the liver, thyroid and prostate. Yet

under EPA regulations shielding confidential business information, in

17 of 19 cases the exact name of the chemical is not identified and

in 13 of 19 cases the manufacturer is not identified. This

information is secret not only from the public, but from health

officials in states, like California, that are considering laws to

ban PFCs in food packaging. These reports are doubly troubling: Not

only is information being hidden that is important to public health,

but by their own admission companies are finding substantial health

risks for chemicals they may well

> be using as PFOA replacements.

> * From 2005 through November 2007 FDA approved 8 new food packaging

fluorochemicals that may replace older, PFOA-contaminated or C8-based

PFCs. These approvals were granted with no public record of any

health risk assessment from exposures to the contaminant residues and

breakdown products of greatest concern, according to documents EWG

obtained from the Food and Drug Administration. Since that time FDA

has approved 2 additional substitute chemicals, and DuPont has

announced that its new PFOA replacement, the CapstoneTM grease-

proofing chemicals, will be available for packaging products

beginning in 2009. This dramatic shift in the market and in human

exposures has occurred with no public assessment of the safety of the

replacements.

> * A similar pattern of unproven claims and secrecy is found in

reports filed by chemical makers on the progress of the PFOA

phaseout. Since the phaseout is voluntary, EPA has no authority to

verify claims of reduced PFOA use or releases. Some companies report

little or no progress. Others claim significant reductions, but again

hide the details as confidential business information. Worse, the

industry’s claims that the phaseout will eliminate PFOA by 2015 are

shattered by the fact that no company from China, the third-largest

producer of packaging in the world, is a party to the agreement.

>

> The industry’s contention that its PFOA replacements are safer

rests on two atoms of carbon. PFOA is sometimes called C8 because it

has 8 carbon atoms. A key replacement chemical, perfluorohexanoic

acid (PFHxA), contains 6 carbon atoms and is often called C6. The

chemical industry would have us believe that the removal of two

carbon atoms removes human health risks.

>

> On April 23, 2008, a scientist representing the Telomer Research

Program, a chemical industry group that includes DuPont and other PFC

makers, testified before the Health Committee of the California State

Senate against a bill to ban both PFOA/C8 and PFHxA/C6 in food

packaging. He repeated the claim that PFOA is not harmful to humans,

and that a ban is is not needed because of the voluntary phaseout

program. He also repeatedly described C6 as an example of the

“green chemistry†approach the state is developing to encourage

the production of safer alternative chemicals:

>

> [The bill] would derail a promising example of green chemistry at

work . . . y targeting perflourinated compounds with chain links

of 6 or higher in this legislation, the bill would frustrate the

conversion from the C8 based products, that are the source of the

PFOA, to a set of effective C6 based compounds whose breakdown

products are much, much less toxic and don’t have the same

persistence issues that PFOA and some of the C8s have. . . . [O]ur

companies are addressing the concerns about PFOA; we’re

aggressively doing so. And we believe the proposed legislation would

actually do harm to an effective green chemistry strategy for

reducing the concerns about this chemical. (Lawyer 2008)

>

> This is greenwashing †" claiming environmental benefits for a

product that’s little better than its replacement †" at its worst.

PFOA is so remarkably persistent in the environment and broadly toxic

to living organisms that using it as a bar against which to judge

“green chemistry†is like calling anything under 200 miles per

hour a safe speed limit. For C6 replacements, the full extent of the

public record on their safety consists of a PowerPoint presentation

delivered by Asahi Glass Company to the Environmental Protection

Agency. Public records show that DuPont, Asahi, and Clariant are all

shifting from PFOA to C6 chemistries despite an absolute dearth of

public safety data, and despite the fact that on 3 critical counts,

C6 may be as great a concern as PFOA:

>

> * C6, like all the other PFCs, is extraordinarily persistent in the

environment (NAS 1972).

> * C6 is potentially 3 to 5 times more toxic than C8 to aquatic

organisms (Asahi 2006).

> * C6 crosses the placenta to contaminate children before birth,

according to an EWG study of umbilical cord blood from 10 newborn

babies (EWG 2005). While many studies of thousands of people by CDC,

industry, and academic university researchers show that PFOA

contaminates nearly the entire U.S. population, industry has failed

to publish even a single study of C6 in people. EWG’s tests of cord

blood show it to be potentially as great a concern as PFOA.

>

> Truly green chemistry is sustainable chemistry with products and

processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of

hazardous substances. Much remains unknown about C6, but what is

known †" that it is bioaccumulative, persistent and crosses the

placenta to pollute human blood †" is enough to disqualify it as

green chemistry. Promoting a PFOA replacement that raises such

serious safety concerns while simultaneously withholding critical

toxicity data violates the spirit of the PFOA phaseout agreement and

undermines the credibility of the entire industry.

>

> More at: http://www.ewg. org/node/ 26642

>

[Guest guest]

Probably because it gets generated and then re generated several

times over.. There seems to be no place to put this toxic stuff that

would no longer harm the environment or humans.. That is one of my

peeves about it.. I have all of these toxic cleaners and things from

around the house that I no longer want to use.. Where do I dispose

of it to where it isn't regenerated back into the world???!!!!

“The claim of no health effects is not supported by available facts

(factual inappropriateness) … Such a statement is misleading,

whether intentionally or not, and it is unacceptable to mislead in

this way (moral inappropriateness) .†In fact, to date at least 10

studies of people show significant health risks of PFOA, including

elevated risk for

> obesity, heart disease, endocrine disorders, and infectious

diseases in a study of 4538 children younger than 10 years of age

living near a DuPont plant in West Virginia.

> * From January 2007 to April 2008, chemical manufacturers reported

to the EPA 19 studies on PFC chemicals that showed “substantial

risk†to human health or the environment under section 8(e) of the

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). The health effects reported in

these studies of anonymous PFCs include the deaths of laboratory

animals as well as damage to the liver, thyroid and prostate. Yet

under EPA regulations shielding confidential business information, in

17 of 19 cases the exact name of the chemical is not identified and

in 13 of 19 cases the manufacturer is not identified. This

information is secret not only from the public, but from health

officials in states, like California, that are considering laws to

ban PFCs in food packaging. These reports are doubly troubling: Not

only is information being hidden that is important to public health,

but by their own admission companies are finding substantial health

risks for chemicals they may well

> be using as PFOA replacements.

> * From 2005 through November 2007 FDA approved 8 new food packaging

fluorochemicals that may replace older, PFOA-contaminated or C8-based

PFCs. These approvals were granted with no public record of any

health risk assessment from exposures to the contaminant residues and

breakdown products of greatest concern, according to documents EWG

obtained from the Food and Drug Administration. Since that time FDA

has approved 2 additional substitute chemicals, and DuPont has

announced that its new PFOA replacement, the CapstoneTM grease-

proofing chemicals, will be available for packaging products

beginning in 2009. This dramatic shift in the market and in human

exposures has occurred with no public assessment of the safety of the

replacements.

> * A similar pattern of unproven claims and secrecy is found in

reports filed by chemical makers on the progress of the PFOA

phaseout. Since the phaseout is voluntary, EPA has no authority to

verify claims of reduced PFOA use or releases. Some companies report

little or no progress. Others claim significant reductions, but again

hide the details as confidential business information. Worse, the

industry’s claims that the phaseout will eliminate PFOA by 2015 are

shattered by the fact that no company from China, the third-largest

producer of packaging in the world, is a party to the agreement.

>

> The industry’s contention that its PFOA replacements are safer

rests on two atoms of carbon. PFOA is sometimes called C8 because it

has 8 carbon atoms. A key replacement chemical, perfluorohexanoic

acid (PFHxA), contains 6 carbon atoms and is often called C6. The

chemical industry would have us believe that the removal of two

carbon atoms removes human health risks.

>

> On April 23, 2008, a scientist representing the Telomer Research

Program, a chemical industry group that includes DuPont and other PFC

makers, testified before the Health Committee of the California State

Senate against a bill to ban both PFOA/C8 and PFHxA/C6 in food

packaging. He repeated the claim that PFOA is not harmful to humans,

and that a ban is is not needed because of the voluntary phaseout

program. He also repeatedly described C6 as an example of the

“green chemistry†approach the state is developing to encourage

the production of safer alternative chemicals:

>

> [The bill] would derail a promising example of green chemistry at

work . . . y targeting perflourinated compounds with chain links

of 6 or higher in this legislation, the bill would frustrate the

conversion from the C8 based products, that are the source of the

PFOA, to a set of effective C6 based compounds whose breakdown

products are much, much less toxic and don’t have the same

persistence issues that PFOA and some of the C8s have. . . . [O]ur

companies are addressing the concerns about PFOA; we’re

aggressively doing so. And we believe the proposed legislation would

actually do harm to an effective green chemistry strategy for

reducing the concerns about this chemical. (Lawyer 2008)

>

> This is greenwashing †" claiming environmental benefits for a

product that’s little better than its replacement †" at its worst.

PFOA is so remarkably persistent in the environment and broadly toxic

to living organisms that using it as a bar against which to judge

“green chemistry†is like calling anything under 200 miles per

hour a safe speed limit. For C6 replacements, the full extent of the

public record on their safety consists of a PowerPoint presentation

delivered by Asahi Glass Company to the Environmental Protection

Agency. Public records show that DuPont, Asahi, and Clariant are all

shifting from PFOA to C6 chemistries despite an absolute dearth of

public safety data, and despite the fact that on 3 critical counts,

C6 may be as great a concern as PFOA:

>

> * C6, like all the other PFCs, is extraordinarily persistent in the

environment (NAS 1972).

> * C6 is potentially 3 to 5 times more toxic than C8 to aquatic

organisms (Asahi 2006).

> * C6 crosses the placenta to contaminate children before birth,

according to an EWG study of umbilical cord blood from 10 newborn

babies (EWG 2005). While many studies of thousands of people by CDC,

industry, and academic university researchers show that PFOA

contaminates nearly the entire U.S. population, industry has failed

to publish even a single study of C6 in people. EWG’s tests of cord

blood show it to be potentially as great a concern as PFOA.

>

> Truly green chemistry is sustainable chemistry with products and

processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of

hazardous substances. Much remains unknown about C6, but what is

known †" that it is bioaccumulative, persistent and crosses the

placenta to pollute human blood †" is enough to disqualify it as

green chemistry. Promoting a PFOA replacement that raises such

serious safety concerns while simultaneously withholding critical

toxicity data violates the spirit of the PFOA phaseout agreement and

undermines the credibility of the entire industry.

>

> More at: http://www.ewg. org/node/ 26642

>

[Guest guest]

Probably because it gets generated and then re generated several

times over.. There seems to be no place to put this toxic stuff that

would no longer harm the environment or humans.. That is one of my

peeves about it.. I have all of these toxic cleaners and things from

around the house that I no longer want to use.. Where do I dispose

of it to where it isn't regenerated back into the world???!!!!

“The claim of no health effects is not supported by available facts

(factual inappropriateness) … Such a statement is misleading,

whether intentionally or not, and it is unacceptable to mislead in

this way (moral inappropriateness) .†In fact, to date at least 10

studies of people show significant health risks of PFOA, including

elevated risk for

> obesity, heart disease, endocrine disorders, and infectious

diseases in a study of 4538 children younger than 10 years of age

living near a DuPont plant in West Virginia.

> * From January 2007 to April 2008, chemical manufacturers reported

to the EPA 19 studies on PFC chemicals that showed “substantial

risk†to human health or the environment under section 8(e) of the

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). The health effects reported in

these studies of anonymous PFCs include the deaths of laboratory

animals as well as damage to the liver, thyroid and prostate. Yet

under EPA regulations shielding confidential business information, in

17 of 19 cases the exact name of the chemical is not identified and

in 13 of 19 cases the manufacturer is not identified. This

information is secret not only from the public, but from health

officials in states, like California, that are considering laws to

ban PFCs in food packaging. These reports are doubly troubling: Not

only is information being hidden that is important to public health,

but by their own admission companies are finding substantial health

risks for chemicals they may well

> be using as PFOA replacements.

> * From 2005 through November 2007 FDA approved 8 new food packaging

fluorochemicals that may replace older, PFOA-contaminated or C8-based

PFCs. These approvals were granted with no public record of any

health risk assessment from exposures to the contaminant residues and

breakdown products of greatest concern, according to documents EWG

obtained from the Food and Drug Administration. Since that time FDA

has approved 2 additional substitute chemicals, and DuPont has

announced that its new PFOA replacement, the CapstoneTM grease-

proofing chemicals, will be available for packaging products

beginning in 2009. This dramatic shift in the market and in human

exposures has occurred with no public assessment of the safety of the

replacements.

> * A similar pattern of unproven claims and secrecy is found in

reports filed by chemical makers on the progress of the PFOA

phaseout. Since the phaseout is voluntary, EPA has no authority to

verify claims of reduced PFOA use or releases. Some companies report

little or no progress. Others claim significant reductions, but again

hide the details as confidential business information. Worse, the

industry’s claims that the phaseout will eliminate PFOA by 2015 are

shattered by the fact that no company from China, the third-largest

producer of packaging in the world, is a party to the agreement.

>

> The industry’s contention that its PFOA replacements are safer

rests on two atoms of carbon. PFOA is sometimes called C8 because it

has 8 carbon atoms. A key replacement chemical, perfluorohexanoic

acid (PFHxA), contains 6 carbon atoms and is often called C6. The

chemical industry would have us believe that the removal of two

carbon atoms removes human health risks.

>

> On April 23, 2008, a scientist representing the Telomer Research

Program, a chemical industry group that includes DuPont and other PFC

makers, testified before the Health Committee of the California State

Senate against a bill to ban both PFOA/C8 and PFHxA/C6 in food

packaging. He repeated the claim that PFOA is not harmful to humans,

and that a ban is is not needed because of the voluntary phaseout

program. He also repeatedly described C6 as an example of the

“green chemistry†approach the state is developing to encourage

the production of safer alternative chemicals:

>

> [The bill] would derail a promising example of green chemistry at

work . . . y targeting perflourinated compounds with chain links

of 6 or higher in this legislation, the bill would frustrate the

conversion from the C8 based products, that are the source of the

PFOA, to a set of effective C6 based compounds whose breakdown

products are much, much less toxic and don’t have the same

persistence issues that PFOA and some of the C8s have. . . . [O]ur

companies are addressing the concerns about PFOA; we’re

aggressively doing so. And we believe the proposed legislation would

actually do harm to an effective green chemistry strategy for

reducing the concerns about this chemical. (Lawyer 2008)

>

> This is greenwashing †" claiming environmental benefits for a

product that’s little better than its replacement †" at its worst.

PFOA is so remarkably persistent in the environment and broadly toxic

to living organisms that using it as a bar against which to judge

“green chemistry†is like calling anything under 200 miles per

hour a safe speed limit. For C6 replacements, the full extent of the

public record on their safety consists of a PowerPoint presentation

delivered by Asahi Glass Company to the Environmental Protection

Agency. Public records show that DuPont, Asahi, and Clariant are all

shifting from PFOA to C6 chemistries despite an absolute dearth of

public safety data, and despite the fact that on 3 critical counts,

C6 may be as great a concern as PFOA:

>

> * C6, like all the other PFCs, is extraordinarily persistent in the

environment (NAS 1972).

> * C6 is potentially 3 to 5 times more toxic than C8 to aquatic

organisms (Asahi 2006).

> * C6 crosses the placenta to contaminate children before birth,

according to an EWG study of umbilical cord blood from 10 newborn

babies (EWG 2005). While many studies of thousands of people by CDC,

industry, and academic university researchers show that PFOA

contaminates nearly the entire U.S. population, industry has failed

to publish even a single study of C6 in people. EWG’s tests of cord

blood show it to be potentially as great a concern as PFOA.

>

> Truly green chemistry is sustainable chemistry with products and

processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of

hazardous substances. Much remains unknown about C6, but what is

known †" that it is bioaccumulative, persistent and crosses the

placenta to pollute human blood †" is enough to disqualify it as

green chemistry. Promoting a PFOA replacement that raises such

serious safety concerns while simultaneously withholding critical

toxicity data violates the spirit of the PFOA phaseout agreement and

undermines the credibility of the entire industry.

>

> More at: http://www.ewg. org/node/ 26642

>

[Guest guest]

Yes Thanks Karla,

Thank you for posting this info..

I am no expert yet..but..Within a small length of time, I have become

more aware of all the toxins now than I was before..

I did buy a few books a while ago..Home Safe Home, Chemical Free

Kids, and The Complete Homeopathy Handbook.. I am always looking for

more info and resources..but I have indeed been reading up on how to

avoid toxins in my life..

I wasn't disputing that there wasn't some better ways to dispose of

them.. My big beef is that in those disposal methods, how do we know

they aren't being re-distributed into the environment and food etc..??

Like the toxins are being regurgitated back into the world.. Ugh!!!

We don't know that.. Do we??? Let me know if any of you find

evidence that these recycling companies or other disposal companies

are ridding us of our toxic trash for good???

I have become an even more frequent shopper at Whole Foods.

Switching over to healthier alternatives to cleaners and

other household items..even buying healthier diapers.. Those G

diapers look great..however.. A bit pricey for a toddler who isnt

potty training yet..

My other beef is the fact that they make it more expensive to live

healthier than to live poisonous.. Ugh.. I love buying organice all

natural products.. But with this economy.. It is tough to afford

keeping up with natural foods store receipts..

I guess I am just flapping my gums now..

I will stop..

>

> Hullo . Here is a pretty general list of most household

toxins, what is in them, and how to store and dispose of them. I

didn't find most of the disposal routes all that great, but if this

is what they say, at least it is a start. Click on each grey entry

on the list to bring it up. Hardly anyone adheres to these methods

of disposal.

> Hope this helps. http://www.oregontoxics.org/alternatives.html

>

> We have talked about toxic super-absorbant diapers, but I dont

find a good way to dispose of these, They can last from 200 to 500

years, and are one of the worst landfill abusers of them all, as well

at extremely toxic and harmful to the environment. Another ruling

the diaper companies got around, even tho they were banned from

landfills in th 90's. Bunch o' crap that....literally.

> Glad Day ~ Karla in IL

>

[Guest guest]

Yes Thanks Karla,

Thank you for posting this info..

I am no expert yet..but..Within a small length of time, I have become

more aware of all the toxins now than I was before..

I did buy a few books a while ago..Home Safe Home, Chemical Free

Kids, and The Complete Homeopathy Handbook.. I am always looking for

more info and resources..but I have indeed been reading up on how to

avoid toxins in my life..

I wasn't disputing that there wasn't some better ways to dispose of

them.. My big beef is that in those disposal methods, how do we know

they aren't being re-distributed into the environment and food etc..??

Like the toxins are being regurgitated back into the world.. Ugh!!!

We don't know that.. Do we??? Let me know if any of you find

evidence that these recycling companies or other disposal companies

are ridding us of our toxic trash for good???

I have become an even more frequent shopper at Whole Foods.

Switching over to healthier alternatives to cleaners and

other household items..even buying healthier diapers.. Those G

diapers look great..however.. A bit pricey for a toddler who isnt

potty training yet..

My other beef is the fact that they make it more expensive to live

healthier than to live poisonous.. Ugh.. I love buying organice all

natural products.. But with this economy.. It is tough to afford

keeping up with natural foods store receipts..

I guess I am just flapping my gums now..

I will stop..

>

> Hullo . Here is a pretty general list of most household

toxins, what is in them, and how to store and dispose of them. I

didn't find most of the disposal routes all that great, but if this

is what they say, at least it is a start. Click on each grey entry

on the list to bring it up. Hardly anyone adheres to these methods

of disposal.

> Hope this helps. http://www.oregontoxics.org/alternatives.html

>

> We have talked about toxic super-absorbant diapers, but I dont

find a good way to dispose of these, They can last from 200 to 500

years, and are one of the worst landfill abusers of them all, as well

at extremely toxic and harmful to the environment. Another ruling

the diaper companies got around, even tho they were banned from

landfills in th 90's. Bunch o' crap that....literally.

> Glad Day ~ Karla in IL

>