The Senate is poised to adopt a "chemical safety" bill (S. 697) that is fully supported by the chemical industry -- the same companies that have fought for decades against any restrictions on their toxic products.
We all can have a role in impacting increasing incidences of cancer; leadership on all levels, both legislatively and in corporate America, must be engaged to do whatever they can to work toward reducing cancer risk.
Senate bill S.697, legislation to reauthorize and modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act, will create stumbling blocks for states that wish to protect their citizens and their families from harmful chemicals.
Most Americans already know that lobbying and influence play a big role in the legislative process, especially in Washington, D.C. However, a new report reveals that a large portion of trade association spending goes to PR firms and advertising.
A new study, published this week in the journal Environmental Health, identifies potentially hazardous concentrations of air pollutants near some oil and gas operations in five states. The research shines a light on what some communities face as US oil and gas development accelerates.
We are deeply investing all we have in a shifting culture with time, energy and minimal resources. We are not selling treatment, we are selling prevention. There is no short term financial model for prevention -- no buildings, machines or treatments.
Harmful chemicals abound in household cleaning agents, personal care products, cosmetics, as well as pesticides and weed killers. American consumers have no assurance that everyday products are safe for children and adults.
Are these technological solutions to some of the damage humans have done to ourselves and the natural world, or are they just versions of Castle Bravo and the Oxygen Destroyer, escalations of a self-destructive technological death spiral?
I'm not a sugar-hating fanatic. In fact, my credentials as a chocoholic and dessert-lover are unimpeachable. But I like to know what I'm eating. Whether it's sugar or anything else, don't try to slip one by me, please.
For many of us, our frustration around toxic chemicals is amplified when we go shopping. It's along those aisles that we turn over the products, in the slim chance that the labels will tell us something about the product's safety, only to be disappointed.
Imagine my deep concern that the journal failed to include the substantial body of scientific evidence linking toxic chemicals and radiation to breast cancer. How could this happen? I was not alone in my wondering, and it became very clear to me that I had to set the record straight.