Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDarlene Schanfald April 6, 201Q Kent Myers kz C'E'. I V E City Manager Port Angeles, WA 98362 APR 1.,2 201Q RE: Bathroom Air Freshener Cite of 'POrt A rrg jes Kent: Tm going to try again to convince you to reIn ove the air freshener in the women's bathroom in City Hall (and elsewhere, if they exist). ' Whereas before,.I handed you a University of WA researcher's findings,-enclosed are documents fiom several sources, such as WA State Governor Christine Gregoire's Proclamation, the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC),and a legal case just won. This is an ADA issue, recognized nationally and instates,including WA. As far back:as Governor Gary Loclse's administration, annual proclamations.recognizing.che ical sensiti�nty and the,liarinful impacts of scents have been signed. The 2010 Proclamation is enclosed. Air fresheners affect physiological responses, such as respiratory and cognitive functioning. Too,they leach out-beyond.the intended space(e:g.bathrooms). Air fresheners affect City Hall staff And for some of us that have immediate reactions,we cannot use this public property, orris using it. City Hall is public property and should be available to all;without having unintended health consequences. So i ask you again, Tease remove the air freshener from the women's bathroom; and elsewhere if they exist. Many buildings that host numbers of the public,`whether private or public, do not_use air fresheners or any kind of scent. If you need something,baking.soda absorbs odors. Or maybe.an indoor-outdoor air vent, if there isn't one. I will appreciate the courtesy of hearing back from you soon as to what you will do. Thank you, F Iene Schanl�.ld 481 Holgerson Rd Sequirn WA 98382 681-75.65 } -ti-i. .� :-:Eat." {`.� -rs. e..n? ..f-,._;.x._I:f_:s7 csu�.. :n\.�3 -_. r.�v-'_x� .,. --•'•. -vs -n _ Ci.r-..:�;.rl2yr,.1d4 _r1-S�lv M a{-� '1 .� j ;" It � ^4 ! ,51. WHEREAS,people of all ages in Washington have developed a condition known as :" � Multiple Chemical Sensitivity(MCS)as a result of either a single massive exposure or repeated low k ` ;1 level exposures to toxic claernicais and other irritants in the environment; and ' i--zi yWHE',t4S,MCS is recognized by numerous organizations which support the health and welfare of the chemically injured including the World Health Organization,the Americans with '>Ni'� l Disabilities Act,the Social Security Administration,the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development,and the Environmental Protection Agency;and i ^rte, )�'� A ', MCS is a chronic condition for which there Is no known cure;symptoms '!! include chronic fatigue,muscle and joint pains,rashes,asthma,headaches,and other respiratory,and neurological problems;and ff,'HEREAS,MCS can result in major financial,employment,housing;health,and social '• �=' Lily^: rK 3 consequences for people who have this disability;and F�rF�l };K;3 WHEREAS,reasonable accommodations and raising awareness of MCS can provide j5 '` `` pp people tY j Y p rt r opportunities for eo Ie with this disabili tc en o access to work,school, ublic facilities,and Ii Q other settings where they can continue to contribute professional shills, ideas, creativity, ! abilities,and knowledge;and ' I l =� WHEREAS,people with MCS need the support and cooperation of family,friends,cQ- _! t if; l y workers and society as they manage their condition and adapt to new lifestyles; .k t IiTOPf; �', �'�'�-ice', I, Christine O. Gregoire, Governor of the state of Washington,do ' j hereby proclaim flay 2010 as %^ ���!�; Ir�x�ltipte r C�ze�nica�,�eirsi�vr�J�&rueareeaess I�ar�ti'i �,v+i;r ,.„ r., in Washington State,and I urge all citizens to join me in this special Observance. {� Signed this$��'day of January,2010 �F i Governor O.fl><e,oire =i t 9;inn 17 !v '1i' Y-.�.- T Fs;;Fn t._ �.r ,"^. a3 i•._t:;'ci�-:.:-_F;��-"'"-��'s i ',r+.} i�t S° I�� Y ICJ' b 4` + i✓ f � f ?F � S,��l S �� i�� i .- j� .;..L�'�!�'l Fi O�f'1�'}.f-c i7;�11'�.�i.•".1 :s ��Y`�r- r r � ?,"l'S�,.s:L�..tc ...:P.... c�.31 ��s. �J_ ,� t cr s ♦ . �,sti } z r t .t r f't F<" '}, Tt „rr' f`w. r' �l.P 'l.�f�.=v S .,r�... Page 5,Spring 2010 The Human Ecologist: "CDC goes fragrance free." The following material between the two black lines is a direct quote: A new internal policy at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC)mandates a virtually fragrance free environment= "We Share the Air,"proclaim workplace signs. "Scented products release chemicals which can trigger serious health reactions in people with asthma,migraines,allergies or chemical sensitivities. Air fresheners, air v-iolcs,plug-gins,incense,etc.,should NOT be used in any CDC building or leased property! Thank you for your cooperation." The Indoor Environmental Quality Policy,issued June 2009 on the CDC's in-house Web site,prohibits use of scented or fragranced products"at all times in all interior space owned,rented,or leased by CDC." The list of such products includes- *lncense,candles,or reed diffusers *Fragrance-emitting devices of any kind *Wall-mounted devices,similar to fragrance-emitting devices,that operate automatically or by pushing a button to dispense deodorizers or disinfectants *Potpourri *Plug-in or spray air fresheners *Minal or toilet blocks *Other fragranced deodorizer-/or reodorizer products. The policy extends beyond the above products,which night be used in facilities operation and maintenance,to include personal-cane products used by employees.It states that"[p]ersonal care products (e.g.,colognes,perfumes,essential oils,scented skin and hair products)should not be applied at or near actual workstations,restrooms,or anywhere in CDC owned or leased buildings." The new policy also states that the"CDC encourages employees to be as fragranoefrce as possible when they arrive in the workplace. "Fragrance is not appropriate for a professional work environment,and the use of some products with fragrance may be detrimental to the health of workers with chemical sensitivities,allergies, asthma,and chronic headaches/migraines. "Employees should avoid using scented detergents an fabrics softeners on clothes worn to the office. Many fragrance-free personal care and laundry products are easily available and provide safe alternatives." In addiion,sensitive employees are specifically protected by the policy,which states that",Supervisors will carefully consider and,to the extent feasible and in accordance with CDC policies,accommodate the needs of sensitive individuals." The U.S. Centers for Disease Conti-o1 and Prevention includes some 14,000 employees spread over 54 countries. 12/20/09 4.89 PM. How"f=resh"is Air Freshener? Printout-- nME PWOBRE€;-I d or,t#iu.ite 1 ► �� i E {T y� S � tG > u+ 71 . iira�i� U>E ��� 1?# Au � rs lr �re�t~alir �-Irxr,fiY6l�l��ri#rE��py+p�+���E�[lfltd��1,'; � `I I � a� Back to Article Click to Print - Monday,Sep.24,2007 How ...>�resh., IS Air freshener? By Coco Masters Watch enough TV commercials, and you get the sense that Americans are obsessed with air :Freshener. Trigger-happy women routinely rush around the house armed with cans of the stuff,. gleefully spraying running shoes, embarrassed dogs and cigar-smoke-laden furniture; whole families, it seems,are intoxicated by the fresh scent of Summer Breeze or Berry Burst. But just how"fresh" is air freshener?A study released last week by the Natural Resources Defense :Council (NRDQ evaluated 14 air fresheners off the shelf of a local Walgreens and found that 12 .contained variable amounts of substances called phthalates (pronounced THAL-ates), a group of chemicals that are used to dissolve and carry fragrances, soften plastics and also as sealants and adhesives. Phthalates are commonly found in a variety of products, including cosmetics,paints, nail polish and children's toys — and have long been at the center of a larger international controversy over their health effects. Studies involving rat and human subjects have suggested that high exposures to certain kinds of phthalates can cause cancer, developmental and sex-hormone abnormalities (including decreased testosterone and sperm levels and malformed sex organs) in infants, and.can affect fertility. The U.S. .Food and Drug Administration has no regulations on the use of phthalates, does not require the labeling of phthalate content on products and does not consider the quantities to which people are :exposed to be harmful. But other countries think otherwise. In 2004,the European Union banned two types of phthalates in cosmetics and also bans the chemical in children's toys, as do 14 other .countries.The first state bill to ban phthalates in children's toys in the U.S. is currently sitting on California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk, and he is expected to sign it this week. Plug-in, spray or stand-alone liquid and gel air fresheners are used in nearly 75% of U.S. households,' and the market has doubled since 2003 to $1.72 billion.The NRDC tested products, including those labeled"all-natural" or "unscented," and found a wide range of phthalate content,from zero parts per million (PPM)to 7,300 PPM. Many air fresheners contained a phthalate known as DEP and some Page 1 of 2 http:l lwww.timexom/time/printout/0,8816,1664954,00.htmI How"Fresh"is Air Freshener?—Printout—-nME 12/20/09 4:40 PM also contained DBP,which are listed by the California EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment as a developmental toxin and female and male reproductive toxin, respectively. According to the NRDC report, three Walgreens products —Walgreens Scented Bouquet Air Freshener, Walgreens Air Freshener Spray and Walgreens Solid Air Freshener --were among the top four highest in phthalate content (including Ozium Glycolized Air Sanitizer),.and Walgreens pulled ahem from store shelves last Wednesday.The company will submit its house-branded products to an independent lab to confirm the NRDC's findings; one of Walgreens' manufacturers has already decided to make its product phthlate-free, according to Walgreens spokeswoman Carol Hively. The two air fresheners that the NRDC found virtually free of phthalates were Febreze Air Effects Air Refresher and Renuzit Subtle Effects. While the study looked at which air fresheners contain the chemicals and how much,it did not assess: people's exposure to phthalates from these products—the size of the room,the distance from the air, freshener and how long a person stays in the room are all factors that would affect potential toxicity. But like phthalates banned from U.I . beauty products,those in air fresheners can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin. "We're not sa3dng that there's any clear-cut evidence here for health :effects,"says Dr. Gina Solomon of the NRDC. "If consumers want to reduce overall exposure, avoid these products or pick ones with lower levels. We don't know what the cutoff is." Clearly,there is an active scientific debate about the results of the testing of phthalates. "It's still unresolved," says the NRDC's Solomon. In the meantime,for those who are concerned about phthalates in air fresheners,there are various ways to make the home smell better, an natural. Solomon keeps the house clean and opens the Aadows —and makes her husband take out the trash. Other common ways to eliminate odors are to keep fresh coffee grounds, on the counter (a trick of many a flight attendant);toss balang soda at the bottom of the trash can; and grind up•a slice of lemon in the garbage disposal. "Get at the root of the odor," says Solomon. "Fresh air will do wonders." Click to Print Find this article at: h 3: wA w.time.com time health article o 8 a664Qs4,oo.html Copyright©2009 Time Inc.All rights reserved.Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. Privacy Policy Add TIME Headlines to your Site Contact US Customer Service http-./Iwww.time.corn/time/printout/0,8816,1664954,00.html Page 2 oft Is Perfume AM]]I atirtly Marketed Toxfn7-GrownUps New Zealand 414110 2:37 FM -[ is ✓•i4 `�•'t .a'3�73 hAKi#Ali ! Ps Perfume A Brilliantly. Marketed Toxin? I'm passing this article on because 1, like many others today, find the smell of perfumes lit colognes unpleasant at best and debilitating at worst.Now after checking out the subject on the internet i understand why I have the reactions I do,the chemicals used in these items are toxic and breathing in the fumes from them can be-compared-to breathing in second viand smoke. What's the difference between perfume and pollution?Absolutely nothing-Perfumes may be sold as luxury items that enhance our wellbeing and sexuality, but at heart they are composed of neurotoxic solvents not dissimilar from those favoured by glue sniffers and volatile chemicals usually more at home in garages and industrial factories. As far back as 7486, the US National Academy of Sciences targeted fragrance ingredients as one of six categories of neurotoxic chemicals in need of thorough investigation.This placed perfume ingredients right up there with insecticides,heavy metals, solvents and food additives as primary causes of disease in humans. But government.and_.1ndustry have..been.stow.,to get their-acts.together. Under EU legislation there are few restrictions and even fewer outright bans on the quantities or combinations of fragrance chemicals that may be used in cosmetics.A typical perfume contains a mixture of fragrance chemicals(often between 50 and 100)mostly.derived from petroleum.These include benzene derivatives, aldehydes and many other known toxins capable of causing cancer; birth defects, central nervous system(CNS)disorders and allergic and asthmatic reactions.These substances can gel into the body by inhalation or by being absorbed through the skin.When fragrance chemicals penetrate the skin they can be toxic to the liver and Iddneys Still others accumulate in fatty tissue and leach slowly back into the system or are passed on to children via breast milk.inhaled,they can cause sore throat, runny nose, sinus congestion, wheezing,shortness of breath, nausea,headache, dizziness, lethargy, mood svrings.and muscle pain_Perfume chemicals not only affect users but also those around them,and there are now urgent calls for second-nand scent to be considered in much the same Might as we consider second-hand smoke. There are environmental concerns as well, since fragrances are volatile compounds,which add to both indoor and outdoor air pollution.Synthetic musk compounds; for example, are carcinogenic and potential endocrine disrupters.They are also persistent in the environment and contaminate waterways and aquatic wildlife. The turnover of the fine fragrance market in the UK was F-350B last year. Currently,the US Food and Drug Administration is considering a petition submitted by US environmental group the Environmental Health Network to have a well known perfume declared'misbranded'.The basis of the petition is that none of the perfumes ingredients have been adequately tested for safety- The ingredients are fairly representative of those found in all modern perfumes.While most women perceive.it as a romantic floral fragrance, the reality is quite different-of the perfumes 41 known ingredients, 33 have no relevant safety data.Of the rest,data suggests they are toxic,irritant, sensitising(capable of causing allergic-like reactions), damaging to the CNS-and carcinogenic. Accordingly, the campaigners want the label of this (and all other.perfumes)to caution: `Warning: the safety of this product has not been determined.' Ingredients: Benzyl Acetate:Synthetic fragrance(floral, fruity).Irritating to eyes and respiratory passages. Carcinogen, linked to.pancreatic cancer. Benzenethanol:Synthetic fragrance(sweet, floral, rose).irritating to sldn, eyes and upper respiratory tract.CNS disruption.Carcinogenic-Also affects bone marrow (the tissues that produce blood cells).Exposure can lead to aplastic anaemia,excessive bleeding, and damage to the immune system(by changes in blood levels of antibodies and loss of white blood cells) Diethyl Phthalate:Solvent; carrier; fixative.Irritating to eyes and skin.C14S disruption.Causes fetal abnormalities.Sperm damage.Oestrogen mimic.Carcinogen Eu,genol:Synthetic fragrance(clove oil substitute).Irritant.Contact dermatitis:Also a common fungicide,pesticide and insecticide ingredient. Ethyl linalool;Unalool:Synthetic fragrance(bergamot, French lavender)-Narcotic,chl5 disruption.Commonly used in pesticides. Alpha-Terpineol:Synthetic fragrance{floral).Highly irritating to mucous membranes. CNS disruption.Scientific data warns against repeated or prolonged skin contact~ Galaxolide 50:Synthetic fragrance(artificial musk).Hormone disruptor_Irritant-Carcinogenic: Cyclopentadecanolide:Synthetic fragrance(artificial musk). hormone disrupter_Irritant.Carcinogenic. Benzaldehyde,4-Hydroxy-34lethoxy:Synthetic fragrance(vanilla).Irritation to the mouth,throat, eyes,skin,tangs, and the gastrointestinal tract,'causing nausea btip:liwwvi.grownups.co.nzirpaelhealtlilbealth-we 11bei n g/Is-p rrFL:M e-a-b Fill iantly-ni arketed-toxi Page x oft. Is Perfume A 801hantly.Mariceted Toxin?-Grownups New Zealand 4/4110 2:37 PM and abdominal pain.Kidney damage. CN5 disruption. Benzenemethanol:Solvent(carrier for other fragrance chemicals);synthetic fragrance(sweet,floral). Irritating to skin, eyes and upper respiratory tract. CNS disruption. Carcinogen. Phenol, 2,6-B€S(I,1-Dimetttylehyl)-4-Methyl:Fragrance; antioxidant. irritant.Potential carcinogen-Reproductive toxin. Also used as a pesticide. Submitted 8th Aug 2008 by GrownUps Member:Fvrebirxi le . . i lam , t1� :a forflYt c�t� =: a3'enployeAs�?3l be eolo�e or a�t�ts7�tta�+e�;asa :� . fec�erai�a�x*bt��, lace �t fficLa tap. Wariiingpl cor s t ee c�tyi�ta3lr�ngs ' f sceri�el�ract�ets iticl,�c '' 'colo�.es after slia�r� off ,p ifixes,dearlo j �13tS,�JO��f«d�S�C}tt4]375 c t - }t�B lie 4 S-e3a C dies j�pT�[3]3f i;c 1e° I07 ` ; �azznas._spra� a�sal}tl .;� au 88jq?exsu d�a�ou lad ernla7eeh 3n \-ner3= "NI e :abihes p, t tsatuasg Z. rill bear vat ; 'lie nine s tom a U�>DO0 settle�et' a federal IaY+Ys�� zvho s � a collea�?'S�e�f��ne 1t a halle�in1 for hex to rla lxi?r'bb, w http:/Iwww.grownups.co,nz]read/liealth/lieafth_w,elibeing/is-perfume-a-brill€antly--marketed-toxin Page 2 of2 scent may hide toxic secret .12/20/09 5:01 PM ; 4 � at -t e 4 http://www.scattl cpi.com/local/3 7177 9_toxicfragrance23-litrnl Fresh scent may hide toxic secret Innocuous-sounding 'perfume' in detergents, air fresheners made with dangerous chemicals Wednesday, July 23, 200 Last updated July 25, 2008 9:53 a.m. PT By LISA STIFFLER P-[ REPORTE=R The scented fabric sheet makes your shirts and socks smell flowery fresh and clean. That plug-in air freshener fills your home with inviting fragrances of apple and cinnamon or a country garden. But those common household items are potentially exposing your family and friends to dangerous chemicals, a University of Washington study has found. Trouble is, you have no way of knowing it..Manufacturers of detergents,laundry sheets and air fresheners aren't required to list all of their ingredients on their labels -- or anywhere else. Laws protecting people from indoor air pollution from consumer products are limited. When LTW engineering professor Anne Steinmann analyzed of some of these popular items, she found 100 different volatile organic compounds measuring 300 parts per billion or more -- some of which can be cancerous or cause harm to respiratory, reproductive, neurological and other organ systems. Some of the chemicals are categorized as hazardous or toxic by federal regulatory agencies. But the labels tell a different story, naming only innocuous-sounding "perfume" or "biodegradable" contents. "Consumers are breathing these chemicals," she said. "No one is doing anything about it." Industry representatives say that isn't so. "Dr. Steinemann's statement is misleading and disingenuous," said Chris Cathcart, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Consumer Specialty Products Association, in a statement. "Air fresheners, laundry products and other consumer specialty products are regulated under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and subsequently have strict labeling requirements," he said. "Companies producing products that are regulated under FHSA must name on the product label each component that contributes to the hazard." http://mvw.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?plot=t&refer=httpa/www.seattlepi.com/local/371779 toxicfragrance23.htmI Page 1 of 5 Fresh scent may hide toxic secret 12120/09 5- CHEMICALS US50 IN SCENTED PRODUCTS A&I Lidy from the Lin wersity o�washingtan found ootentiatiy ciangpircus rheonim I's in top-saMna air frcshencrs an-J Laundry SUDPNC-K whun air aroundtho Products vva5 }x'ui ccnwrier5 are ier'rt in ithe dark a� to rlhedr,presencCe. N1a.1Wf8CWrer5SErid that they're perfc,4ctlysafe.vdier. used 8s d�rettad. AIR FRESHENMS '10 zr;g j P. 1,7 c UA4 X, 'Q� I ii- 'T..Bray e "N q rst I its "D..ten, . 0�t T�rt-_,::es;entlBl Q sbs:I j:m tffi�'g_ c s c - lin eb disk. rarn3 zlpha=F -_ n � ft untEH Fthanol ton ingrpdfients,on produ-.t labe!r- rrirrarily tASr�5,lists "'f!S�enti8j Oil,, , spr. ')"q anlf� spray P-_rfro rne d grade gi�I 11 r-19 agent 11-nilill ran? ser.ret" ............. t -Wo ;i. I Inigredivr, s q-nrP'C(0LjC7 ' 0-�-1 h e5 erler. I k , ' ' ' . -1'. '45 F—r M� RK Y.� _-.­:�'. -.1 1;f lister Mk tLMEV P e r�rgre ft an. '3py iyft 4 LAUNDRY-SUPPLIES .y e- bi f god EC lab al jjSjS"D1.00CCrr dd 2r , Scented 66th Efh : ann xeet dr % and pe&nl yer .5 cr_q gised cati on i It-wftan M. i n the d rver 'nori-Eanic and c&iw 29 adonti,6 Perfume rarriLh.r' Ufrl 43.jd.�Cj..li_ l iquir J fabric 5aftening agunLs,(catinn10," .Yftenel' (JU;d Err the and cationic washing fabric 5cfteriinq aWmtS, nrochin.i ace;taIde hyde color�jnt,quality wntro,r aqcflll,�' Deteryeht. Scentcd liquid Etharlol' Flroducc tabF4 lists 'biru'opgrkabk? non i� -anic)anti 1,4,6oxane, cffiVr. su,r at) JR an r,5 r Pinerie, ethanvFamine" 2ybutanorio D.W., Cwitam du"wkj11 trlforrfvltltsj.ln(!.)jtlt r d •vOkfws and ameigency Ferpondem P-1 Note: An updated federal database no longer considers ethanol or chloromethane ossible carcinogens. This graphic uses older information, as did the University of Washington study. Millions are spent annually to ensure that fragrances in the products are safe, according to a joint statement from the Fragrance Materials Association, which represents,fragrance manufacturers., and the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, which works closely with the association. Ingredients are routinely tested, and chemicals that are considered dangerous are present at levels much too low to cause harm, according to the groups. But there are numerous reports of people -- particularly those with asthma, chemical sensitivities and allergies -- having strong adverse reactions, researchers said. http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/Index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http:I Immseattlepi.com/local/371779 toxicfrag rance2 3.htm I Page 2 of 5 12/20/09 5.01 PM. Ffesi cent may hide toxic secret That's a problem when public restroos in restaurants ox airplanes use air fresheners, or when hotels wash m towels and sheets in scented laundry.supplies. And even when the concentrations.are low in individual products, people are exposed to multiple sources on a daily basis. Aileen Gagney, Asthma and Environmental Health Program manager with the American Lung Association in Seattle, herself an asthma sufferer, has a rule of thumb to help avoid exposure: "If it smells bad, it's bad; if it smells good,it's bad." • But even_that won't always work. According to Steinmann, even products labeled "unscented" sometimes contain a fragrance and a "masking" fragrance to make them odor-free. People, Puget Sound at risk? For Steinemann's research, published Wednesday in Environmental Impact Assessment Review, she .. selected a top-selling item from six categories of products: dryer sheets, fabric softeners, detergents, acid solid, spray and plug-in air fresheners. Then she.contracted with a.lab to-test the air around the items to identify the chemicals people.could be ..: breathing. Ten of the 100 volatile organic compounds identified qualified under federal rules as toxic or hazardous, and three of those -- 1;4.-dioxane,,acetal.dehyde and chloromethane.-- are "hazardous air pollutants" .considered_. unsafe to breathe at any concentration, according to the study. The labels gave no indication that the irritating and potentially dangerous chemicals were present, so Steinmann checked the product's Material Safety Data Sheets. These technical documents provide ingredient information for the safety of workers and emergency responders. They, too, disclosed little detail, mostly citing ingredients such as "essential oils" and "organic perfume." "It's a reasonable expectation;to think that laundry products and air fresheners would be free of chemicals that can cause,cancer," said Erika Schreder, a staff scientist with the Washington Toxics Coalition. "But as this LTW study shomrs, it's disturbingly easy to find toxic chemicals in everyday products like these because companies don't have to say what's in their products." Cathcart, of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, said the information's not on the package because the "chemicals are not present in the products at levels deemed hazardous under the law. Given the limited space on product labels, it is important to include the relevant information consumers need to make intelligent use, storage and disposal decisions." The threat isn't limited to people. Steinemann and others worry that the chemicals in consumer products flow from homes to the outdoors. "These chemicals get into our water systems and into Pugpt'Sound," she said. They are "extraordinarily hard to get out of the environment." http://www.seattlepi.rom Iprinter2/index.asp?plot=t&refer=http://www.seatt[epi.com/l oca[/371779_tox icfragrance23.htm] Page 3 of 5 Fresh scent may hide toxic secret 12/20109 S., ' 4 Steinemann's research was paid for using discretionary money awarded to her:as,a UW professor; she wanted to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. She has also submitted for publication a study that goes further to examine ingredients in cleaning and personal-care products. Regulatory gaps With fears growing over chemicals in consumer products lead in toys, bisphenol A in plastic baby bottles,'' phthalates in shower curtains and cosmetics -- environmentalists and health advocates are calling for stricter regulations of chemicals in everyday goods. They also want shoppers to have 'more readily accessible' information. Manufacturers and trade groups representing consumer products routinely counter�that there's plenty of testing and oversight from within the industries and from government regulations to ensure safety. In the fragranced-products arena, they point to industry Web sites with information on product ingredients and suggest contacting companies with specific questions. Critics maintain that's not enough. "There's obviously a,loophole," said Michael Robinson-Dorn, a.UW law professor:who aided Steinemann's research. "We regulate many of these chemicals in other circumstances, yet when they're in products that..., we're in contact with daily, in some cases, we don't wind up finding out about them." He said the items can slip between regulatory cracks by falling into the: urisdiction of multiple government agencies, none taking ownership. "Any time you have a product that is regulated by many different agencies, it's easy for them not to react," he said. In the absence of strong laws, the marketplace is starting to regulate itself. After the Natural Resources Defgnse Council last fall found'troubling levels of phthalates --' plasticizing., chemicals that can potentially harm developing babies -- in.air fresheners, Walgreens pulled the products from its shelves. Last month, NRDC and other environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency to force: . manufacturers to test air freshener safety and label products with a full ingredient list, Steinemann's study could push the process along. "Consumer demand for less-toxic products will encourage companies.,to reformulate their products,",she said. "This is a case where a little information could have a great public benefit." http://www.seattJepi.com/printer2/lndex.aW. Page.4 of 5 Fresh scent may hide toxic secret 12/20/09 5-01 PM HOW BAD ARETHE CHEMICALS? Prcodum meant to makc,our homer and clothes s,hell beUer M*.}contain ha—vardc;Us chemicak.ln:dustrl,represerntatikees said The ingre iieteL are: el researched and present at levels tots low to Pause harry.. Envjrd nment�iisls and health advrrcates said that people arc o tf n wxp%erl try ft'fany products, making it}Marti to know actual exposure leveis,and 1118t some people are njore sensitive than others_ CHEWjr_AL.itAn#E TO)UC TO NM ORGANS 01-SYSTEMS! i '11M JIM=19101,111-1W (r �tkX89SB X a� X X X .K - .,. A A 1pha-pinene " Be�i12d9jf�4 K iilar+�wet#asne . X ( *A f deraI Clear(AirAci de�;l_'riation;; if carrinaganic,they are assumed tc fima.no known soft: I�vel���hprJS�Jre. . St►urc ,1�nik wit} f' ask�ics ton,I-l reportir� f C�LE =i P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 246-448-8042 or lisastiffler @seattlepi.com. Read her blog on the environniva at datehivearth.co7,i. D 1998-2009 Seattle Post-Intelligencer http://www.seattlepi_com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/focal/371779_toxicfragrance23.htmf Page 5 of 5 lJewswise 12/5109 8:58 Ph4 t +-y 4 The Endocrine Society Endorses Keywords: ore er Bill Aimed a Endocrine Disruption Prevention Act of2009 Protecting Public from Exposure to Contactinfarmaticn Harmful Chemical Available•for logged-in reporters only Description Released: 1214/2DD9 11:00 AM EST Source: Endocrine Society The Endocrine Society commends Representative Jim Moran (D VA)and Senator John Kerry(0-MA)for introducing the Endocrine lJewswise — The Endocrine Society commends Representative Jim Moran Disruption Prevention Act of 2009(H.R.4790:5.2828).The bill, endorsed by the Society,amends the Public Health Service Act by (D-VA) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA)for introducing the Endocrine authorizing the National Institute of Environmental Health Disruption Prevention Act of 2009,(H.R. 4190; S. 2828)• The bill, endorsed by Sciences to conduct a research program on endocrine disruption the Society,amends the Public Health Service Act by authorizing the National aimed at preventing and reducing the production of and the Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to conduct a research program on public's exposure to harmful chemicals. endocrine disruption aimed at preventing and reducing the•production of and the public's exposure to harmful chemicals. The legislation reflects the findings and recommendations of The Endocrine'Society's peer-reviewed Scientific Statement(hitp://www.ando- society.org[journals/scienfiticstatements/)'on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) released by the Society this past June. The Scientific Statement presents evidence that endocrine disruptors—substances that interfere with hormone biosynthesis, metabolism or action—impact health resulting in adverse developmental,reproductive, neurological and immune effects in both humans and wildlife. "We congratulate Rep. Moran and Sen.Kerry for their leadership on this critical and global public health issue that has the potential to affect every living being,"said Robert A.Vigersky, MD, president of The Endocrine Society."This bill has tremendous impact because,in addition to focusing on the need for immediate and comprehensive research, it invokes a regulatory response to.subsequent findings" The Endocrine Society is confident that, upon passage by Congress, implementation of this legislation will advance scientific research in the field of EDCs and will improve the regulatory process by ensuring that it is informed by the best EDC science. Just last month,the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates adopted an Endocrine Society resolution (http://www.endo- society.org/medial press/2008/AMAAdoptsSocietyRasolution.cfm) calling for new government policies to decrease public exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Adoption of this resolution means that it Is now AMA policy and is wholly supported by the House of Medicine. Founded in 1916,The Endocrine.Society is the world's oldest, largest and most active organization devoted to research on hormones and the clinical practice of endocrinology. Today,The Endocrine Society's membership consists of more than 14;000 scientists, physicians, educators, nurses and students in more than 100 countries.Society members represent all basic, applied and clinical interests in endocrinology. The Endocrine Society is based in Chevy Chase, Maryland.To learn more about the Society and the field of endocrinology, visit our Web site at www.endo-society.org. ID21 0 jir'lnlSi}isc, ln'- 215 L. stii St. 5,f+, Cfiarklt tsvitle VA 22)G y 4-34.296-'q4s o trc Terms of Service r Page 1 of i http:J/www;newswire.com/articles/viewJ559294?print-article Dr, Ann Steinemann , PhD Anne C. Steinemann Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering .Evans School of Public Affairs December 10, 2008 To the Missouri Green Cleaning for Schools Committee Members, and Missouri Board of Education: I am very concerned that air fresheners and oleanifuYt products with an added fragrance are being considered for use in Ylour SCn01 0. Air fresheners and fragranced 'cleaning products, even ones certified.as "green," emit numerous tome chemicals including carcinogenic Hazardous,Air Pollutants that, according to the . nvironmental.l'rotection Agency;lave no exposure level cogslder­ed"s ie I am a Professor at the University of as or n lae-Depa men cif :and Environmental Engineering and the Evans School of Public Affairs. I speclaliize in environinental pollutants and public heap, and have conducted three sets of stu&CS r©ducts . I t; �cal anal ses ofthe . pertaining to air fresheners and fragaad cleaning p ) y , emissions from air fresheners d ban. produc t reg ato a�a yszs.of the.laws pertaining to the t.esdng and % cl©surr Qf do c cue heals m air:.]ffbshencrs and cleaning products; and 3 two..nat<on e xde €Io cal s lid es of adverse health effects from exposure to air freshers aid fraanced products s ?? � the results below. 1 My chenvcal and s S of a ramie of air fie hen rs mcl p spays,, solid disl�s, ply- ins, and oils) and fragranced cleagproduc raclg =ppose cleaners, glass. cleaners, floor cleaners, bathroom cleaners, detergents, ajad disfifectants) found that each one emitted chemicals that are.carcinogens, neurotoxms, and respiratory toxins. Even air fresheners and fragraneed.ele products marketed as "orgarric,""greed," "all-natural," or with-"essential oils" were just as toxic, and in some cases more toxic than the regular. varieties. (As a supplement to this letter, I proNide a list of the most common chemicals emitted by air fresheners and fiagranced cleaning pro duets.) More than 1.00 volatile fresheners and fr ced cleanir products, but orgarnc compounds were ernrtted by air fr �� �g none of these chemicals )A.Tere listed.ors and product label or material safety data sheet. (2) To uladerstand this sfai1 ng gap bet A-reen chemicals emitted and chemicals disclosed, Z investigated the U.S. regulations pertairiig to air f esheners and fragranced cleaning- products. 7 discovered that compa�?Kies are not required to test for toxic chemicals air reshe��ers or fr. ��af;ced cleaners, nor are d�e�r required to disclose any of the y a : E1ftu� "0+ s sr-E "s -•--ls i—i r L � s�+.+�.= G"� L:3�^a-iL £ 11az 'at1oui7. 1 Vdhe words i.6s Y wiL.not ffnd hazardous chemicals listed on Lhe product labels or material safety data sheets_ and that is legaL hecause, they.do not need to be disclosed. The company providing you with air fresheners and cleaners- is probaNy assertiag that they are `-safe." But that te--fn has no legal definition -when it concerns air fresheners and fragranced cleardng products, and there is no agency that regulates the safely and health effects from these products. (Would ajty company tell you that their products are not safe`) (3) Health effects from exposure-to air-fresheners and fragranced products are sigt�ficant. i—r � z-iatiot l eplde�niological studies; found that more than 20% ol'the general U.S. population suffers headaches-, brealMng difliculties, and other adverse health effects 0�N hen exposed G er attacks or breathing di cul es when o sea to ai :fr s le ers amore a 3$ a` f die-U.S. population report adverse health electsIleft eX oseo araced- rdcts, such as scented cleaf �� . . . p supplies. Even fpeople: a h:0 steer ae-c effect; tl ley� cap anetheless be banned by -::.:: the chefnicals-M these products. Chemical oy es add up; and- .e .d to adverse effects, such as respirator. .::din.., e:and brain.Vin..^ Plus, n an of these hazardous chemicals ' .lam' _ '-. refnaii_ in our bo dtes :: 1 Air fresheziwrs,end scents aed � agrdts se n hrenic:. �ose. 'h do not disinfect ean" r ou �y Or, ect�esoeer do addoc chemicals to ail e s�.Problem, add:ca sea;, Vers e ltlt efrects _...: TI�s is niore-tfi n a eat :issue ::i:�:is ads :�� disab�y access is�u�: dust as having srnalt' stalls would-prev t e le: hee ch"a�s frd r 8 our estru s =so would air fresheners and fragranced cleaners prevent people with bre-athin disabili€ies, allergies, or aensifivities zone using the yes oo sand being at.)e to 'ic�,on weld.m school. Given the disks, and the sence of any:le.Ar`bene�. `9chbols should not be using air fresheners or scented products,�of aft3'T kind. Air fresheners do not clean the air, and added scents are not necessary to Glean;-and,they pose signfficant hazards-----especially.to cHdren. Sincerely yours, Anne C. Steinemam Professor, Civil and EnviroDmental Engi eermg Professor, Pubhe affairs Umversity of I�Tash gton f�.r Living Well: Exposure to toxins driving up healthcare costs Exposure to toxins-costs us billions each year, study shows By BOB CONDOR SPECIALTO THE POST-INTELLIGENCER Money talks, we all know that. For Kate Davies, money and economics can say plenty toward arguing for tighter regulation of toxic chemicals used by companies in Washington. It is important for environmentalists to use economic arguments to control toxic chemicals;" said 7Da.vies, a researcher iri'ehVirbliment and community at Antioch University Seattle's Center for Creative Change. "Of course, monetary valuations of diseases and disabilities are only part of the picture. They do not take account of people's suffering or the emotional costs to families and friends. "But whether we like it or not, legislators are heavily influenced by economic arguments.-It is important for environmentalists to speak this language. In an exclusive interview with the P-1 and the Living Well column, Davies released her findings from a new study that links big money -- billions -- in health-care costs.to environmental toxins. The Antioch study shows environmental contaminants cause $1.6 to $2.2 billion in direct and indirect costs in the state for childhood conditions such as asthma, cancer, lead exposure, birth defects and neurobehavioral disorders. Adult conditions (asthma, heart disease, cancer and more) run up $2.8 billion to '$3.5 billion. That's a lot of money that can be trimmed from a legislative budget or health-care costs program. It represents th'e sort of dollars that make legislators sit up and notice. The findings are timed to Wednesday's public hearings about "persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances," or PBTs. She hopes to catch the attention of state legislators and Department of Ecology officials attending the hearings who will be writing a draft rule on PBTs. "This is exactly the sort of evidence we need to present to legislators as they develop new regulations for environmental toxins," said Elise Miller, director of the Institute for Children's Environmental Health 'based in Freeland. Davies' new study is based on an "environmentally attributable fraction model that estimates proportions'of'each disease or disability that can conservatively be linked to exposure to environmental toxins. So Davies' numbers may even be on the low side. Her well-documented research.is part of a national trend to track health-care costs related to environmental factors, but Davies is the first scientist to specifically target how the numbers affect our state. These environmental health researchers are smart to include mainstream government and medical sources in their papers. It marks the first time state legislators will have access to such eco-economics during public hearings. It is what makes Davies' work so important -- and encouraging to any environmental activist. An important point: Cost-benefit analysis has been part of environmental policy making for years, yet in most cases only the costs of managing toxic chemicals is included in any analysis. Davies said the environmental health costs associated with children's conditions is roughly .7 percent of the state gross national product, while environmental health costs for adults equates to 1 percent of the local annual GNP. Funding programs that reduce health-care costs associated with environmental toxins means the state GNP would increase nearly 2 percent. This is attractive to state legislators. Some of the individual costs attached to conditions are worth noting. For instance, a large part of the eco-health costs can be traced to lead exposure. There is no "safe"'threshold for lead exposure in young children, especially age 5 and younger. Total cost for 2004 is pegged at $1.5 billion for the potential damage of lead exposure to the developing brain and central nervous system. Childhood. asthma is another instructive case. Dr. Philip Landrigan at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New fork conducted a landmark study that estimates 10 to 35 percent of kids' asthma is linked to outdoor non-biologic pollutants (translation: toxic man-made chemicals). About $50 million per year goes to treating Washington children with asthma caused by these pollutants. Davies` study also connects a portion of the huge costs of cardiovascular disease to toxic chemicals used by industry. Her analysis shows $564 million was spent in 2004 on heart patients adversely affected by pollutants. Just the mere act of counterbalancing industry lobbyists is a significant outcome for Davies. She and Miller both anticipate this report will create some momentum for a tougher draft rule on PBTs. Their goal for Wednesday's public hearings is to "influence the debate," said Davies. "It is important to look at this issue from a Washington state perspective," she said. "We could significantly improve the state's economic performance by eliminating or controlling the use of toxic chemicals." RLleased July 2005 Toxin impact information on children can be found at: Institute for Children's Environmental Health http:// www.iceh.org WA Toxic's Coalition http://www.watoxics.org/ 1 �u�CQ' n n II. {]• ry Ill fo CF. S .n'�-{p C3. �iY i -:[ O _ m ^°« a 1 1�3 w odD a N m a N' ,rn CL �I .w1 N T n zC N 7 PW�'..NU�i j 0 �' p• r: it +';. 1 b CD CD ANk ISO w If .ca i 5 v 77 Q°• ❑ to r r R t ' n j.I ,v4i-=r m .n Fn rn -•. C. L :,rr w C, )l�ia• �'. c 3 '� � GI w- � `.P. j N"p1 r, µ c•: � �; t kG I I� C IA d "rn ro an a (/y CD ❑ N ?3 a �_.�_..:_, _... __.. � ��•,gym. 1 ! a °C: a Y G 6 r t n c a ro m a m L. -o '•°d - m fE 0. ° o ..o .-vn .p a � �m t - '.rr•_ 1 m c F rT [ n w x m v, III,'.ri ti ro a ° r 11" 1 w to m m m� N II s cn N Via' a'f5, 7 0 11 c F- m °x., X I z - oot -II 9' m N o r= t t I m u; m x_-n rD = -,� Nom` 1 z 7 e 'tle tp t ..1 n `r ry [^: - 1.. •;� a �, -d. ' ,r-Y t'r ;:tl'c I 1 r C' (P CD CP t t m C a° 77 rl €5rw I D3 ly C-101 D o @ In S• ° CD c c1ro Rte' av 1 �I w-o,-. :3 �. p7 a ' 1 7 _" C •Q�i N f?.F ��i.b �� �r.� 'i f f� .■ 1 11 F P ro MINE w Fa i 1 - - ---..:r r-- j- _ I ti� � N�4'fit'� ��'�•_ _� ��. � � __ _ �J 4 m 61 p p :— a m I m FO d C) C: Q1 CD —I S LD W cA t1 m E '" CP a0 °m0 _a� y y �• 77 rt 7 O r Q o r 4 G ❑' Lip O ❑ O z {n J =-; rL x N (D phi c C a O CD