Clorox Takes Another Step in its Path to Transparency

Nearly two years ago I did a story on this blog about how cleaning product companies were "coming clean," and listing the ingredients in such Windex and Formula 409.  Now one of those companies, The Clorox Company, is taking another step toward transparency in chemical labeling.  Last week the company issued a press release announcing that "it is now disclosing the following additional information about its products through its Ingredients Inside program:"

• Specific identity of preservatives and dyes in all U.S. and Canadian cleaning, disinfecting and laundry products. This information expands upon the listing of active ingredients, which has been provided to consumers over the last two years.
• Palette of fragrance ingredients - listed in numerical and alphabetical order - used in all U.S. and Canadian cleaning, disinfecting and laundry products. Clorox is also including a link to a PDF file that includes each fragrance ingredient's CAS Registry Number, the unique numerical identifier assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service to every chemical available in open scientific literature, as well as the fragrance chemical names, provided by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).

Besides the well known household staple, Clorox bleach, The Clorox Company also makes "Pine-Sol^® cleaners, Poett^® home care products, Fresh Step^® cat litter, Kingsford^® charcoal, Hidden Valley^® and K C Masterpiece^® dressings and sauces, Brita^® water-filtration products, Glad^® bags and wraps and containers, and Burt's Bees^® natural personal care products."

Revealing their chemical ingredients is a big deal given that "nearly 90 percent of Clorox Company brands hold the No. 1 or No. 2 market share positions in their categories."  That means these market leaders will likely have a large influence (aka peer pressure) on other cleaning product companies to reveal their ingredients in order to compete for the "green market" business.

More information about the program can be found on Clorox's "Ingredients Inside" page.

Priority Chemicals Listed by the Minnesota Department of Health - Toxic Free Kids Act

Under the Toxic Free Kids Act, the state of Minnesota Department of Health, in consultation with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, has listed a total of nine chemicals as "priority chemicals."  The statute, which passed in 2009 "required MDH to develop two lists of chemicals: Chemicals of High Concern and Priority Chemicals." The Chemicals of High Concern list was published on July 1, 2010 and be found on the Chemicals of High Concern page. 

The Priority Chemicals list can be found here.  The nine chemicals listed (click on the name for links to PDFs of summary information for each chemical) are:

Bisphenol A

Cadmium

Decabromodiphenyl Ether (DecaBDE)

Formaldehyde

Hexabromocyclododecane

Lead

And three phthalates:

Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP)
Dibutyl phthalate (DBP)
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)

The Minnesota Department of Health has also provided a handy priority chemicals summary table here.

Additional information on the methodology employed to select priority chemicals, as well as a FAQ sheet, can be found on the MDH web site.

EPA Updates EPI Suite Chemical Estimation Software

The USEPA has long made available a computer program called "EPI Suite," which allows users to estimate  physical-chemical properties, environmental fate, and aquatic toxicology for a variety of chemicals. These estimations allow for rapid screening level assessment of potential harm and of fate and transport in the environment, thus aiding in both research and development decision-making and identifying areas for more focused evaluation.  Now EPA has provided an updated version called EPI Suite v.4.10.  The new version adds several new features and links to other useful database resources.

The updated version of EPI Suite can be downloaded here.

EPI Suite now includes a structure drawing module that "allows users to draw chemical structures and generate SMILES notations for direct entry into EPI programs."  SMILES stands for "Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry Specification" and allows even the most complex structures to be entered as simply ASCII strings for evaluation. 

Additionally, the new version has a new button that can link to several free sources of information.  Key databases linked include:

(1) ECOTOX - The ECOTOXicology database is a source for locating single-chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. ECOTOX was created and is maintained by EPA's Office of Research and Development.

(2) Fate Resource Pointers - The Fate Resource Pointer File contains internet links to 16 sources of information on environmental fate of chemicals.  It can be searched by CAS numbers, names and by a substructure drawing applet.

 (3) SPARC - SPARC Performs Automated Reasoning in Chemistry can calculate a variety of physical and chemical properties.  EPI Suite does not currently include a pKa (dissociation constant) estimation program, but SPARC has an excellent pKa program.  SMILES notation  entered into the EPI Suite Interface is automatically entered into SPARC’s SMILES entry box.

Also, EPI Suite data files are now available in two substructure searchable formats: ISIS/Base and SD.

ECHA Updates its Online IT Tool to Allow Searching by Categories of Chemicals

For those deeply into REACH, the EU's chemical control law, the European Chemical Agency's (ECHA) web site is a treasure trove of helpful guidance and IT tools.  One of the tools available for free download is the "dissemination tool," which can be used to search for those chemical substances that have been registered and also "disseminated" online.  Up until now the tool only allowed for filtering single-substance registrations.  The new version of the tool "can now also filter registration dossiers based on a category approach."

The dissemination tool is pretty handy, at least for that small subset of chemical dossiers that have made it to the public phase.   Many more are still being processed from the thousands of dossiers submitted.  Eventually all of the public information will be online (the deadline for dissemination of all dossiers submitted by November 30, 2010 is March 1, 2011).  Many chemicals were submitted as single chemicals, i.e., one chemical, one dossier.  Other chemicals were submitted as part of what is called a "category approach."  In this approach the registrants can combine the data for several chemicals that a closely related, usually by structure but also by physical-chemical, environmental fate, and toxicological properties.  Having data on one chemical and a thorough understanding of the relationships between chemicals can offer the advantage of using a patchwork of data from a series of related chemicals and obviate the need to do costly testing on every single chemical.  It also results in a significant reduction in unnecessary animal testing.

The dissemination tool is a plug-in to IUCLID, the database system used by the EU and other areas to submit summaries of the chemical and toxicological studies available for registered chemicals.  It can be downloaded on the IUCLID5 website.

More information on the tool and links to the download sites can be found on the ECHA web site.

TSCA Chemical Reform Hearing Going on Now (10:00 am EST)

As I noted a couple of days ago, the US Senate is holding a hearing today on TSCA reform.  Technically, the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health is holding the hearing, which is called "Assessing the Effectiveness of US Chemical Safety Laws" and features some key players in the ongoing discussions to modernize the 34 year old law. 

PDF copies of their written testimony is now on the hearing web page and are linked to the witnesses below:

The Honorable Steve Owens Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Environmental Protection Agency

Ms. Kelly M. Semrau Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs, Communication, and Sustainability, SC Johnson

Mr. Steve Goldberg Vice President and Associate General Counsel BASF

Ms. Frances Beinecke President Natural Resources Defense Council

Mr. Cal Dooley President American Chemistry Council

Dean Lynn Goldman, MD, MPH Dean George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services

The Subcommittee hearing page has more information.

Scientists Ask Congress to Drop Partisanship and Focus on Climate Science to Address Global Warming

On January 28th more than a dozen scientists wrote a letter to Congress, asking it to "take a fresh look" at climate data. They reminded Congress that climate science is not a partisan issue - "there are no Democratic or Republican carbon dioxide molecules; they are all invisible and they all trap heat."   The letter "emphasizes the importance of truly understanding the science of climate change, and stresses the need to prevent political ideology from clouding our scientific understanding of how climate change is impacting our way of life."

They also point out that:

Heat-trapping carbon dioxide is building up in the atmosphere because burning coal, oil, and natural gas produces far more carbon dioxide than is absorbed by oceans and forests. No scientist disagrees with that.

The remind Congress that the National Academy of Sciences has stated, 

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities . . . and in many cases is already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems.” 

In short, "climate change is underway and the severity of the risks we face is compounded by delay."

They reiterate that climate scientists can only provide the science, which they have done. It is up to elected officials to exercise their responsibility to take policy action to combat the realities of climate change. The scientists recommended that Congress "hold hearings to understand climate science and what is says about the likely costs and benefits of action and inaction." Conversely, Congress "should not hold hearings to attempt to intimidate scientists or to substitute ideological judgments for scientific ones."

An article can be read on The Hill. Scroll down for the scientists' letter in its entirety. The full letter can also be read here.

TSCA Chemical Reform Hearing in the US Senate Thursday February 3

TSCA reform may be dormant, but apparently not completely dead.  Since there appears to be little chance of the Republican-led House to initiate action this term, the Senate has decided to try to jump start the process again.  With this in mind, the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health will hold a hearing entitled "Assessing the Effectiveness of US Chemical Safety Laws" this Thursday, February 3, 2011. 

The subcommittee is part of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works chaired by Barbara Boxer.  Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey chairs the subcommittee, and as you probably remember he has been the one to introduce the various "Kid Safe" bills in recent years, including last year's Safe Chemicals Act.  Joining Lautenberg is ranking member James Inhofe, who while historically not prone to supporting environmental legislation, has indicated he is committed to work with Lautenberg to come up with a TSCA reform bill that protects human health and the environment while also not unduly inhibiting industry growth.

Witnesses at the hearing, some of whom have become familiar faces at these events, are expected to be:

Panel 1

The Honorable Steve Owens Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Environmental Protection Agency

Panel 2

Ms. Kelly M. Semrau Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs, Communication, and Sustainability, SC Johnson

Mr. Steve Goldberg Vice President and Associate General Counsel BASF

Ms. Frances Beinecke President Natural Resources Defense Council

Mr. Cal Dooley President American Chemistry Council

Dean Lynn Goldman, MD, MPH Dean George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services

The Subcommittee hearing page will include copies of testimony once given. It will begin at 10:00 am EST in the EPW Hearing Room 406 Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington DC.  As of this writing no indication of whether the hearing will be simulcast or not, but generally this is the case.

Pesticide Trade Association Offers Their Insight Into Recent NGO Endangered Species Act Lawsuit

About 10 days ago I reported on a law suit filed by two NGOs in an attempt to force EPA to "consult" with the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on pesticide issues as required by the Endangered Species Act.  Now the major crop protection chemical (i.e., pesticide) trade association has weighed in on the suit.

The trade association, CropLife America, which "represents the developers, manufacturers, formulators and distributors of plant science solutions for agriculture and pest management in the United States," offered the following on their web site:

“The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is an important legislative vehicle which helps facilitate the conservation of endangered plants and animals, yet the litigation filed by CBD and PANNA reflects the much larger issue: real ESA reform is required to protect endangered species,” said Jay Vroom, president and CEO of CLA. “However, litigation does not help to improve a system which can only be fixed through sound policy and legislation.”

CropLife America believes that, while the lawsuit "alleges that EPA has failed to consult with the...Services to ensure that crop protection products do not jeopardize endangered species," the NGOs "overlook the numerous benefits of modern agriculture, its rigorous regulatory oversight and proven role in protecting America’s wildlife."  In other words, think of all the good that pesticides do for society.  But there is more, obviously, to the story as CropLife and the NGOs differ dramatically on the value of pesticides.  CropLife believes that they allow for greater crop growth, which means greater and more efficient food production.  The NGOs believe that pesticides epitomize the problem of reliance on monoculture, which requires heavy chemical usage to combat the resulting pest species that would otherwise not be able to gain a foothold.


Both groups would agree that a better consultation process is needed.  The NGOs think that having EPA make what are essentially summary decisions by themselves is a conflict of interest since EPA also garners fees for registering pesticides.  CropLife believes that bringing in the Services creates a huge stranglehold on innovation and the ability to bring new, and presumably safer, products onto the market.  This argument has been going on for years and perhaps is the real reason behind the NGO law suit - to get a case that can cause there to be decisions made on how to proceed.  Clearly a more effective procedure, both from an efficiency standpoint and from a human health and the environment standpoint, is needed.

Update on Korea REACH Chemical Control Law

Two weeks ago I reported that South Korea was expected to release a REACH-like chemical chemical control law.  Now the Korean Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has issued a news release indicating that MOE, in cooperation with six other ministries, has "set a master plan for chemicals management."

The master plan, which "will be implemented until 2020," intends to minimize harm to human health and the environment by managing chemicals "in an advanced way."  The plan contains "five strategies and 15 core action plans with the aim of securing more than 80% of information on harm and hazard of chemicals and reducing carcinogen of group 1 by 32% by 2020."  The main contents of the master plan include:

￮ In order to secure scientific information on chemicals, hazard assessment item will be increased from 9 to 13 and Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) will be expanded.

￮ A system will be made to prevent and respond to chemical accident and terrorism and small and medium sized companies will be received support for emission reduction.

￮ Mercury, nanomaterials and POPs, subject to international control, will be managed in a more enhanced way and participation by citizens in making policies will be expanded.

The announcement and additional information on the core policies can be found here.

Poll by Cleaning Products Organization Shows People Like Antibacterial Soaps

Questions have been raised about the use of antibacterial soaps, but a new poll released by the American Cleaning Institute (formerly the Soap and Detergent Association), finds that "the vast majority of Americans uses antibacterial soap and finds it to be a useful tool to prevent the spread of germs."  In fact, according to the survey conducted by Fabrizio, Ward and Associates, about "two-thirds of Americans would be “angry” at any government attempts to ban the products."

According to ACI, among the key findings of the poll:

• Nearly three-quarters of American consumers (74%) use antibacterial soap (56% use it regularly), finding it a very useful tool to prevent the spread of germs at home, in health care settings, schools, restaurants, child care centers, and public restrooms 
• 75% of moms with children in the household would be “angry” if the government took antibacterial soap off the market
• Overall, two-thirds of consumers would be upset if the government took antibacterial soap off the market
• 84% of adults do not have any health or environmental concerns about antibacterial soap
• By an eight-to-one margin, consumers would rather have the choice to buy antibacterial soap over removing it from the market based on alleged health and environment concerns

The poll results can be seen in this presentation.

The American Cleaning Institute represents "producers of household, industrial, and institutional cleaning products, their ingredients and finished packaging; oleochemical producers; and chemical distributors to the cleaning product industry."  Their web site is: http://www.cleaninginstitute.org/

EPA to Issue Test Rules for Remaining Unsponsored HPV Chemicals

Recently the USEPA published a final test rule requiring testing on 19 High Production Volume chemicals.  These were chemicals that were not sponsored by chemical manufacturers during the voluntary HPV Challenge program.  Since no one claimed them they came to be known as "orphan" chemicals.  And now EPA is planning to get the rest of them into the orphanage this year for testing.

At least that is the plan.

The reality is a bit less ambitious.  This second final test rule, which was published in the Federal Register only a week or so ago, was proposed way back in July of 2008...2-1/2 years ago.  The first final test rule was published in 2006 after having been proposed in the year 2000!  A third proposed rule was published almost a year ago and EPA hopes to get it final "sometime this year."  A fourth proposed rule is in the works.  The likelihood of the fourth rule going final this year is, well, not.

Even then this will cover only about 100 of the orphan chemicals from the 10-year long (plus 5-year overdue) HPV Challenge program.  There are several hundred other chemicals that are high production volume, that is, produced at over 1 million pounds per year, that are not even on EPA's radar to be proposed for testing.  And then there are the thousands of chemicals grandfathered onto the TSCA Inventory that have not been fully tested.  The orphan chemical question is one of the reasons put forth for why TSCA reform is so desperately needed.

All of this plays into the ongoing debate about what, or even if, will happen with TSCA reform this year.  The bills introduced last year are dead and new bills, should anyone in the House try to introduce one, will most likely have a different flavor than those from the last Congress.  A different flavor may or may not be a good thing, depending on your point of view, but the real question is whether there will be any flavor.  Industry says they want a federal law so they don't have to deal with a patchwork of state laws.  Environmental and health advocacy groups (NGOs) clearly want there to be TSCA reform.  Which would suggest that the path forward is clear.

But then.  This is Congress.

ECHA Updates List of Registered Substances Under REACH

The REACH regulation in Europe reached its first milestone this past November 30th with the registration of thousands of high volume (>1000 tonnes per year) and high concern (substances of very high concern) chemicals.  This week ECHA made its most recent update to the database containing the information on those registered substances.

You can access the database here.

The list consists of two parts.  The top part allows you to search for chemicals by name, CAS number or EC number.  It will tell you whether the data dossier has been disseminated, i.e., been made public on the ECHA web site.  Unfortunately most of the chemicals registered have not yet had their data dossiers disseminated online.

The bottom part of the page allows you to download the list in either XLS or CSV format.  For most people the XLS format (i.e., Excel spreadsheet) is the most useful.  Here you can scan the list or search for names, CAS numbers and other identifiers, and if the chemical is on the list it will indicate whether the registration was Full (full dossier), or an onsite or transported isolated intermediate (which requires only a reduced data dossier submission).  Here again, unfortunately, not all of the registered substances have been listed.  ECHA will continue to update the list, and the dissemination of data dossiers, as fast as they can process the thousands of dossiers received.

Once the dossiers are online you will be able to view the robust summary data for all of the endpoints, including "information on the substances which companies manufacture or import, their hazardous properties, their classification and labelling and how to use the substances safely, for example."

Obama State of the Union Expected to Call for Clean Energy Development

Tonight in the US President Obama gives his annual State-of-the-Union address (SOTU, for short).  Among many other topics (the SOTU tends to be a laundry list of generally unattainable desires), Obama is expected to note ongoing efforts to reframe the energy debate toward cleaner, greener technologies.  Given the continuing lagging jobs picture (job growth always lags economic recovery), he is expected to focus the discussion on how clean energy will help grow jobs.

While this has been a key plank in his platform from the beginning, it takes on new emphasis now that last year's cap-and-trade bills reached a precipice and promptly leaped off.  With the change in the make-up of Congress and promises to try to block EPA's greenhouse gas regulations, Obama will need to show how a shift to CO2-reduction technologies is good both for the environment and for job creation.  Specifically he will try to demonstrate that moving away from a fossil fuel-dependent energy system will result in increased competitiveness on the global marketplace.  This last point is critical as countries like China are investing in the development of wind and solar energy, both in terms of technology advancement and as a source of job creation.  China may be working hard to corner the fossil fuel markets now, but it is working even harder to position itself for the new world energy leadership it desires.  Obama will try to show that the short-sighted disagreements between members of Congress is actually holding back American ingenuity and giving a boost to our international competitors like China.

Also, in a nod to the new instant information era, the President will address questions posed to him by the American populace via YouTube or Twitter.  Questions must be received by midnight tonight and Obama will answer the top-rated ones on Thursday at 2:30 pm EST.  Questions should be submitted at: YouTube.com/askobama, or by using the hashtag #askobama on Twitter.

Let the Hearings Begin! Congress to Grill Obama Advisers on Regulatory Review Executive Order

President Obama issued an Executive Order (EO) on January 18th requiring all federal agencies to review existing regulations for the possibility of modifying or repealing them.  The idea is to determine "whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives." The EO applies to all agencies, but is being looked at especially with respect to the USEPA by Republican committee chairs in the House.

For example, Fred Upton, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Commitee has called for Cass Sunstein to testify at a hearing to be held on Wednesday (January 26). Sunstein is Obama's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, part of the White House's Office of Management and Budget.  While the focus of the hearing is supposed to be on the EO, it is likely that committee members will use the stage to also voice their opposition to EPA's recent rules under the Clean Air Act.

Based on public pronouncements by the incoming Republican majority in the House, we can expect to see hearings this year focused on reducing EPA's ability to publish rules and issue regulations.  Regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions are particularly targeted in light of the previous Congress' inability to pass any climate change legislation and the unlikelihood of such legislation even being introduced in the current Congress.