Gov. Schwarzenegger: Stand Up to the Chemical Industry!
- by: Breast Cancer Fund
- recipient: California Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar
California could be the first state to ensure that consumer products don't contain chemicals that are toxic to our health and our environment, but only if Governor Schwarzenegger stands up to the chemical industry.
In 2008, California passed sweeping legislation to get toxic chemicals out of consumer products. Last month, the governor finally released his vision for how this program will be implemented.
Unfortunately, the chemical industry is lobbying to weaken the program and protect their interests over public and environmental health.
Tell the governor that he needs to step up and make the necessary changes to save this program! These changes include a speedy process of eliminating toxic chemicals, no restrictions on regulating chemicals linked to cancer or birth defects, and eliminating loopholes that allow for small amounts of toxic chemicals in our products, among others.
The governor needs to hear from you by Oct. 30 that you want a program that truly protects public and environmental health.
In 2008, California passed sweeping legislation to get toxic chemicals out of consumer products. Last month, the governor finally released his vision for how this program will be implemented.
Unfortunately, the chemical industry is lobbying to weaken the program and protect their interests over public and environmental health.
Tell the governor that he needs to step up and make the necessary changes to save this program! These changes include a speedy process of eliminating toxic chemicals, no restrictions on regulating chemicals linked to cancer or birth defects, and eliminating loopholes that allow for small amounts of toxic chemicals in our products, among others.
The governor needs to hear from you by Oct. 30 that you want a program that truly protects public and environmental health.
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
You have the opportunity to leave a lasting environmental and public health legacy in California by creating the strongest possible Green Chemistry Initiative, which will ensure consumer products sold in the state do not contain toxic chemicals.
However, I am troubled by some of the provisions in the draft regulations that threaten to derail the entire program. If the changes outlined below are not made before the regulations are implemented, the program will not succeed in protecting public health, the environment or ensuring a greener economy.
I urge you to address the following issues to ensure the Green Chemistry regulations truly protect public and environmental health:
- Ensure a speedy process - The current regulations propose a three-year process to identify and prioritize chemicals of concern in consumer products. This timeline is far too long especially for products containing toxic chemicals that can be replaced with readily available, cost-effective, safer alternatives. We shouldn't have to wait three years before we even start examining alternatives to unsafe chemicals in consumer products. The program should set a maximum time limit of two years to identify and prioritize chemicals of concern and a clear time frame for when the list of priority chemicals and products is updated. In addition, opportunities for industry to delay action by applying for multiple extensions on submitting key information should be eliminated and any extensions granted to industry for submitting information should be no longer than 90 days.
- No restrictions on regulating carcinogens and reproductive toxicants The proposed regulations would prevent the state from reviewing a chemical that causes cancer or birth defects unless another country has done so first. The Green Chemistry Initiative should be able to be able to respond to emerging chemicals of concern and new scientific data as it becomes available. This restriction should be removed.
- No loophole that says "a little bit" of a toxic chemical is ok - The proposed regulations would allow manufacturers to apply for exemptions for consumer products that contain "small" amounts of toxic chemicals ignoring the science showing that multiple exposures from low doses can add up to real harm. This exemption counters the entire purpose of the Green Chemistry Initiative which is intended to search for alternatives to toxic chemicals. Giving companies a pass because they use only small amounts is not acceptable. This exemption should be eliminated.
- Robust oversight of alternatives assessments - The proposed regulations would allow manufacturers to conduct their own assessments of alternatives to the toxic chemicals they are using with only minimal oversight from the state. Additionally, there would be no opportunity for the public to comment on these assessments. There should be robust oversight of the alternatives assessment process including a set number of state audits as well as public review and a public comment period.
- Minimal allowance of "trade secret" claims on toxic chemicals - Transparency about chemical ingredients and their potential hazards is essential to protect public and environmental health. The proposed regulations would allow manufacturers to hide basic chemical information through the continued abuse of trade secret protections. For example, under the proposed regulations companies will be allowed to hide from the public the identity of chemical ingredients in their products even though this information can be easily detected by any of its competitors through product testing. Clear-cut limits should be placed on what can be considered a trade secret so as to allow for oversight by the public and ensure the integrity of the program.
I am excited to see this historic program take shape.
If the above changes are made, we will have an innovative program that will be a model for the nation on how to build a green economy that is truly protective of environmental and public health.
Sign PetitionSign PetitionYou have the opportunity to leave a lasting environmental and public health legacy in California by creating the strongest possible Green Chemistry Initiative, which will ensure consumer products sold in the state do not contain toxic chemicals.
However, I am troubled by some of the provisions in the draft regulations that threaten to derail the entire program. If the changes outlined below are not made before the regulations are implemented, the program will not succeed in protecting public health, the environment or ensuring a greener economy.
I urge you to address the following issues to ensure the Green Chemistry regulations truly protect public and environmental health:
- Ensure a speedy process - The current regulations propose a three-year process to identify and prioritize chemicals of concern in consumer products. This timeline is far too long especially for products containing toxic chemicals that can be replaced with readily available, cost-effective, safer alternatives. We shouldn't have to wait three years before we even start examining alternatives to unsafe chemicals in consumer products. The program should set a maximum time limit of two years to identify and prioritize chemicals of concern and a clear time frame for when the list of priority chemicals and products is updated. In addition, opportunities for industry to delay action by applying for multiple extensions on submitting key information should be eliminated and any extensions granted to industry for submitting information should be no longer than 90 days.
- No restrictions on regulating carcinogens and reproductive toxicants The proposed regulations would prevent the state from reviewing a chemical that causes cancer or birth defects unless another country has done so first. The Green Chemistry Initiative should be able to be able to respond to emerging chemicals of concern and new scientific data as it becomes available. This restriction should be removed.
- No loophole that says "a little bit" of a toxic chemical is ok - The proposed regulations would allow manufacturers to apply for exemptions for consumer products that contain "small" amounts of toxic chemicals ignoring the science showing that multiple exposures from low doses can add up to real harm. This exemption counters the entire purpose of the Green Chemistry Initiative which is intended to search for alternatives to toxic chemicals. Giving companies a pass because they use only small amounts is not acceptable. This exemption should be eliminated.
- Robust oversight of alternatives assessments - The proposed regulations would allow manufacturers to conduct their own assessments of alternatives to the toxic chemicals they are using with only minimal oversight from the state. Additionally, there would be no opportunity for the public to comment on these assessments. There should be robust oversight of the alternatives assessment process including a set number of state audits as well as public review and a public comment period.
- Minimal allowance of "trade secret" claims on toxic chemicals - Transparency about chemical ingredients and their potential hazards is essential to protect public and environmental health. The proposed regulations would allow manufacturers to hide basic chemical information through the continued abuse of trade secret protections. For example, under the proposed regulations companies will be allowed to hide from the public the identity of chemical ingredients in their products even though this information can be easily detected by any of its competitors through product testing. Clear-cut limits should be placed on what can be considered a trade secret so as to allow for oversight by the public and ensure the integrity of the program.
I am excited to see this historic program take shape.
If the above changes are made, we will have an innovative program that will be a model for the nation on how to build a green economy that is truly protective of environmental and public health.
See more petitions:
You have JavaScript disabled. Without it, our site might not function properly.
By signing, you accept Care2's Terms of Service.
You can unsub at any time here.
Having problems signing this? Let us know.