EWG: Press

Most Bottled Water Brands Don’t Disclose Information About Source, Purity and Contaminants

Environmental Working Group — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Contact: EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982

WASHINGTON, DC-- An Environmental Working Group (EWG) investigation of almost 200 popular bottled water brands found less than 2 percent disclose the water’s source, how the water has been purified and what chemical pollutants each bottle of water may contain. Just 2 of the 188 individual brands EWG analyzed disclosed those three basic facts about their water.

Full report found here: http://www.ewg.org/health/report/bottledwater-scorecard

Jane Houlihan, EWG Senior Vice President for Research, discussed the findings of the 18-month long study in testimony today before a congressional oversight hearing on the gaps in government regulation of the bottled water industry.

Some of the more interesting discoveries were that mainstream brands such as Sam’s Club and Walgreen’s scored relatively high marks, while waters marketed as elite, including Perrier, S. Pellegrino and the Whole Foods store brand, flunked because they provided almost no meaningful information for consumers.

Why the glaring lack of disclosure? Houlihan said that bottled water companies enjoy a regulatory holiday under the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which give beverage corporations complete latitude to choose what, if any, information about their water they divulge to customers.

In contrast, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- the federal agency that oversees the nation’s municipal water utilities -- requires all 52,000 community tap water suppliers nationwide to produce an annual water quality report: The utilities’ reports detail water source and pollutant testing results for customers, as required under the Safe Drinking Water Act. An estimated 58 percent of these reports also describe water treatment methods.

“Many people assume bottled water is healthier and safer to drink than ordinary tap water. But some companies have lured consumers away from the tap with claims of health and purity that aren’t backed by public data,” Houlihan said. “The ugly truth is that under lax federal law, consumers know very little about the quality of bottled water on which they spend billions every year.”

“The Bottled water industry's strategy has been to market bottled water as the safe and clean alternative to tap water,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the non-profit consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch. “This myth has been used to trick consumers into paying thousands times more for a product that is the same or even more polluted than the water available from our faucets. Tap water in the United States undergoes rigorous testing for contaminants—as often as 480 times a month, far more than the once–a–week test for bottled water.”

EWG researchers analyzed labels and websites from 188 bottled waters to learn which bottlers voluntarily disclosed the same information as required of community water suppliers. EWG found that many disclose little to no information at all on water source and purity.

EWG compared 2008 and 2009 labels and websites to learn how many brands are telling customers more this year than last. The answer was a heartening 52 percent, though in nearly every case water bottlers provided less information than municipal water utilities.

“Members of Congress need to understand that it has taken major public outcry, followed by proactive legislation, to provoke much of these changes,” said Kelle Louaillier, executive director for Corporate Accountability International, an organization that has compelled both Pepsi and Nestlé to label the source of their bottled water. “Starting today, Congress can work to guarantee the consumer’s right to know what exactly they are getting in these disposable plastic water bottles.”

Few water sources are completely free of detectable contaminants. The 40 percent of bottled water brands that rely on tap water are drawing from supplies that collectively contain at least 260 pollutants, according to EWG's 2002-2005 survey of tap water testing conducted by community water supplies.

Last year EWG commissioned bottled water quality tests that found that the water is not necessarily any safer than ordinary tap water. The lab tests of 10 major brands identified 38 pollutants, ranging from fertilizer residue to industrial solvents. Pollutants in 2 brands exceeded some state and industry health standards.

Legislation is underway to close loopholes in nationwide bottled water standards. A California law effective January 1, 2009, requires bottled water companies to post information on the water source, treatment and testing on labels and websites. A bill introduced in the U.S. Senate last year would require similar strictures at the federal level.

###

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment.http://www.ewg.org

EWG’s ’09 Sunscreen Consumer Guide

Environmental Working Group — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Contact: EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982

WASHINGTON – In an affirmation of Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) three-year campaign for more effective sunscreens, 70 percent of sunscreens offered for the 2009 beach season contain strong UVA filters, compared to just 29 percent last year. Top brands reformulated to better protect against UVA radiation include Solbar, Zia Natural Skincare, Nivea, L'Oreal, and Hawaiian Tropic. This is a move in the right direction, but each of these products still rates relatively low compared to the top-ranked brands.

Another plus in 2009: 19 percent fewer sunscreens contains oxybenzone, an active ingredient that disrupts the hormone system.

But a new EWG investigation of 1,572 sunscreens and other sun-blocking products currently on the market found that 3 of 5 sunscreens either don’t protect skin from sun damage or contain hazardous chemicals — or both.

While companies are adding ingredients that better shield against UVA radiation, linked to premature aging and cancer, in addition to UVB radiation, which causes obvious – and painful – sunburn, many brands contain UVA filters at levels to low to provide strong protection.

Since the federal Food and Drug Administration still hasn’t delivered on its 1978 promise to issue meaningful sunscreen standards, EWG conducts its own yearly comprehensive analysis of leading products that claim to protect consumers from the sun.

EWG’s 2009 Sunscreen Guide, found at http://www.ewg.org/cosmetics/report/sunscreen09, ranks sunscreens, moisturizers with SPF claims and lip balms from best to worse. NOTE: A shareable search widget is available to let site visitors finds the safest, most effective sunscreen products.

“The FDA may not care about the safety and effectiveness of sunscreen products, but the public does,” said EWG’s Vice President of Research, Jane Houlihan. “EWG’s guide is really the only place concerned consumers can go to identify which sunscreens, lip balms and moisturizers are the safest, most protective for themselves and their families.”

More than a million cases of skin cancer are diagnosed in the U.S. every year. The incidence of malignant melanoma, the most dangerous form of the disease, is escalating. Effective sunscreens are crucial to public health.

EWG President Ken Cook is sending FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg a UV-protective parasol from Soleil Chic—a company founded by Lynn Rose after losing her husband to skin cancer. The parasol accompanies Cook’s letter urging Hamburg to set sunscreen safety guidelines once and for all.

###

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment.http://www.ewg.org

Dog Food Contaminated with Levels of Fluoride Above EPA's Legal Limit for Humans

Environmental Working Group — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Contact: EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982

WASHINGTON, D.C -- Eight of 10 dog food brands tested by an independent laboratory commissioned by Environmental Working Group (EWG) contain fluoride in amounts up to 2.5 times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) national drinking water standard.

Study: http://www.ewg.org/pethealth/report/fluoride-in-dog-food

The eight dog foods, all of them major national brands, were found to contain significantly more fluoride than levels implicated by a 2006 Harvard study in bone cancer in young boys.

In all eight cases, the likely sources of excess fluoride were bone meal and animal byproducts.

“Due to a failed regulatory system and suspect practices by some in the pet food industry, countless dogs may be ingesting excessive fluoride that could put them at risk,” Olga Naidenko, Ph.D, lead researcher of the EWG-sponsored study, said.

Moreover, Naidenko said, the fact so many popular national pet food brands contain previously undetected health hazards is one more symptom of the federal food safety system’s overall laxity.

“Our findings point to the need for basic health protections that require companies to prove their products are safe before they are sold,” Naidenko said. “Bringing public health laws in line with the newest scientific research is a critical step in protecting the health of all members of American households, whether they walk on two legs or four.”

The eight high-fluoride brands disclosed contents including chicken by-product meal, poultry by-product meal, chicken meal, beef and bone meal. Any ingredient described as “animal meal” is basically ground bones, cooked with steam, dried, and mashed to make a cheap dog food filler. A small fraction of fluoride in dog food comes from fluoridated tap water added to solid ingredients at pet food plants.

Fluoride occurs naturally in some water supplies. But two-thirds of Americans -- and their pets and livestock-- drink water that has been artificially fluoridated on grounds it improves dental health.

Fluoride is also found in certain foods, those from plants grown in high-fluoride soils or those to which the chemical is introduced during processing. Once ingested with food or water, fluoride accumulates in the bones.

An average dog who drinks adequate water daily would be exposed to 0.05 to 0.1 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight, depending on the dog's weight and water consumption. But those dogs who eat food high in fluoride, day in and day out, may be exposed to unsafe levels of fluoride.

For example, a 10-pound puppy that eats about a cup of dog food a day would consume 0.25 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight per day, an amount five times higher than the ”safe” level set by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Pet food should be held to the same health and safety standards as human food and should be free of contaminants that may endanger pets' health. Yet, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)has little authority and few resources to ensure that products produced for pets are safe.

The bottom line: when it comes to dubious food additives, chemical pollutants or untested ingredients in pet food, pets and their owners are mostly on their own.

NOTE: If your dog’s food contains bone meal and other meat by-products, EWG recommends switching to brands free of these ingredients in order to minimize your dog’s exposure to harmful pollutants, including fluoride.

###

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment. http://www.ewg.org

EWG to FDA: Halt All Use of Deca-Laced Plastic Food Pallets

Environmental Working Group — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:00:00 -0400

June 24th, 2009

Dr. Margaret Hamburg
Commissioner
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Ave
WO1-3339
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002

Re: Use of Deca in plastic food pallets

Dear Dr. Hamburg:

Environmental Working Group (EWG) is writing to request an immediate halt to the use by the food industry of plastic pallets made with the neurotoxic flame retardant decabromodiphenyl ether (Deca). Based on an EWG review of publicly available information it appears likely that Deca treated pallets are being used in ways that could contaminate food with Deca without the necessary pre-market approval. Food contaminated with Deca used in plastic pallets without pre-market approval could be deemed adulterated under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, Sec. 402 (21 USC 342).

Deca is a neurotoxin and suspected carcinogen that persists in the environment and accumulates in human tissue. Millions of plastic pallets, each containing 3.4 pounds of Deca (according to industry estimates) are currently in use. These contaminated pallets could introduce millions of pounds of toxic fire retardant into the environment each year.

According to a series of public statements by the shipping industry’s largest plastic pallet user, iGPS, plastic pallets are now being used by General Mills, Borders Melon Company, PepsiCo, Cott, Okray Family Farms, and Martoni Farms, with trials up and running at Dole Foods and Kraft. This widespread use, if true, creates a significant opportunity for food contamination with Deca.

It is standard practice in the food industry to “hydro-cool” produce by submerging food stacked on pallets in water or by dripping water over stacked pallets containing produce. Preliminary studies strongly suggest that Deca leaches from pallets into the cooling water. Because water is recycled numerous times during the hydro-cooling process, considerable levels of Deca residue could be left on hydro-cooled produce.

In an April 29, 2009 letter, Dr. Elizabeth Sánchez Furukawa of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made clear that plastic pallets containing Deca were “not authorized” for use in hydro-cooling, given the potential health risks and the likelihood that the chemical would come in contact with food. Furukawa wrote that “in order for it (Deca) to be used in contact with food under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, it must have pre-market approval.”

Public health authorities in Maine and Washington have restricted Deca, and legislators in 13 states have proposed Deca bans this year. Studies of mice exposed to Deca for a single day reveal notable changes in behavior and activity levels that researchers attribute to the chemical’s neurotoxicity. These effects persist into adulthood and can worsen with age. Research on rats and mice showed increased incidence of four different cancers and non-cancerous tumors. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency deems these study results to be "suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential."

In addition, Deca can break down into related chemicals – Penta and Octa bromodiphenyl ether – whose production and importation is banned in the United States and Europe.

There are an estimated 4 million Deca-treated plastic pallets in use today, with a significant portion used in the food industry. In September 2008, iGPS, a major plastic pallet shipping company, announced an agreement with Netherlands-based Schoeller Arca Systems to buy 30 million Deca treated plastic pallets over the next five years.

Given the Agency’s decision that Deca-treated plastic food pallets are not authorized for use in hydro-cooling, FDA must take action to ensure that they are not, in fact, used for this purpose.

We look forward to swift and decisive steps on the part of the Agency to stop the use of Deca-treated plastic food pallets in the food industry.

Sincerely,

Richard Wiles
Senior Vice President for Policy and Communications
Environmental Working Group

Cc: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

Fruits and Vegetables Potentially Soaked With Toxic Flame Retardant Chemical

Environmental Working Group — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Contact: EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982

Animal Studies Link Chemical to Cancer, Brain and Reproductive Disorders

WASHINGTON, -- Large plastic pallets used to ship, cool and store produce contain decabromodiphenyl ether (Deca), a flame retardant chemical and known neurotoxin that may leach onto the fruits and vegetables inside.

In a letter sent today, Richard Wiles, senior Vice President and for Policy and Communications of Environmental Working Group (EWG), urged Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the federal Food and Drug Administration, to order the food industry to stop using plastic pallets made with Deca.

Wiles pointed out that significant levels of Deca could accumulate during the standard food industry practice of “hydro-cooling” produce by submerging stacked pallets filled with fruits or vegetables in water or by dripping water over the pallets. As the water is recycled, its Deca concentration intensifies and leaves Deca residues on the produce.

Citing concerns that this practice could lead to Deca contamination of food, on April 29, 2009 Dr. Elizabeth Sánchez of the FDA’S Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition advised a Washington, D.C.-area consulting firm that Deca is “not authorized” as a component of plastic pallets used in the hydro-cooling produce. She said that FDA required pre-market approval for the chemical “to be used in contact with food.”

April 29 letter: http://files.bnpmedia.com//RFF/Home/Files/PDFs/Letter2.pdf

January 23 letter: http://files.bnpmedia.com//RFF/Home/Files/PDFs/PNC757_R_correspondence%20letter.pdf

“Given the Agency’s decision that Deca-treated plastic food pallets are not authorized for use in hydro-cooling, the FDA must take action to ensure that they are not, in fact, used for this purpose,” Wiles wrote Hamburg.

According to statements by iGPS , the shipping industry’s largest plastic pallet supplier, plastic pallets are now being used by General Mills, Borders Melon Company, PepsiCo, Cott, Okray Family Farmsand Martoni Farm. The company said that Dole Foods and Kraft Foods are conducting trials of plastic pallets. If the iGPS statements are accurate, the food industry’s ongoing transition from wooden to plastic pallets raises the threat of Deca food contamination.

“This is yet another example of our tattered food and chemical safety net,” Wiles said in a separate statement. “Highly toxic chemicals creep into the food supply while no one in government is paying any attention.”

According to studies by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and academic scientists, Deca, like other flame-retardants, can disrupt brain and reproductive system development.

The EPA website says that some research on Deca has yielded "suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential." It cites studies showing increased incidence of four different cancers and non-cancerous tumors in rats and mice.

Other research cited by EPA has found that activity levels and behavior of mice exposed to Deca for a single day undergo notable changes associated with neurotoxicity. EPA says that “the neurotoxic effect of neonatal decaBDE exposure was persistent and also worsened with age.”

“Fruits and vegetables are an essential part of a healthy diet, but contaminated produce pallets could cause millions of men, women and children to consume harmful levels of a chemical neurotoxin,” Wiles said. “A toxic chemical designed to suppress fire should not be allowed to taint the food we eat.”

As a result of the serious health risks presented by Deca, public health authorities in Maine and Washington State have restricted its use. State legislators in 10 states have proposed Deca bans this year.

See Mr. Wiles' letter to FDA.

###

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment. http://www.ewg.org

EWG and Allies Urge Defeat of Biofuels Green House Gas Analysis Exemption

Environmental Working Group — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:00:00 -0400

June 19th, 2009

American Bird Conservancy * Center for Biological Diversity * Clean Air Task Force Clean Water Action * Defenders of Wildlife * Environment America Environmental Working Group * Environmental Defense Fund * Earthjustice * Ecology Center * Friends of the Earth * League of Conservation Voters * National Audubon Society * National Wildlife Federation * Natural Resources Defense Council * The Nature Conservancy * Pew Environment Group * Southern Alliance for Clean Energy * Southern Environmental Law Center * The Wilderness Society * Union of Concerned Scientists

Representative David R. Obey
2314 House Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515

Representative Jerry Lewis
2112 House Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515

June 18, 2009

Dear Representative,

On behalf of our millions of members and activists, we strongly urge you to oppose the Emerson Amendment (#019) and any other attempts to sidestep the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) process to assess the full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels (including emissions from indirect land-use change). The Emerson Amendment is a backdoor attempt to prevent EPA from conducting this analysis and would stop the use of solid scientific analysis to guide biofuels policy. The Emerson Amendment undermines sound science. We urge you to oppose this amendment and allow EPA to move forward with its peer-reviewed scientific process.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) mandated a massive ramp up in the production of biofuels and required that these biofuels perform better than gasoline on a full lifecycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions. This analysis included emissions from indirect land-use change. Scientific research continues to demonstrate that biofuel policies, like the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), would accelerate global warming if the policy shifts farmland or forests from food and fiber production to biofuels feedstock production.

While agriculture and forestry are poised to be leaders in sustainable climate solutions, to realize this opportunity we need policies built on sound science. Science supports the inclusion of indirect land-use change in the assessment of biofuels. The Emerson Amendment would prevent EPA from completing its ongoing scientific review process on indirect land-use emissions from biofuels. Instead of blocking sound science, rigorous analysis is needed to encourage the production of biofuels that reduce global warming pollution on a full lifecycle basis. This amendment prejudges the science and ignores greenhouse gas emissions that result from clearing native grasslands and forests due to biofuels production. This could undermine the nation’s efforts to reduce global warming pollution, since biofuels with higher emissions than petroleum would still qualify for the RFS.

Our organizations strongly oppose any provision that would prevent EPA from conducting a full lifecycle assessment of the greenhouse gas emission standards from biofuels in the Renewable Fuels Standard. The EPA is currently using the best available science to implement the RFS and is evaluating the impacts of biofuels in an open and transparent way. That process should be respected and allowed to proceed to completion. Stopping this process weakens the global warming standards and is an affront to the best and most recent science available. We ask that you oppose the Emerson Amendment and any other provision that would block EPA from implementing a full greenhouse gas lifecycle analysis of biofuels.

Sincerely,

Darin C. Schroeder Vice President of Conservation Advocacy American Bird Conservancy	Tiernen Sittenfeld Legislative Director League of Conservation Voters
Bill Snape Senior Counsel Center for Biological Diversity	Mike Daulton Legislative Director National Audubon Society
Jonathan Lewis Attorney Clean Air Task Force	Julie M. Sibbing Director, Global Warming, Agriculture & Wildlife National Wildlife Federation
Lynn Thorp National Campaigns Coordinator Clean Water Action	Franz Matzner Acting Legislative Director Natural Resources Defense Council
Mary Beth Beetham Director of Legislative Affairs Defenders of Wildlife	Robert Bendick Director of US Government Relations The Nature Conservancy
Anna Aurilio Washington DC Office Director Environment America	Karen Steuer Director, Government Operations Pew Environment Group
Elizabeth Thompson Legislative Director Environmental Defense Fund	Anne Blair Program Manager, Clean Diesel & Bioenergy Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
Sandra Schubert, JD, MA Director of Government Affairs Environmental Working Group	Nat Mund Legislative Director Southern Environmental Law Center
Martin Hayden Vice President of Policy and Legislation Earthjustice	Michelle Robinson Director, Clean Vehicles Program Union of Concerned Scientists
Charles Griffith Clean Car Campaign Director Ecology Center	David Moulton Director, Climate Policy & Conservation Funding The Wilderness Society
Erich Pica Director of Domestic Programs Friends of the Earth	Individuals Michael O'Hare, Prof. of Public Policy Goldman School of Public Policy Affiliate, Energy & Resources Group University of California - Berkeley

CC: House Appropriations Committee

House Committee Sets Deadline for BPA Decision

Environmental Working Group — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Contact: EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982

WASHINGTON, -- In a rare move, the House Energy and Commerce Committee directed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to finalize its safety determination over the controversial toxic plastics additive, bisphenol A (BPA) used in the linings of food and beverage containers, baby bottles and liquid infant formula. Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) successfully fought to include language in the final version of the Food Safety and Enhancement Act the Committee adopted yesterday that would require FDA to take the impacts of exposure of BPA among infants, young children and pregnant women into account when determining if the chemical is safe for use in food and beverage containers. The relevant section from the Food Safety and Enhancement Act of 2009: SEC. 215. BISPHENOL A IN FOOD AND BEVERAGE CONTAINERS. (a) NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.—No later than December 31, 2009, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall notify the Congress whether the available scientific data support a determination that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm, for infants, young children, pregnant women, and adults, for approved uses of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resin made with bisphenol A in food and beverage containers, including reusable food and beverage containers, under the conditions of use prescribed in current Food and Drug Administration regulations. (b) NOTICE OF ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN.—If the Secretary concludes that such a determination cannot be made for any approved use, the Secretary shall notify the Congress of the actions the Secretary intends to take under the Secretary’s authority to regulate food additives to protect the public health, which may include— (1) revoking or modifying any of the approved uses of bisphenol A in food and beverage containers, including reusable food and beverage containers; and (2) ensuring that the public is sufficiently informed of such determination and the steps the public may take in response to such determination. (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing herein is intended or shall be construed to modify existing Food and Drug Administration authority, procedures, or policies for assessing scientific data, making safety determinations, or regulating the safe use of food additives. “While we're encouraged that under Congressman Markey's leadership FDA will be required to take responsible action, we remain concerned that FDA's scientific review process has been so corrupted by industry influence that public health won't be protected by the agency's final decision,” said Environmental Working Group (EWG) co-founder and Senior VP for Policy and Communications, Richard Wiles.

EWG and Associates Back Sensible Loan Guarantee Policies for Energy Industry

Environmental Working Group — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:00:00 -0400

June 18th, 2009

Union of Concerned Scientists * SUN DAY Campaign * Southern Alliance for Clean Energy * Sierra Club * Safe Climate Campaign * Public Citizen * Physicians for Social Responsibility * Nuclear Information and Resource Service * League of Conservation Voters * Greenpeace * Environmental Working Group * Environmental and Energy Study Institute * Environment America * Clean Water Action * Center for Biological Diversity * Beyond Nuclear * Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

June 16, 2009

Dear Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Member:

We support the financing of clean energy technologies to promote the domestic development and deployment of technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the most efficient, environmentally sound manner possible. However, the proposed Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) will not achieve these important goals and will in fact, as drafted, pose unnecessary and potentially enormous risks to our environment and to the U.S. taxpayer. CEDA could allow for potentially unlimited loan guarantees, disproportionately benefit more expensive and risky technologies, and fail to ensure that the cleanest technologies are prioritized. We urge you to require congressional authority for loan guarantees, cap how much any one technology or industry can benefit from this program, and ensure that the program prioritizes those technologies that reduce carbon emissions on a cost-effective basis in the shortest time possible.

One of the biggest dangers of the 21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Act (S.949) is the exemption from Sec. 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA), a valuable Congressional oversight tool. By exempting the program from the requirement to comply with FCRA, CEDA would circumvent the appropriations process and rely solely on the model that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) uses to calculate the risk of default and how much subsidy cost (the risk of default) must be paid in order to get a loan guarantee. According to both the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office, this calculation is very difficult to determine accurately and is likely to be underestimated, leaving U.S. taxpayers to bail out energy companies when they default.

Allowing CEDA to issue potentially unlimited loan guarantees on the basis of this speculative calculation flies in the face of good governance and accountability to the U.S. taxpayer. If the OMB subsidy calculation is off, even by a small amount, then the potential taxpayer exposure could be enormous, especially given the history of defaults and cost overruns associated with certain technologies. This will be especially true if the program authorizes large loans for multiple capital intensive projects requiring billions of dollars in credit support. If the purpose of the 21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Act is to promote the domestic development and deployment of innovative clean energy technologies with varying and ambiguous degrees of risk, then this is all the more reason to require compliance with FCRA, which was created to measure the cost of federal credit programs from a budgetary standpoint.

The 21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Act must also include a cap on the financial assistance that could be provided to any one technology. The diversity of technologies eligible for loan guarantees under the program means that less expensive and less risky technologies will be competing for financial assistance with technologies that are highly capital intensive and inherently more risky. In order to have a truly diverse portfolio of clean energy technologies receiving support, there must be a limit on the amount of financial assistance that any one technology can receive. Absent a cap, the CEDA investment portfolio could become disproportionately weighted in favor of capital intensive technologies by virtue of the fact that they require more financing for deployment. Higher costs must not advantage one technology over another. The portfolio should be weighted accordingly to ensure balance, diversity and ensure that the cleanest, greenest and least risky technologies are brought on line first.

Finally, the legislation should include a true greenhouse gas metric that would ensure that funding priority will be given to those technologies that reduce the greatest amount of greenhouse gases, per dollar invested, in the shortest amount of time. Given that the role of CEDA is to facilitate the deployment of innovative energy technologies that will reduce carbon output and help our country combat climate change, a greenhouse gas metric should be the central criteria for determining how financial assistance is allocated. Putting a priority on those technologies that reduce the greatest amount of carbon emissions using the least amount of money in the shortest amount of time assures that we will be addressing the climate crisis in the most efficient, cost-effective manner while limiting financial risk to the U.S. taxpayer and putting people back to work in new green jobs as soon as possible.

We urge you to make changes to the CEDA bill that would protect U.S. taxpayers and prioritize the cleanest and most economical energy technologies.

Sincerely,

Alan Nogee, Program Director, Clean Energy
Union of Concerned Scientists

Ken Bossong, Executive Director
SUN DAY Campaign

Sara Barczak, Program Director, High Risk
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

Dave Hamilton, Director, Global Warming and Energy Program
Sierra Club

Dan Becker, Director
Safe Climate Campaign

Tyson Slocum, Director, Energy Program
Public Citizen

Michele Boyd, Director, Safe Energy Program
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Tiernan Sittenfeld, Legislative Director
League of Conservation Voters

Jim Riccio, Nuclear Policy Analyst
Greenpeace

Sandra Schubert, Director of Government Affairs
Environmental Working Group

Carol Werner, Executive Director
Environmental and Energy Study Institute

Anna Aurilio, Director, Washington DC Office
Environment America

Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Coordinator
Clean Water Action

William J. Snape, III, Senior Counsel
Center for Biological Diversity

Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Watchdog
Beyond Nuclear

Susan Gordon, Director
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

EWG Launches Interactive News and Commentary Site on Toxic Chemicals Policy Reform

Environmental Working Group — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Contact: EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Environmental Working Group (EWG) today launched an interactive online site featuring news and commentary, as well as a forum for a thought-provoking exchange of ideas on reforming the nation’s federal toxic chemicals policies. http://www.ewg.org/kid-safe-chemicals-act-blog

The site will feature analysis and opinion by scientists, lawmakers, industry officials, community activists, policy specialists, journalists and others interested in environmental health issues. A major focus will be the emerging debate over reform of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representative Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) are expected to introduce comprehensive reform legislation known as the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act (Kid-Safe) in Congress later this year. Anticipating that action, EWG hopes to stimulate insightful conversation about that bill and other legislative proposals dealing with chemicals policy reform.

“Whether you’re a supporter of Kid-Safe, believe in a different approach or feel there is no need at all for reform, we hope individuals, organizations and affected industries will join Environmental Working Group in a thoughtful exploration of this vital public health issue,” said EWG’s Senior VP for Policy and Communications, Richard Wiles.

“Every day, consumers rely on household products that contain hundreds of unregulated chemicals. We already have tough regulations for pesticides and pharmaceuticals—it’s common sense that we also have tough regulations for chemicals that end up in our homes,” Senator Frank R. Lautenberg said. “Passing the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act would be a significant step forward for safety, and the ideas and support of those who share our concerns is critical to achieve that goal.”

“The House has begun the legislative process to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976,” said U. S. Rep. Bobby L. Rush, chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. “There is well-documented evidence that, in recent years, the federal government has abandoned its duty to oversee TSCA’s enforcement. My intention, in this session of Congress, is to reverse this neglect and strengthen this important law in a way that puts the needs of consumers and the environment first. I welcome the support of the Environmental Working Group and other groups and individuals of good will as we engage in this important undertaking.”

The site will also feature guest commentary, a blogroll linking to other important websites and news from regulatory agencies, premier research institutions and Washington-based and grassroots organizations interested in issues related to environmental health and toxic chemicals in the environment.

###

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment. http://www.ewg.org

Cloud Over BPA Grows As Top Hormone Researchers Warn Of Health Threat

Environmental Working Group — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Contact: EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982

WASHINGTON, -- The country’s top endocrine scientists have declared the toxic plastics chemical bisphenol A (BPA) and other environmental pollutants shown to disrupt the endocrine system to be a “significant concern to public health.” At its annual meeting yesterday, The Endocrine Society, a professional scientific organization devoted to hormone research, warned that bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic estrogen, and ubiquitous plastics component, and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDC) “have effects on male and female reproduction, breast development and cancer, prostate cancer, neuroendocrinology, thyroid, metabolism and obesity, and cardiovascular endocrinology.” The entire scientific statement by The Endocrine Society is available here: http://www.endo-society.org/journals/ScientificStatements/upload/EDC_Scientific_Statement.pdf In the first scientific statement ever issued by the 93-year-old body, The Endocrine Society took the unusual step of declaring its intent to engage in “lobbying for regulation seeking to decrease human exposure to the many endocrine-disrupting agents.” As well, it called for stepped-up research on links between endocrine-disrupting chemicals and a number of serious health problems, including breast and prostate cancer, neurological and reproductive system disorders, diabetes and obesity. “The evidence for adverse reproductive outcomes (infertility, cancers, malformations) from exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals is strong,” the statement said, “and there is mounting evidence for effects on other endocrine systems, including thyroid, neuroendocrine, obesity and metabolism, and insulin and glucose homeostasis.” The society warned that ‘effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals may be transmitted to further generations.” The Endocrine Society’s decision to assume a more active role in shaping public policy on toxic chemicals reform comes on the heels of action by state and local governments. Recently Minnesota and Connecticut passed laws to restrict BPA in products for young children. Suffolk County, NY and the city of Chicago took similar action. Last week, the California State Senate passed a measure to ban BPA from all bottles and food packaging for children 3 and younger. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found detectable levels of BPA in the urine of 93 percent of Americans over the age of six. Last week Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA, told congressional leaders she will reassess her agency’s position that BPA exposures at low doses are safe for children. The FDA stance has drawn widespread criticism from a broad range of experts, including the agency’s outside science advisory panel. “The evidence of BPA’s risks is clear-cut,” said Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) Vice President for Research, Jane Houlihan. “The debate is over, the science is persuasive and verdict is in: BPA should not be in products that people, particularly young children use everyday.” ### EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment. http://www.ewg.org