Each day you and your family interact with dozens of chemicals – in your shampoo, deodorant, toothpaste and household cleaners. But did you know that our laws don’t require most of these chemicals to be tested safe?

Some 70,000 chemicals are used in consumer products, but only 200 have been safety tested by the Environmental Protection Agency because the hurdles for testing are so high under the law.

But with the rise in childhood cancers, early puberty, infertility and learning disabilities, and  scientific studies that show the chemicals we’re exposed to each day can significantly increase these risks, it’s time to improve chemical safety testing in household products.

A bill in Congress would require chemical companies show the industrial chemicals we commonly use are safe, and give the EPA the ability to ban chemicals from the marketplace that don’t meet certain safety standards.

Unfortunately, the powerful chemical industry is spending millions to keep this bill from passing. But you can help change that.

We’re joining with other public health and consumer groups to get 100,000 signatures by May in support of the Safe Chemicals Act. Please take a moment to add your name in support here.

The Safe Chemicals Act would:
• Require chemical companies to show the safety of industrial chemicals;
• Ensure the EPA has information on the health risks of chemicals
• Evaluate chemicals that could pose unacceptable risks and restrict chemicals from the marketplace that do not meet safety standards;
• Provide broad worker, market, and public access to chemical information through a public database; and
• Promote safe chemical innovation and green chemistry by incentivizing the market to develop safer alternatives to chemicals of concern.

-Shannon Baker-Branstetter, Policy Council on Energy & Environment

Animals grown for meat are commonly given low doses of antibiotics in their feed and water to help promote growth and prevent the spread of illness in living quarters that are often crowded and unsanitary.   The new guidelines request that animals only be administered these drugs for the purpose of preventing or treating disease, not for growth promotion, due to concerns that the overuse of antibiotics is contributing to the development of drug-resistant bacteria that are  becoming harder to treat.

In a press release, the FDA stated that since “it is well established that all uses of antimicrobial drugs, in both humans and animals, contribute to the development of antimicrobial resistance, it is important to use these drugs only when medically necessary. ”

But the plan contains a major loophole by allowing the meat industry to continue giving animals drugs preventively to ward off illness.  As one blogger put it, “…how can anyone distinguish giving animals small daily doses of antibiotics to prevent disease, from giving them small daily doses to promote growth? The industry can simply claim it’s using antibiotics preventively, and go on about its business—continuing to reap the benefits of growth promotion, and continuing to menace public health by breeding resistance.”

In our own press statement, Consumers Union said,  ”Animals should only get antibiotics when they are sick. The use of antibiotics for disease prevention in healthy animals should not be allowable. This inevitably results in overuse, and is not necessary. This is like giving all children antibiotics every day so that they don’t get ear infections.”

The FDA says it will be monitoring the adoption of these new policies over the next three years at which point it will evaluate participation and potentially consider additional action.

Consumer disgust over pink slime caused many restaurant and grocery store chains in recent weeks to swear off its use in their hamburger meat. The sudden dive in demand lead to the closing of several plants that produced pink slime, prompting meat industry friendly governors to jump to its defense.

Touting lean finely textured beef as cost-effective and nutritious, they offered a warning to consumers. “It’s beef, but it’s leaner beef which is better for you,” said Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad. “We take this off the market then we end up with a fatter product that’s going to cost more and is going to increase the obesity problem in this country.”

But will their attempts work to recast pink slime in a better light? Images of the pasty pink product are now burned into the minds of Americans who feel they’ve been duped for years into buying and eating meat they’d believed was 100% fresh ground beef only to find out that it was often padded with an ammonia-treated beef by-product.

No matter what the beef industry, the media or politicians want to call it, ultimately consumers will decide whether ‘dude, it’s beef’ or if pink slime has been banished from their burgers for good.

Consumers Union expressed disappointment at the announcement, noting in a press release that there’s  ”ample scientific evidence about the health risks of BPA for the agency to take action now and ban it from food and drink packaging.”

The petition, which was filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 2008, requested that the FDA issue a ban on BPA in all food packaging.  BPA is used in the linings of canned goods and beverages and in some reusable plastic bottles (such as sports bottles, baby bottles and sippy cups).   Hundreds of studies have linked BPA to health problems including breast and prostate cancer, early puberty, and developmental issues in fetuses and babies.

The FDA states that it is continuing to study BPA, and a spokesman indicated that ”this is not a final safety determination” on the chemical.

But Dr. Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist with the National Resources Defense Council, says, “We always support more research but we also wonder, when is enough enough?…. What the FDA is saying is: We’re going to keep studying it and in the meantime you’re going to still eat it and then maybe later we’ll tell you it’s not safe.”

Eleven states have already passed their own bans on BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, and some have banned the chemical from additional products such as infant formula containers, baby food jars, and reusable sports bottles.   For a full list click here.

“Industry practice, fueled by consumer demand, has led to the development of alternatives for BPA in these household products, and these petitions to FDA should close the door on the use of this dangerous chemical in food and beverage containers forever,” said Rep. Markey.

In a letter of support, Consumers Union agrees that the Congressman’s petitions  request “what the marketplace and an increasing body of scientific evidence argue – that BPA has no place in food packaging.”

Some food manufacturers are also taking action before the expected March 31 ruling.  Campbell’s soup recently announced that it is phasing out the use of BPA in its products, and has already switched to alternative packaging for some of its canned goods.  Seafood canner Crown Prince, which currently offers a dozen products on the market packed in BPA-free cans, also just stated that it is transitioning completely away from use of the chemical in all of its packaging.

Both companies cite consumer pressure as motive for the change. “[Our] customers and the public are active about the issue and it is easier to make our products BPA free instead of waiting for the FDA decision,” said a spokeswoman for Crown Prince.

In 2010 the FDA stated that it has ‘some concern’ for the effects of BPA on the prostate, brain and behavioral development of fetuses, infants and children.  Over 200 scientific studies show a wide range of additional health effects from exposure to BPA including breast and prostate cancer, birth defects, infertility in men, early puberty in girls, diabetes and obesity.

“It’s economic fraud,” microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein told ABC News. “It’s not fresh ground beef. … It’s a cheap substitute being added in.”

Invented by the company Beef Products Inc, the process involves grinding together connective tissue and beef scraps normally used to make dog food.  Cooked at low heat and then centrifuged to separate out the meat, the mixture is treated with ammonia hydroxide gas to kill any pathogens like E. coli or salmonella, and then packaged into bricks, frozen and shipped out to grocery stores. And schools.

While Burger King, McDonald’s and Taco Bell have all declared that they are no longer using ‘pink slime’, 70% of ground beef sold in grocery stores contain the mixture, and the USDA just purchased 7 million pounds of it for school lunches.

‘Pink slime’ recently gained notoriety after Jaime Oliver, celebrity chef and healthy school food advocate, featured a grisly demonstration of its manufacturing process on his show, Food Revolution, for a group of horrified parents and students.

The president of the American Beef Institute says that this product, known in the industry as Boneless Lean Beef Trimmings, is “absolutely edible” and a press release from the group calls it “a sustainable product because it recovers lean meat that would otherwise be wasted.”

But Carl Custer,  a 35 year veteran of the Food Inspection Safety Service who objected to the approval of this meat-like product back in the 1990’s, says,  “It’s more like Jell-O than hamburger, plus it’s treated with ammonia, an additive that is not declared anywhere.”

Since the beef industry considers the mixture to be meat, any beef product containing the mixture does not have to be labeled.

Where to turn if you have the misfortune of encountering a product like this? www.SaferProducts.gov

This website is a clearinghouse of information on all things related to recalls and product hazards. Here you can file a report about your own incident with an unsafe product, or search its database to see if others have had similar problems. Since its launch last March, over 6,300 reports of safety concerns have been posted.

Once a claim has been made, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) contacts companies to let them know a consumer had filed a report about one of their products, and gives the companies a chance to provide a response to the complaint.

By reporting any unsafe products, you can help companies and the CPSC identify potential ‘red flags’ on the market that may need to be investigated or recalled. Our own perusing of the database turned up many reports of children injured from a liquid-filled ball that burst open, dousing them in chemicals and leading to emergency room visits. Another repeat offender seems to be a mechanized doll whose battery pack overheats, causing the product and batteries to become hot to the touch. Smoking and fire-catching dishwashers constitute a surprising (and frightening) number of complaints.

We hope you never have to report an unsafe item, but the reality is that most of us – or one of our family members – will probably encounter products that are hazardous enough to warn others about. Keep www.SaferProducts.gov in mind, and encourage others to report their own experiences as well.

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has asked 60 companies to disclose their policies on antibiotic use in meat and poultry. “The US is facing a growing public health crisis in the form of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and information about how these companies are contributing to its rise or resolution should be available to consumers. Very simply, consumers have a right to know what’s in their food.”

The only microbiologist in Congress, Rep. Slaughter knows a thing or two about the kind of public health crisis that can arise from the abuse of antibiotics. She is the author of legislation called PAMTA – the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act – which would prevent agricultural overuse of seven classes of antibiotics important for human health.

A newly-released study this week adds validity to her concerns, documenting the way that feeding antibiotics to livestock is creating antibiotic-resistant ‘superbugs’ in humans.  “We’re seeing this one coming,”  said one author of the study on the growing trend of resistant infections showing up in humans. “The question is how often will this occur in the future if we don’t start controlling antibiotic use?”

Last year the FDA confirmed that 80% of antibiotics in the US are given to farm animals. The drugs are routinely fed to livestock to prevent the spread of infection, rampant in crowded and often unsanitary living conditions, and are also used as growth promoters.

Think it’s time to end the overuse of antibiotics for meat production? Take your voice straight to the top and add your name to this petition to the White House.  After 25,000 people sign on, the Obama Administration will issue an official response.

The “Arsenic Prevention and Protection from Lead Exposure in Juice Act of 2012″ (or APPLE Juice Act), introduced by Representatives Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT),  would require the FDA to set limits on arsenic and lead in juice within two years.

Although safety standards are in place to limit these chemicals in tap and bottled water, no current thresholds exist for fruit juices which are often consumed by children.

As reported by Food Safety News, the bill was introduced “in response to a Consumer Reports investigation that found levels of arsenic and lead that exceeded the federal standards for drinking water in 10 percent of apple and grape juice samples tested.”

Chronic exposure at even very low levels to these chemicals can impact brain development in children and lead to other serious health conditions.

“This bill will go a long way toward protecting the public, especially children, from exposure to these toxins,” said Ami Gadhia, Senior Policy Counsel for Consumers Union.

The Consumer Reports investigative piece on arsenic and lead in juice was published in January 2012.   Read the full article here. 

You may have heard a lot recently about Washington D.C. and its ‘regulations’ – probably not much of it good.

Politicians and others have been talking about doing away with federal regulations, and the Senate is set to consider several bills that will make it a lot tougher for these rules be put in place. But if these bills pass, it will become almost impossible to adopt common sense consumer protections, and your health and safety will be at risk.

Essentially, regulations are how federal agencies carry out their responsibilities as directed by Congress. For instance, Congress may pass a law directing the Food and Drug Administration to take steps to make our produce safer, but these laws usually only set out broad goals.

To reach those goals, regulations – or rules – have to be written. In this instance, FDA will spell out the specific steps food producers need to take to keep our produce free from bacteria that can make us sick. Before being adopted, these rules undergo public review and comment, so anyone can weigh in.

While not all regulations work to protect consumers, there are many important rules that help keep our food, toys, and cars safe, that oversee our financial products, and that help keep our air clean.  Without these types of rules, the marketplace could be a virtual free-for-all when it comes to your safety and getting a fair deal:

• The Consumer Product Safety Commission makes sure children’s toys are tested for lead and other safety concerns before they reach store shelves and kids’ hands.
• USDA regulations make sure food processors and meat producers keep their facilities clean, so bugs like Salmonella and E. coli in chicken or beef don’t make us sick, or worse.
• Health insurance companies have to give you understandable information free of double-speak, so you can make better choices about your health coverage.
• The EPA monitors drinking water for the presence of toxic chemicals and sets limits on air pollution from industrial and commercial sources.

And important new rules are on the table. Among them: making sure medical devices like pacemakers and replacement hips are traceable so if there’s a recall patients can be easily notified, and allowing you to take your mobile phone or device with you when changing wireless companies, so you can shop for a better deal.

But late last year the House of Representatives passed three bills that would create enormous hurdles for federal agencies issuing regulations. And the Senate is slated to take them up soon.

Consumers Union, the public policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, opposes these bills because they would undermine standards that keep our air and water clean, our food, drugs, cars, and other products safe, and our marketplace fair. To subject these rules to second-guessing would not only be wasteful; it could be damaging or even deadly. We urge consumers to join us as we work against these bills:

• The Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 3010, S. 1606) would require an agency adopt the least-costly rule, unless it can show both a compelling need to protect public health and safety and benefits that justify the additional costs. While this may sound good in theory, in reality a rule could only require a toy manufacturer to warn against a particular hazard, instead of designing the safety problem out of the toy in the first place.
• The REINS Act, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, (H.R. 10/S. 299) would force Congress to vote on all new rules having an annual economic impact of $100 million or more. Agencies could implement only those rules approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the President within an implausibly tight deadline of 70 legislative days. Rules that are not approved by then would be automatically rejected. Not only does Congress already have the ability to determine what regulations should look like when it passes a law, it also has the power to undo a rule that both chambers find objectionable. This bill also places an unrealistic burden on Congress to consider and vote on the 50-100 major rules agencies typically finalize each year.
• The Regulatory Flexibility Act (H.R. 527, S. 1938) would require all regulations that might conceivably have even an indirect impact on small businesses to undergo additional and unnecessary analyses. Virtually any action an agency proposes – even guidance designed to help a business comply with a rule – could be subject to a lengthy regulatory process. This bill could make it difficult for federal agencies to protect the public and respond to new safety hazards.

We will continue to keep you informed as we work to fight against these damaging measures, and hope you will join us in the battle for fair and commonsense marketplace rules.