What they say about California’s Green Chem

As you recall, California’s Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) created a wiki website inviting anybody and everybody who has interests in the agency’s ongoing Green Chemistry rule making process.

Here are some of the comments (follow the links) gathered from major groups and industry organizations:

American Chemistry Council, January 2009: “There is a common misconception that there isn’t a lot of information available on chemicals and their effects on people and the environment.”


Grocery Manufacturers Association, March 2009: “Many manufacturers currently disclose ingredients in their products and many more are moving to do so. This should eliminate the vast majority of concerns.”

California Industrial Hygiene Council, April 2009: “Fewer than several hundred responders have provided input on the Wiki or in the Workshops held this year. This is troubling in that the input process does not appear to be robust and cannot be construed to represent a broad based feedback loop.”

Mike Feuer, Assemblymember, 42nd District, April 2009: “It is also essential that chemicals for which no data or incomplete data exist be considered a chemical of concern until a complete dataset is available showing no hazardous or toxic properties.”


California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, May 2009:“We suggest that DTSC remove any reference to the U.S. EPA ChAMPprogram. This program is seriously flawed and has been widelycriticized.”

Procter & Gamble, May 2009:“Responsible consumer product manufacturers already employ acomprehensive product safety management system that assesses andensures the safety of consumer products prior to and during marketing.”

Breast Cancer Fund, May 2009:“Manufacturers conducting assessments is a recipe for disaster in thatthere is an incentive to hide critical information or manipulate dataor the interpretation of that data.”

Environmental Working Group, June 2009:“EWG is very concerned with DTSC’s proposal that regulatory action maybe waived if ‘the [manufacturer] can demonstrate that research is inprogress for the prioritized chemical of concern, and itsalternatives.’ It is our experience that research is essentially alwaysin progress on any chemical of concern.”

California Department of Public Health, June 2009:“It is essential that all information collected by DTSC through newregulations including confidential business information is made freelyavailable to all State programs with mandates for preventing harm tohealth and the environment due to toxic chemicals. Information sharingagreements should be put in place with legal consultation.”


Green Chemistry Alliance, June 2009:“The issue is not whether there is a data gap; but rather, how can thestate manage its finite resources to best identify and prioritize theuses of the chemicals of greatest concern in consumer products?”

[Video of DTSC Director Maziar Movasaghi welcoming users to the Green Chemistry Wiki Website]

addthis_pub = ‘greenchicgeek’;

Leave a Reply