This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

I received a press release from the Environmental Working Group a little while ago, White House Bows to Chemical Companies notifying me that the White House has caved to the Chemical Industry and knocked down two EPA proposals that would have helped protect the American consumer, their families and the Environment.

This story struck me as very ironic. For an Administration so concerned at the moment with toxic chemicals and their use in the Middle East, I find it more than disappointing that this same Administration turns the other way here at home when a different class of toxic chemicals are showing up in things we use in our daily lives. There is a large degree of difference of course, but the chemicals don't know the difference as they take effect on our health and safety, our lives.

more below


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

The author of the press release is clearly angry at this news:

For several years, the White House Office of Management and Budget had been holding up two rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the public from exposure to certain chemicals. The first, submitted in 2010, would have expanded a list of “chemicals of concern” targeted for further action to reduce the risk they pose to the public. The second, proposed a year later, would have prohibited chemical companies from keeping secret the identity of chemicals under review when they submit health and safety studies to the Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA is withdrawing both proposed rules, which had been part of a larger initiative launched in 2009 by then-EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to use the agency’s limited authority under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act to rein in the use of “chemicals of concern.”

“The action today is a devastating blow to the effort to protect public health against dangerous chemicals and a clear illustration of the risks human health and our children face when discretion is left to bean counters in the White House,” said EWG senior scientist David Andrews, PhD.

What are these chemicals?
EPA had proposed adding bisphenol A, eight phthalates and a category of fire retardants known as PBDEs to the “chemicals of concern” list. The substances have been linked to a wide variety of health risks in American children. BPA and PBDE exposure during pregnancy and childhood is linked to behavioral problems. Prenatal phthalate exposure has been linked to reproductive system damage in boys.
I wrote about BPA here a few years ago. It has been recognized as a toxic and hazardous chemical for some time. I believe both the EU and Canada have fully banned their use. For more about the chemical and its hazards, read here:

Clear Silicone Nipple: Craptastic Plastic, BPA and you!

Perhaps even more damaging, the second blocked rule will impact our ability to research the possibly hazardous chemical composition of consumer goods, protecting the Chemical Companies for their confidentiality. As someone who regularly researches the hazards of chemicals used in the workplace,  I believe this is terrible news for workers.

The second withdrawn rule dealt with a critically important aspect of the law that mandates that health and safety studies of chemicals cannot be kept secret as “Confidential Business Information” (CBI). In practice, however, chemical companies invoked their legal right to protect trade secrets in order to block public disclosure of the identity of the chemicals in the studies. [...] The new rule would have required disclosure of the chemical identities within safety studies.
More on this story here:
EPA to withdraw 2 high-profile regulations -- sources

EPA Quietly Withdraws Two Proposed Chemical Safety Rules

EPA pulls back chemical regs

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) heralded the decision to pull the regulations back.

“The proposals were rendered unnecessary when EPA wisely chose to adopt a better approach for prioritizing chemicals and reviewing claims for confidential chemical information under TSCA,” the ACC said in a statement.

Yes, of course they are thrilled.
Extended (Optional)

Your Email has been sent.