toxic substance

Consumer Product Companies Leading the Way to Greener Products

Getting a tour of Earth Friendly Products in Southern California.

Getting a tour of Earth Friendly Products in Southern California.

 

During some recent travel, I spent time with several consumer product companies and retailers who are stepping up as  safer product leaders and innovators, advancing industry beyond the safety “floor” set by the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

In Southern California, I met with Earth Friendly Products. All their products are manufactured in the U.S. and 90% have earned the Design for the Environment (DfE) label.

I also took part in the Safer Consumer Product Summit in California followed by a visit to the Consumer Specialty Product Association (CSPA) meeting in Chicago.Then, outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, I met with BerkleyGreen (Berkley Packaging Company Inc.), a family- and woman-owned DfE partner with 29 DfE-labeled products.

More

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Radon – Why Do We Ignore It?

By Shelly Rosenblum

Psychology is fascinating, especially when you consider how we use it on ourselves – or against ourselves to be more precise. When do we use it against ourselves? When we put things off that are good for us, like cutting back on junk food, or skipping the gym, or when we hear someone tell us to test for radon and we don’t.

While it’s difficult to perceive how something we can’t see or smell can hurt us, is there something else stopping us from taking action? After all, the Surgeon General and public health organizations like the ALA and EPA tell us that radon is a leading cause of lung cancer, second only to smoking. We usually take messages from these folks to heart, so why ignore radon?

Dr. Peter M. Sandman is an expert on risk communication. He helps people understand why we fear some things that carry little risk and overlook things which carry a huge risk – like radon. He describes this behavior with a formula: Risk = hazard + outrage. Outrage? What’s that? Suppose a company spills a toxic substance in your neighborhood, creating a health hazard. We’d be angry. Then suppose they’re not forthcoming about the quantity spilled and danger level. We’d be even more angry or OUTRAGED!

The more outraged we were, the greater the perceived risk. Even if the hazard was small, but the outrage large, we’d still perceive a large risk. Now apply this to radon: since it’s natural, there’s no one to be angry with – no outrage. With no one to blame, we somehow convince ourselves that the risk is smaller. This lack of outrage allows us to fool ourselves into not taking action. But consider this: if you found that your children’s school had not tested for radon, or if they had tested, found elevated levels and not told anyone, you’d be outraged – suddenly you would perceive the risk as huge – you would demand action. Consider further, one day your children may have reason to be outraged – at YOU – for not having tested the home they grew-up in!

Test, Fix, Save a Life. Testing is simple and inexpensive. The cost of fixing a home with elevated levels is comparable to other minor home repairs. It’s cheap insurance – against lung cancer and against having your children outraged at you! Learn more about how to test and fix your home.

About the author: Shelly Rosenblum works on the Radiation & Indoor Environments Teams at EPA’s Region 6 Office in San Francisco, CA.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Science Wednesday: A Green Chemistry Moon Shot

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

By Chris Crane

I was born in the late 80’s and like many other members of my generation I often dismiss the idea that there are any challenges in this decade that compare to John F. Kennedy’s 1962 Moon speech: “We shall send to the moon…on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth…and do it first before this decade is out.”

What could compare to that?

After attending the 15th Annual Green Chemistry & Engineering Conference, I stand corrected. At the conference, EPA Assistant Administrator and “Father of Green Chemistry,” Dr. Paul Anastas gave a keynote on “Molecular Revolution.” While I was expecting something heavily laden with scientific terms, what I heard was a welcome surprise (in English)—especially to a young environmentalist dedicated to a sustainable future.

After taking a moment to marvel at what green chemistry has accomplished in its first 20 years, Dr. Anastas moved to address the hard questions of the future. “Today there exists an absurdity, despite our best efforts… it’s absurd that our products and processes are still of concern.” Manmade substances can cause developmental problems for the unborn, hardwire obesity in the womb, and decrease intelligence before a child is even born, Anastas explained.

Alluding to JFK’s historic speech, Dr. Anastas revealed an equivalent challenge for our generation: “By the end of this decade, we will achieve an end to unintentional manmade hazards and the full incorporation of safe and healthy molecular structures.”

There are three essential components to this goal: 1) Every student and practitioner must be trained in the principles of green chemistry. 2) Industry must use no toxic substances and produce no toxic waste. 3) All chemicals in all products must be known to be free of hazard.

Dr. Anastas is calling for a revolutionary transformation in the core functions of our institutions (moving from production with harmful side effects to sustainable production) and the beliefs that support those functions (that waste and hazards are no longer acceptable).

Despite my tendency to dismiss historical patterns, Dr. Anastas showed me how we are all faced with a modern day moon challenge as we try to create a sustainable world. It’s going to take similar levels of cultural, scientific, and political unity behind this goal if we are going to reach the moon.

About the Author: Chris Crane is an intern with the Science Communications team in EPA’s Office of Research and Development. He is an environmental economics major at Colgate University.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.