Podcasts about tsca

This week, I discuss with my colleagues, Dr. Richard E. Engler, Director of Chemistry for B&C and The Acta Group (Acta®), our consulting affiliate, and Kelly N. Garson, Senior Associate for B&C and Acta, our recently released book, titled Chemical Product Law and Supply Chain Stewardship: A Guide to New TSCA, published by the American Bar Association. As listeners know, as a law firm and consulting firm, we do a lot of work under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and have gained a significant amount of hands-on practical knowledge about the law, the 2016 Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amendments to it, and the transformative impact these amendments have had on business transactions. We set out a year or so ago to write a book that explains TSCA through a business transactions lens. Of course, we explain the law, but we really write as business counselors to enable the regulated community -- importers, chemical producers, finished product manufacturers, distributors, and chemical users -- to be TSCA aware. The law has become, whether you like it or not, an important factor in virtually every business decision. My conversation today with Kelly and Rich focuses on several of their chapters in the book, and they explain how they approached writing a book about a law from the perspective of the business community. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2025 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

This week, I discuss Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) developments with my colleague, Dr. Richard E. Engler, Director of Chemistry for B&C and The Acta Group (Acta®), our consulting affiliate. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amendments has been a dynamic, evolving, and unpredictable work in progress for almost nine years. Given the new Administration, we are at a most uncertain time because of the lack of clarity regarding what the new leaders at the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) will do to address new chemical review concerns, risk evaluation under TSCA Section 6, and risk management actions resulting from those evaluations. As listeners know, all final risk management rules are being challenged and the disposition of those cases is the subject of considerable speculation. So also is OCSPP's consideration of not yet final risk evaluations and how the new Administration intends to interpret TSCA Section 6 in general. There are growing calls for legislative action to remedy some of Lautenberg's deficits, particularly in the area of new chemicals, another important variable that is destabilizing the status quo. Rich and I discuss these topics and many others. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2025 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

In this news roundup, Executive Editor Jonathan Katz highlights significant policy shifts, with Trump's energy initiatives reversing environmental protections and renewable energy commitments. Chemical industry regulations face changes with TSCA reform and EPA appointments of former industry executives. Additional developments include expanded PFAS reporting requirements, biofuel research funding and Covestro's U.S. manufacturing expansion.

On June 26, 2024, B&C, along with the Environmental Law Institute and the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, sponsored the all-day virtual conference, TSCA Reform — Eight Years Later. The quality of the discussion, the caliber of the participants, and the timeliness of the content motivated us to repurpose the substantive sessions. B&C and ELI are pleased to co-sponsor this episode of All Things Chemical® to enable our podcast audience to listen to these sessions. Lynn L. Bergeson moderated Panel 4: Shaping the Agenda: Section 21 Citizens' Petitions and Other Mechanisms Influencing Priority Setting. The panelists included Ryan J. Carra, Ph.D., Principal, Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.; Michael Connett, Partner, Siri & Glimstad LLP; Thomas Groeneveld, Senior Advisor, Existing Chemicals Risk Management Division, EPA; and Robert M. Sussman, Principal, Sussman & Associates. Citizens' petitions under TSCA Section 21 are increasingly playing a prominent and evolving role in influencing EPA's policy and regulatory priorities. Other mechanisms are also being used to revisit EPA's priorities. The panel discussed the utility of these mechanisms, how they are impacting EPA's regulatory agenda, and other opportunities for citizen engagement. The panel commented on the implications of EPA's decision to grant a TSCA Section 21 petition to address only a single condition of use (COU) of the chemical N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (6PPD). More information on the petition to address 6PPD in tires is available in our November 3, 2023, blog item. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

On June 26, 2024, B&C, along with the Environmental Law Institute and the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, sponsored the all-day virtual conference, TSCA Reform — Eight Years Later. The quality of the discussion, the caliber of the participants, and the timeliness of the content motivated us to repurpose the substantive sessions. B&C and ELI are pleased to co-sponsor this episode of All Things Chemical® to enable our podcast audience to listen to these sessions. Samantha Liskow, Lead Counsel, Health Program, EDF, moderated Panel 3: New Chemical Review. The panelists included Shari Barash, Director, NCD, OPPT, EPA; Kyla Bennett, Ph.D., Director, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER); Kerry Coy, Product Regulation Specialist, BASF Corporation; Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., Director of Chemistry, B&C; and Daniel Rosenberg, Senior Attorney, Environmental Health, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The panelists discussed the latest updates to EPA's new chemical review process, whether challenges are being addressed and how, whether review times are being diminished, scientific integrity, and best available science. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

On June 26, 2024, B&C, along with the Environmental Law Institute and the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, sponsored the all-day virtual conference, TSCA Reform — Eight Years Later. The quality of the discussion, the caliber of the participants, and the timeliness of the content motivated us to repurpose the substantive sessions. B&C and ELI are pleased to co-sponsor this episode of All Things Chemical® to enable our podcast audience to listen to these sessions. Maria J. Doa, Ph.D., Senior Director, Chemicals Policy, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), moderated Panel 2: Risk Evaluation and the Supporting Role Sections 4 and 8 Play. The panelists included David B. Fischer, Counsel, Keller and Heckman LLP; Jeffery T. Morris, Ph.D., Director, Existing Chemicals Risk Assessment Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), EPA; Katherine O'Brien, Senior Attorney, Toxic Exposure and Health Program, Earthjustice; Judah Prero, Counsel, Arnold & Porter; and Tracey Woodruff, Ph.D., Professor and Director, University of California, San Francisco, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment. The panel considered EPA's revised chemical prioritization and risk evaluation processes; the role and extent of peer review; and the utility and timing of Section 4 test rules. More information on EPA's final 2024 rule amending the risk evaluation framework rule is available in our May 14, 2024, memorandum. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

The deadline for PFAS reporting has been pushed!  Hosts Tom Simmons and Matthew Wallace are joined by compliance expert Jackie Baxley, HRP's EHS&S Practice Leader, to detail the deadline update and go over the key details of the rule.Check out our previously recorded webinar linked here for some background context, but be sure to check out this episode for the latest! Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Karyn M. Schmidt, Senior Director, Regulatory & Scientific Affairs, American Chemistry Council, moderated Panel 1: Risk Management. The panelists included MaryAnn Hoff, Global Director Advocacy, EHS & Product Stewardship, PPG; Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, Supervising Senior Attorney, Earthjustice; Eileen Murphy, Ph.D., Director, Existing Chemicals Risk Management Division, EPA; and Meredith Williams, Director, California Department of Toxic Substances Control. The panel discussed how EPA defines the “extent necessary” to control unreasonable risks and under what circumstances EPA will not seek to ban a chemical use, as well as EPA's final asbestos, methylene chloride, and proposed N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) risk management rules. More information on the risk management rules is available in our March 28, 2024, memorandum (asbestos), May 17, 2024, memorandum (methylene chloride), and June 21, 2024, memorandum (NMP). ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

This week I had the pleasure of speaking with Michael Connett, Partner with Siri & Glimstad, LLP to discuss his epic litigation representing Food & Water Watch, a non-profit consumer organization that sued EPA over the fluoridation of drinking water. This issue has a long and complicated administrative and litigation history, and Michael and his firm are actively engaged in a groundbreaking federal litigation based on a judicial appeal of a denied Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 21 citizen petition. Michael concluded a bench trial earlier this year in federal district court in the Northern District of California. The case is fascinating and much watched. We discuss the case, why TSCA citizen petitions in general are filed, Michael's thoughts on how to prepare petitions to maximize their success (as most are denied), and other means of citizen engagement under TSCA. Resources: TSCA Section 21 Petition Trends Pre- and Post-Lautenberg TSCA Reform – Eight Years Later ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

Welcome back, fabulous listeners! In this enlightening episode of The Hormone Prescription Podcast, we are thrilled to have the brilliant Dr. Tom O'Bryan join us. Dr. O'Bryan is a globally recognized speaker who has dedicated his career to unraveling the mysteries of chronic disease, food sensitivities, and environmental toxins. Often referred to as the "Sherlock Holmes" of chronic disease, Dr. O'Bryan brings a wealth of knowledge and passion for helping people overcome health challenges, particularly during midlife. What You'll Learn: The Inflammation Equation – How inflammation impacts your hormones and overall wellbeing, especially during midlife. Invisible Triggers – Discover the hidden food sensitivities and environmental toxins that could be sabotaging your health. Autoimmune Awareness – Understand the connection between chronic inflammation and autoimmune diseases, and how you can take proactive steps to protect yourself. Practical Insights from Dr. O'Bryan – Gain actionable advice and strategies to reduce inflammation, balance your hormones, and reclaim your vitality. Conversation Highlights: Dr. O'Bryan takes us on a captivating journey, starting with his personal story of discovering the power of functional medicine. He shares eye-opening anecdotes and real-life detective stories of patients who transformed their health by addressing hidden inflammation. With his signature blend of expertise and compassion, Dr. O'Bryan provides a roadmap for recognizing and mitigating the factors that may be wreaking havoc on your hormones. If you found this episode as enlightening and empowering as we did, we'd love to hear from you! Please subscribe, rate, and review The Hormone Prescription Podcast on your favorite platform. Your feedback helps us bring more valuable content to midlife women everywhere. About Our Guest: Dr. Tom O'Bryan, DC, CCN, DACBN is an internationally recognized speaker and educator specializing in food sensitivities, environmental toxins, and the development of autoimmune diseases. He holds teaching faculty positions with the Institute for Functional Medicine and the National University of Health Sciences. Dr. O'Bryan is the celebrated author of You Can Fix Your Brain and The Autoimmune Fix.   ------ Dr. Kyrin Dunston (00:00): The real epidemic isn't a virus, it's inflammation. It's claiming way more lives for many more years than any virus ever has. Stay tuned as we dive into the inflammation equation with Dr. Tom O'Brian. Dr. Kyrin Dunston (00:17): So the big question is, how do women over 40 like us, keep weight off, have great energy, balance our hormones and our moods, feel sexy and confident, and master midlife? If you're like most of us, you are not getting the answers you need and remain confused and pretty hopeless to ever feel like yourself Again. As an OB GYN, I had to discover for myself the truth about what creates a rock solid metabolism, lasting weight loss, and supercharged energy after 40, in order to lose a hundred pounds and fix my fatigue, now I'm on a mission. This podcast is designed to share the natural tools you need for impactful results and to give you clarity on the answers to your midlife metabolism challenges. Join me for tangible, natural strategies to crush the hormone imbalances you are facing and help you get unstuck from the sidelines of life. My name is Dr. Kyrin Dunston. Welcome to the Hormone Prescription Podcast. Dr. Kyrin Dunston (01:11): Hi everybody. Welcome back to another episode of the Hormone Prescription. This is Dr. Kyrin. Thank you so much for joining me today as we dive into the inflammation equation with one of my longtime friends, Dr. Tom o O'Brien, who has produced many famous docuseries that have helped millions of people globally improved their health, reverse disease, prevent disease, and create vitality and longevity that really is their birthright that they haven't been able to find. So I'm super excited to dive into his latest project with you, the Inflammation Equation. We're really gonna focus on how inflammation affects women, and particularly women over 40. What you need to know today, things you can start doing today to reverse inflammation in your body, which contributes is the leading contributor to the top 15 or so causes of death. He talks about that. Dr. Tom is a veritable walking encyclopedia of the latest studies on functional health, and he's gonna share some recent studies with you that are really gonna blow your mind when it comes to inflammation. Dr. Kyrin Dunston (02:24): So you're going to want to listen up. We are gonna talk really about how do you know if you have inflammation? Are we talking about you? He has an incredible way to know in one sentence that you will never forget that you're gonna wanna love. He's gonna talk with you about the Toxic Substance Control Act and why they quote unquote, they are not protecting you, even though it seems like they are. The Toxic Substance Control Act is really something you need to understand why you are not protected and why you need to take action on your own health. He's gonna give you some actionable information, a way that you can reduce dementia risk by 54% just by doing something simple daily. So Dr. Tom's a veritable walking encyclopedia and very, gives you very action oriented information, and he's gonna share with you what you're gonna find in the upcoming event, the Inflammation Equation. I'll tell you a little bit about him and then we will get started. So Dr. Tom O'Brien has many initials after his name. He's an internationally recognized speaker focused on food sensitivities, environmental toxins, and the development of autoimmune diseases. He's considered a Sherlock Holmes for chronic disease and holds teaching faculty positions with the Institute for Functional Medicine and the National University of Health Sciences. He is the author of You Can Fix Your Brain and The Autoimmune Fix. Please help me welcome Dr. Tom O'Brien to the show. Dr. Tom O'Brian (04:02): Thank you so much. Pleasure to be with you. Dr. Kyrin Dunston (04:04): I'm really excited to have you back on talking about two of my favorite topics, inflammation and hormones, . Yes. A lot of people don't realize, a lot of women don't realize that inflammation, environmental toxicity, have anything to do with their hormone difficulties at midlife and beyond. So can you help shed a little light on why they might wanna listen and pay attention to what we're gonna talk about? Dr. Tom O'Brian (04:32): You bet. Primarily for me, I think the hook is the quality of your senior years. And the World Health Organization tells us that the healthy lifespan for the average woman in America is somewhere around 68 to 69 years. The lifespan of women in America is somewhere around 81 years. Well, wait a minute, what's the difference? Well, the healthy lifespan means that you're able to do what you want to do, that your body's functioning and you're not with a diagnosed disease that's limiting your lifestyle. And so what that's telling us is that the last 11 to 12 years of life for the average person in America is disabled. It's not healthy. Those are the numbers. And what are you doing that's going to help ensure you are not one of the average in a wheelchair or with such severe arthritis, you can't walk up a hill or whatever it should be. Dr. Tom O'Brian (05:35): What are you gonna do that's different than that? And there's a key, the key that unlocks the door to all of that, the Center for Disease Control tells us that 14 of the 15 top causes of death in the US today are chronic inflammatory diseases. It's always inflammation except for unintentional injuries, accidents, everything else is the cumulative damage of chronic inflammation under the surface that's been there for years. That is a realization. It's whoa. Well that doesn't relate to me Every cause of death, the top 15 causes of death, 14 of 15 are chronic inflammatory diseases without exception. So what that, okay, so what, what do I do about that? You learn how you're creating inflammation under the surface right now that may not be immobilizing you. So you feel fine. You're really not, you can't do the things you did 10 years ago. You're limited, but might feel fine. Dr. Tom O'Brian (06:43): No, you're not. But this level of inflammation is allowing you to walk around to do some basic things. So you think, well I'm, I'm doing okay. I'm doing pretty good. But the inflammation is under the surface killing off tissue every single day. And when you don't know this, you don't put any time into figuring out how do I reduce the inflammation? When you know this, then you ask the question, is this inflammatory or anti-inflammatory? And it comes down to should I have the apple or the potato chips? But you now have a paradigm to hold it in so that you can make choices that are more aligned with your desire to have quality of life. Dr. Kyrin Dunston (07:28): Yeah. Sobering statistics that you offer. But I think it's so important that we women get a kind of a cold glass of water in our face because the level of denial about our health at midlife and beyond as we age, I think is, is enormous. And what that statistic you gave, and really it's our vitality span and our lifespan. A lot of us are living in this chronic disease state for so many years lying to ourselves that we really don't have a problem. But I'm wondering if you can speak to the fact that a lot of women do go to their doctors and they say, Hey doc, I'm not sleeping like I used to. I can't lose this weight. Signs of inflammation, right? Can't sleep weight gain. I have brain fog. My mood is a little off. I'm irritable. I don't wanna be sexual. All of these things. I'm having little aches and pains and they're really not getting the memo or information that it's because of inflammation. And so can you help them understand why getting a clean bill of health from your regular $30 HMO copay doctor really is not the stamp of approval and that they need to invest time and money into educating themselves about what's really going on that's harming them? Dr. Tom O'Brian (08:45): Yeah, really good question. You don't go to a podiatrist if you have migraines. Who are you going to in asking the questions of? You have to go to healthcare practitioners that are trained in functional medicine, integrative medicine, holistic medicine who are working to live the life that you wanna live. You, you don't go to a podiatrist with migraines. So going to your average HMO $30 copay doctor that gives you four minutes of time is not going to be the, that may be a good doctor for some things, but not for this. You wanna go to doctors who are spending the extra time and dollars to study and learn what they never learned in medical school. That's not part of the education in medical school. And when you go in for an exam, a physical and a blood test, they don't do blood tests to see if you're healthy. Dr. Tom O'Brian (09:47): They do blood tests to identify do you have any diseases? And there's a big world of difference between the two, right? So you want to get information that is designed around achieving the goals of extending your healthy lifespan. For example, the general of the American Medical Association came out and said the magic number is 9,846. You walk 9,846 steps a day, you reduce your risk of dementia by 54%. Doesn't matter if you have the gene for Alzheimer's. It doesn't matter that they followed 75,000 people for over 25 years. And those that were walking at least 9,846 steps per day reduced their risk of dementia by 54%. So that's really useful information. And so you learned, okay, well, you, like your iPhone can tell you how many steps you take a day or you can wear a wearable device on your wrist and you start seeing, oh, I'm walking 400 steps a day. Dr. Tom O'Brian (10:55): Well, that's not gonna cut it. That creates disease by itself. That creates inflammation when you sit all day, that by itself will fuel your disease. And the way to think of this is that if I pull it a chain, the chain always breaks at the weakest link. It's at one end, the middle, the other end. It's your heart, your brain, your liver, your joints, doesn't matter. It's the pull on the chain that determines where the symptom, when the symptoms are going to happen. And it's your genetics that determine which links are the weak links. The pull on the chain is inflammation. Dr. Kyrin Dunston (11:34): Yeah, I love that. A chain always breaks its weakest link. So we're not getting this information in our doctor's offices. So we need to invest time and money and energy in getting that information for ourselves. And you've really dedicated your life to that, which I love. And I have to share this quote with everyone that you shared with me before we started. 'cause I love it. I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community. And as long as I live, it's my privilege to do for it what I can. You really are a living example of that. We'll offer and share information on Dr. Tom's latest project will give you many resources to identify and remove the inflammation in your life and in your body. Let's talk a little bit about hormones and inflammation. So when we talk about inflammation, how does someone know if they have inflammation, if their doctor's not telling them? I guess that's the first question. And then we can dive into where is it coming from and how is it affecting my hormones as a woman at woman at midlife and beyond? But how would I know Dr. Tom O'Brian (12:42): If your body's not working the way you want it to? You're inflamed. Every disease is a disease of inflammation. And if you're not consciously, there's no way that a person is not carrying this low grade chronic inflammation if they're not actively learning how to reduce the triggers of that. For example, every time you put nail polish on the phalates, the chemicals used to mold plastic that make nail polish hard. The phthalates are in your bloodstream in four to five minutes every time you put nail polish on. And this stuff is, they're called endocrine disruptors. They disrupt how your hormones work. And the average woman, I don't know that you, you may know the exact number, I don't remember. It's somewhere around 120 to 140 chemicals. The average woman is putting on her body every morning before she leaves the house, as if those are safe. Dr. Tom O'Brian (13:37): They're not. And the way they, the, the industry gets away with this, oh, the government wouldn't allow anything like this. Oh, the government was paid off. The senators were paid off to pass this legislation called the Toxic Substance Control Act. And the TSCA says, you have to prove that the chemicals you're concerned about damage humans in the amounts that they're exposed to within 24 hours. They don't, most of them don't. There's no evidence of damage from the phthalates in your nail polish or from the phthalates that leach into the food. When you put leftover food in plastic containers. There's no evidence that the amount of phalates that are in the chicken the next day when you eat the chicken because it came out of the plastic into the food, there's no evidence that amount of phthalates is toxic to humans. There is no evidence. And that's how the industry got away with that. Dr. Tom O'Brian (14:35): But this stuff is cumulative in your body. It builds up over time. So give me a five-year-old girl painting her 10 little fingers and 10 little toes once a week with nail polish. Now she's 25 to 30 years old and she gets pregnant, wants to start a family, hopefully has a healthy pregnancy and a healthy delivery. Chicago not 2016, 346 pregnant women in the eighth month of pregnancy. And they did urine analysis looking for five different types of phthalates, these chemicals, these endocrine disrupting chemicals. And they put the results into fourths, the women with the lowest amount the next, the third and the highest. They followed the offspring of those pregnancies for seven years. And when the children turned seven years old, the researchers reached back out and said, hi, it's time to do that test for your child now and hope all is really great for you. Dr. Tom O'Brian (15:36): And they did the Wexler IQ test, the official IQ test. There's not much in medicine. That's all or every, but this was every child whose mother was in the highest category of phalates in urine and pregnancy compared to the children whose mothers were in the lowest quartile of phalates in urine and pregnancy. Every child in the highest category, their IQ was seven points lower. Six points seven to 7.4 points lower every single one of them. Now, that doesn't mean anything to anyone until you understand a one point difference in IQ is noticeable. A seven point difference is a difference between a child working really hard, getting straight A's in school and a child working really hard, getting straight C's in school, really working, but that child doesn't have a chance in hell of ever excelling. Now you just go to Google and you type in phthalates and neurogenesis brain cell growth. Dr. Tom O'Brian (16:34): Here come the studies. The higher the phthalates, the more you inhibit brain cell growth. So these women that have been painting their nails for 20 years, drinking out of plastic water bottles, wearing contact lenses, and the contact lens is full of phthalates and the solution is full of phthalates, they put in their eyes every day. This stuff accumulates in your body over time. Their babies are born with lower IQs, excuse me. Their babies are born with poorly developed brains and they develop poorer IQs by the age of seven. Wake up people. You can't put these poisons on your body or in your body and expect that you're going to be healthy and vibrant. It's not gonna happen. So you have to find, or organic cosmetics, you have to find glass storage containers. Give the Tupperware to your husband to store nails in the garage. That's what they're good for, right? It's, I mean, it's changing the way people think. And that's what our event is all about. Dr. Kyrin Dunston (17:39): It was very sobering. And I know everybody listening is, oh my gosh, this is horrible. And I said, don't freak out. Just take action and start replacing the co toxic cosmetics that you have one by one when you run out with something new. That's a simple action you can take as a woman. Because yes, we put on myriad products on our skin, on our hair or nails or lips, but there's this so-called kind of greenwashing of cosmetics where they wanna say it's phthalate free. But then if you really read the ingredients, there's equally toxic, toxic ingredients. But the industry has kind of gotten savvy to say that the products are free of certain toxic chemicals that consumers are becoming aware of. So you wanna check out something like environmental working group. But there's so many things that you can do to protect yourself and to, you wanna stop getting these things in your body and you wanna start getting them out. So there are things you can do to usher them out. How are women at midlife 40 and above, particularly affected by inflammation? I love your simple explanation that if something's not working properly in your body, you have inflammation. I love that. That makes it super simple. So how are women in the perimenopause and menopause particularly affected? Dr. Tom O'Brian (18:59): Many women who are taking hormones did not have their hormone levels tested before they started taking hormones. They're shot shotgunning and when, and they feel better. So they think everything's fine. Mm-Hmm, . But when you're shotgunning, when you're shotgunning, look, I grew up in Detroit. I grew up in the era of muscle cars. And all of us had muscle cars. And you don't take a 4 54 engine out of a Corvette and put it in a Volkswagen. If you drive a Volkswagen with a 4 54 engine in it really hard and really fast, things start to break down. When you take hormones to shotgun feeling better and you didn't have a deficiency of estrogen or you didn't have a deficiency of progesterone or testosterone, but you're taking the hormones and you feel better. Well, yeah, you put a 4 54 into a Volkswagen, you have to rebuild all the tissue so that it can accommodate. Dr. Tom O'Brian (20:01): Look, if you have a deficiency, you take the hormones of course, but at the same time, you are rebuilding your system. And every cell, your body regenerates. You have an entirely new immune system every two months. So why are you continuing to have an autoimmune disease for those that have Hashimoto's or whatever as a thyroid autoimmune disease or celiac or whatever they've got. Why are you still regenerating cells that are, 'cause your immune system is just the armed forces there to protect you. There's an army and Navy and Air Force and Marines, we call 'em IGA, IgG, I-G-E-I-G-M cytokines. They're just branches of the armed forces. So when they're elevated, the question is not, how do I shut down the immune system? How do I calm it down? No, the question is, what is my immune system trying to protect me from? And so you begin to explore what foods are you eating, what environmental toxins are you being exposed to? Dr. Tom O'Brian (21:05): How much crud has accumulated in your body? You just start the journey. When I interviewed Fran Drescher for this event, the nanny, she was wonderful, just wonderful. She's a 24 year survivor of uterine cancer. And she looks lovely. She truly does. And she said, when I was diagnosed, my oncologist saved my life. She's a really good friend now. And I asked her, why did I get cancer? And the oncologist said, we don't know. It just happens. And Fran didn't believe that. And so she said, I decided to focus my fame not on raising money for cancer research, but rather raising money to educate. Where does cancer come from? And it's, and she founded Cancer Schmance. And cancer comes from all of the environmental triggers that you're exposed to, whether it's in your food or in your cosmetics or in your home. Harvard did a study and they looked at, I got, I think it was, I'm sorry, I don't remember the exact number. Dr. Tom O'Brian (22:14): I think it was 15,000. It may have been a little bit more. 15,000 people with cancer, different types of cancers. Every single one of them had elevated markers of the immune system fighting mold, every single one of them. And it's like, what? What? So you have to check your house. Is there mold in this? My house is fine. No, you don't smell it. You don't see it. If you can smell it, it's bad. It's really bad. And so you just start learning and you just, and as Fran said, she said, Dr. O'brien, how did you get to my guest bathroom? 'cause I had just gone to the bathroom before we started filming. And I said, well, it's right over there. She said, yes, but how did you get there? And then I saw the sparkle in her eye and I knew what she was doing. I said, one step at a time. And she started that laugh of hers at Nanny. That was her message. You take one step at a time. You just, for example, you change out your toothpaste, you take a look at the toothpaste in your medicine cabinet and it says, warning, do not swallow. If swallowed, call National Poison Control Center, . Dr. Tom O'Brian (23:23): That's what it says on the box. Because they have to, but nobody reads this stuff. And we think, oh, we, they'd never give me anything that would harm me. Wake up. Dr. Kyrin Dunston (23:36): My kids used to say that all the time when I would try to explain to them why eating such and such wasn't a good idea. And they would say they wouldn't allow it if it weren't healthy , I'd say, who is they? Who do you think is protecting you? Nobody is protecting you. They're protecting their profits or corporate profits. And medicine is not about, and government is not about protecting your health. So yeah, Fran Drescher has, is really working hard to, to educate people. Talk a little bit about the event, the inflammation equation and what people will get out of that from watching it. Dr. Tom O'Brian (24:15): Oh, it's just magical. It's really magical. There it is. One hour a day for nine days. It's all free. And I traveled the world for a year, seven countries, 84 interviews the world leaders in environmental exposures, in brain function, in reversing Alzheimer's, the real leaders. And when you hear them speak, and when they say, so I say, excuse me professor. And I stop them in the middle of, did you just say, well, yes. Well that's a geeky word. People won't understand that. Does that mean well, yes. So then that means this. And they say, well, yes, exactly. Oh, thank you. Please continue. So you hear what these world scientists, world class scientists are saying about where disease comes from. And it's always without exception. It's always excessive inflammation. It's basic 1 0 1. Every doctor should have been taught this their first week in their education so that everything they learned would be under the umbrella of when inflammation gets really bad. This happens to your kidneys when inflammation's going on for years. This happens to your eyes when inflammation's go. That's how they should be taught because it's our lifestyle, the environment that we live in, the foods we decide to eat that activate your immune system for the inflammation that you get. And then wherever the weak link is in your chain, that's where you're gonna get a problem. Yeah. Dr. Kyrin Dunston (25:52): So we will have the information in the show notes where you can go to sign up and get this free Inflammation Equation event with all these top experts. I just wanna ask you a tough question because without getting too political, there is a lot of narrative around having people will not believe or understand that inflammation contributes to some of the top causes of death. Just like there's a narrative around what I call hormonal poverty doesn't contribute to this even though it's associated with seven of the top 10 causes of death. And so really you, you talked about going to a functional medicine provider, they can attend their your event. Where can people get credible information? How do they vet the information they're getting? Because there are a lot of health coaches out there. There are a lot of credentialed people who are on YouTube and various social media and giving a lot of information. But how does somebody really know what's credible and who to believe? I think consumers are really struggling with that right now. Dr. Tom O'Brian (27:03): You bet. And that's gonna get worse because so many people who have no education, no formal education are getting trained in marketing. And so they know how to carry a message out. Yeah. And that's a big problem. I've been impressed with what some of those programs say. 'cause They're right. Some of them are right on the money. It doesn't matter that they don't have a degree. They've really done their homework and they've learned a lot. For example, Fran Drescher, she doesn't have any formal education, but Cancer Schmance helps tens of thousands of people every few months who come and look at her programs and understand how do you detox your house? She talks about these chemicals. How do you know whether you're getting accurate information? That's a very valid question. I think events like this podcast where you bring on people that you screened so you know that they're credible is a, a good place to go for information. Dr. Tom O'Brian (28:07): Going to cancer Schmance is a great place to go. Reading my books, there's over 300 studies in each of my books, and I just talk pure science. I'm going to give you a study here, and it has an aspect to it that's not pure science. I always say, if there's something I say that's not just not pure science, and this is one of those times I think the most sensitive tissue in the human body is the fertilized egg. That it has no protection of its own. It's completely descent, dependent on mom and mom's environment for its survival, for its nutrition, and for its growth. This may not be to your audience, but I'm sure everyone can relate to it. And certainly for your children who may be of childbearing age. So Harvard published a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association three years ago, and the editors of the journal said, this is an elegant study using sophisticated biomarkers to prove their point. Dr. Tom O'Brian (29:13): Now, as Dr. Karen, the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association don't say that very often. They don't give a stamp of approval to an article like that, right? But they did for this one. And they looked at women going to assisted fertility centers and they ruled out in an elegant way the contributing factors that they know of that determine success or failure. Are they smoking? Do they drink alcohol? Are they exercising socioeconomic class race? They ruled all of that out. And they went for one topic only. How many servings of fruits and vegetables is the woman eating a day while she's going through these injections? And then the implantation process and the results were shocking. They put those women into quartiles, the lowest number of servings of fruits and vegetables per day, the next, the third and the highest number of servings of fruits and vegetables a day. Dr. Tom O'Brian (30:17): And those women in the highest category of consumption of fruits and vegetables per day had an 18% less likelihood of successful implantation compared to the women eating the lowest amount of fruits and vegetables a day. Wait a minute, did you say the more fruits and vegetables you eat, the worse the outcome? Yes. And if they did get pregnant, they had a 26% less likelihood of alive birth. They lost the babies to still births and miscarriages. The more fruits and vegetables you eat, fruits and vegetables, the more fruits and vegetables you eat, the worse the outcome. This is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and it came from Harvard. And this is what Yeah, completely paradigm shifting. And the editors have said, this is an elegant study using sophisticated biomarker. You can't argue with the science, but there was a subgroup of women that were eating organic. Dr. Tom O'Brian (31:17): And in that category, the results were the exact opposite. The more fruits and vegetables you eat, the better and the more success. And here's the good news. Women were put in the category of organic consumption. If they ate three servings per week, not 21 servings a week, three, that's all it took to completely reverse and get successful results. Now, the edit, the authors didn't address that topic of only three a week to be in the category. If they did two a week, they didn't see the benefit. But at three a week, they saw the same benefit as people eating 15, 18, 20 servings a week. So it just took three. Why? I think, and I don't have any signs for this, but I think it's because if you're eating organic whenever you can, you've got organic shampoo in your shower and you've got organic soap at the kitchen sink and you're trying, you're doing the best that you can, you're learning more. Dr. Tom O'Brian (32:17): And in that case, it made the complete difference, success or failure for these couples spending tens of thousands of dollars in all the emotional stress that women go through because it's the insecticides and pesticides and fungicides, rodenticides, glyphosate and antibiotics on the fruits and vegetables that are triggering the inflammation that we get. So you think you're doing something good for yourself eating fruits and vegetables and you are, but your carrots and your cucumbers and your tomatoes and your apples are loaded with pesticides. So if you can't get organic, and this is what we teach, and you learn about all this in the inflammation equation. If you can't get organic, you get the veggie spray wash and you grab the broccoli. When you bring it home from the store and you spray it with the wash, you dip it in the, the bowl of water, swish it around like that, and you lift it, wow, it's so much greener. Dr. Tom O'Brian (33:15): That's because you just took the wax and the pesticides off of it and you re, you reduce 94% of the toxic chemicals on the fruit or vegetables that quickly. But if you don't know this, you don't do it. And you get the pesticides. And because I think the most sensitive tissue is that fertilized egg, it doesn't have a chance if mom has been accumulating like the nail polish, the phthalate study, if mom's been accumulating over a lifetime, not knowing that she was accumulating all these toxins, but she was. And if you don't know this, you don't do anything about it. And so you've have this low grade inflammation all the time. So you just start learning. Yeah, you get glass storage containers, you get phthalate free nail polish, you get organic whenever you can. You get the spray for your vegetables that are not organic and you just learn these things and all of a sudden your body starts functioning better. 'cause You reduce the inflammation. Dr. Kyrin Dunston (34:09): Yeah. And you stop using the plugins and the air fresheners. That's my big pet peeve. And the perfumes Dr. Tom O'Brian (34:15): . Oh yeah. Dr. Kyrin Dunston (34:16): That are full toxins. Oh my gosh. Dr. Tom O'Brian (34:19): Blue Cross Blue Shield published this paper in February of 2020 and said, we got a problem. And nobody read it because that's when the virus came out. And so nobody, it should have been on the front page of every paper in the country. They said in the previous four year period, there was a 407% increase in the diagnosis of early Alzheimer's in 30 to 44 year olds. Wow. In four years, 407% increase. This is the pandemic, is the accumulation of all the chemicals that are causing so much inflammation, killing off brain cells, killing off brain cells, killing off brain cells or kidney cells or vision cells. It doesn't matter the tissue, wherever the weak link is, that's where you're going to develop the problem. Dr. Kyrin Dunston (35:10): This is the epidemic. It really is. It's way worse than any virus that we've had around, and it's probably claiming the lives and wellbeing and vitality of many more people. I don't know the exact numbers, but every single day and it's ongoing and getting worse. So let's talk a little bit about what people will find there. You've got several different episodes that people get access to. Nine different ones. You are gonna help them navigate what to put on their plate, what's healthy. Some of the information like you just shared, you don't have to do it perfectly, but what are the places you can make the biggest impact with your food? You're gonna talk about the environment, reducing environmental toxins with the products you use. You have something also on the biomes in your body. Do you wanna talk a little bit about that? Dr. Tom O'Brian (36:04): One of the episode four is all about the biomes, the microbiome in your gut and the oral microbiome you swallow. This is kind of a gross visual, but you swallow over a liter a day of saliva and the saliva, the bacteria in your mouth are inoculating your gut. And so you're gonna learn how to have a really fresh mouth and how to build a healthy microbiome. The importance of that. We are taking the major topics, hormones, we're taking the major topics and just gently introducing what the world experts say and then how do you start moving in another direction from that. So it's a big educational experience. People will wanna listen to it again and again. And the thanks and the kudos that we're getting emails are just hundreds and hundreds of emails just thanking us for this. That it, this really makes sense. Boy, I finally understand how to lead my family and their health for the rest of our lives. I've got a great picture of this. Now our job is really to change the paradigm, to change the way that people think about their health and to be more selective of what you put on your body and in your body. Yeah. Dr. Kyrin Dunston (37:25): Well, I encourage everyone to attend. It is free. We will have the link in the show notes, but I'll spell it out for you. It's www.theinflammationequation.com/kirin, K-Y-R-I-N, and we'll have the link. So if you're driving, don't try to write that down. But Dr. Tom, thank you so much for joining us today. I love that you, your life really does belong to the community and that you are a man of service and truth and research. A man after my own heart. It's been an honor and a privilege to have you here today. Dr. Tom O'Brian (38:02): Thank you, Karen. A real pleasure for me also, Dr. Kyrin Dunston (38:05): And thank you all for joining me for another episode of The Hormone Prescription with Dr. Kyrin. I look forward to hearing your thoughts about today's episode and what you've learned, especially at the inflammation equation. You can reach out to me on social media and share the insights that you've gained and how you are putting the information you've learned into effect in your life for positive change so that you can have a longer vitality span as well as a longer lifespan. Thanks so much for joining me. I'll see you next week. Dr. Kyrin Dunston (38:35): Until then, peace, love, and hormones y'all. Thank you so much for listening. I know that incredible vitality occurs for women over 40 when we learn to speak hormone and balance these vital regulators to create the health and the life that we deserve. If you're enjoying this podcast, I'd love it if you'd give me a review and subscribe. It really does help this podcast out so much. You can visit the hormone prescription.com where we have some free gifts for you, and you can sign up to have a hormone evaluation with me on the podcast to gain clarity into your personal situation. Until next time, remember, take small steps each day to balance your hormones and watch the wonderful changes in your health that begin to unfold for you. Talk to you soon. -----   ► The Inflammation Equation: Decoding The Steps For Optimal Wellbeing Video by Dr. Tom O'Bryan -Award Winning Dr. Tom O'Bryan Reveals Exactly How To Reverse The Root Cause Of Cancer, Diabetes, and Heart Disease… Without Meds Or Needles: CLICK HERE to watch for FREE.   ► Feeling tired? Can't seem to lose weight, no matter how hard you try? It might be time to check your hormones. Most people don't even know that their hormones could be the culprit behind their problems. But at Her Hormone Club, we specialize in hormone testing and treatment. We can help you figure out what's going on with your hormones and get you back on track. We offer advanced hormone testing and treatment from Board Certified Practitioners, so you can feel confident that you're getting the best possible care. Plus, our convenient online consultation process makes it easy to get started. Try Her Hormone Club for 30 days and see how it can help you feel better than before. CLICK HERE.  

In this episode, Europe managing editor Leigh Stringer talks about the results of this summer's elections in Europe and what they might mean for policies like the EU's REACH revision and the alternative transitional registration model (ATRm) for UK REACH. Senior editor Terry Hyland talks about the US Supreme Court's landmark decision to overturn Chevron deference and how it could affect TSCA.

We update you on all of the states that have brought criminal charges against those involved in the “fake electors” plot to try and keep Donald Trump in the White House after he lost the 2020 election, including in particular the latest criminal complaint filed against Ken Chesbro in Wisconsin. In the B segment, we tell you how the Biden administration FINALLY banned asbestos. In 2024.   Links: Chesebro “The Real Deadline for Settling a State's Electoral Votes” memo https://app.box.com/s/ifis7hu74dz6xp0awkq567ygetrvcof1/file/1460145645094 AZ fake electors indictment https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/PHX-%2312079639-v1-TRUE_BILL_-_INDICTMENT_93_SGJ_81.PDF GA indictment https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT-Trump-Fulton-County-GA.pdf Georgia Court of Appeals, Stay of Roman v. State (AKA the Trump RICO case) https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24735877/stayproceedings.pdf  WI indictment https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24731470/24cf1293-24cf1294-24cf1295.pdf Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/947/1201/153685/ ACC Letter to EPA re asbestos use http://src.bna.com/iuL Ural Asbest's Facebook page Trump insane asbestos tweet Link EPA's final rule on asbestos, 40 CFR Part 751 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-03-28/pdf/2024-05972.pdf EPA Factfinding pursuant to the TSCA https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-management-asbestos-part-1-chrysotile-asbestos   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod  

Host's Tom and Matt are joined by HRP's Jackie Baxley, EHS&S Practice Leader, to discuss her upcoming webinar on PFAS related compliance updates to EPCRA and TSCA.Register here: https://events.teams.microsoft.com/event/522be166-64fa-4ad9-ba48-a95637c38630@e9f3fd58-05d3-4b9a-9485-e694b61feb49Webinar Description:In this webinar, Jackie Baxley, HRP's EHS&S Practice Leader, will guide the audience through recent regulatory changes as it relates to PFAS and TSCA Reporting and EPCRA Toxic Inventory Release Reporting.  In late 2023, EPA finalized a new rule under TSCA requiring manufacturers and importers to conduct a 12 year look back at PFAS mixtures, articles and byproducts.  This one time report under TSCA will open in November 2024 and be due May 8, 2025.  Also in late 2023, EPA removed the “de minimis” exemption for PFAS in EPCRA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting.  This EPCRA rule change will impact the 2024 Reporting Year whose report is due July 1, 2025.  In this webinar we aim to provide awareness of these new/amended rules, help identify if they potentially apply to your organization, and if applicable, what you should be doing NOW to prepare for these reports.  Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

This week's Chemical Watch News & Insight podcast takes a deep dive into a recent ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Inhance Technologies v US EPA. In this episode, North America managing editor Kelly Franklin and senior editor Terry Hyland discuss the history and potentially broad implications of the court's conclusion that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority in issuing TSCA orders that would have forced Texas-based Inhance to shut down its long-running process for fluorinating plastic containers.

This week I discuss with my colleague, Dr. Richard E. Engler, Director of Chemistry for B&C and The Acta Group, our consulting affiliate, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) important and recently issued first final risk management rule for chrysotile asbestos. Those of us in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) community know asbestos occupies a special place in TSCA's checkered past, and EPA's final rule is an important chapter in that book. Whether you care about asbestos or not, by any independent standard this final rule is a big deal for several reasons. There is no better expert than Rich Engler to discuss with me what this rule does, what it tells us about EPA's approach to risk management under TSCA, why it is relevant to any chemical undergoing review by EPA, why in all probability neither industry nor the non-governmental organization (NGO) community is happy, and why litigation may well be in our future. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

This week I discuss with my colleague, Dr. Richard E. Engler, Director of Chemistry for B&C and The Acta Group, our consulting affiliate, the super-hot topic of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). PFAS, the class of so-called forever chemicals, are the talk of this town, and likely the talk of many jurisdictions given the intense global scrutiny all things PFAS endure. Rich and I focus our broad ranging discussion on federal TSCA reporting under TSCA Section 8(a)(7). We discuss what PFAS are reportable, what information is due and by when, why finished product importers are on the hook for reporting, why there is a 12-year look back, and the all-important topic of how much diligence is due before you conclude information is “not known or reasonably ascertainable.” ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

A conclusive meta-analysis on fluoride from the National Toxicology Program was released this month as part of a lawsuit involving Fluoride Action Network and the EPA. The former is arguing to have fluoride removed from water supplies and listed as a toxic substance under the TSCA of 1976. Fluoride was first introduced into drinking water in 1945, based on limited associations that when present in water some people had less cavities. Mass fluoridation began in the 1960s. Since then it as been well documented that fluoride, and its many different varieties, usually mixed with metals, can only have associated and limited positive affects on teeth with kept under 0.7mg/liter of water. Despite this, the lowest EPA limit has been 2mg/L and even up to 4mg/L, though many areas in the us contain “fluoride levels at 4mg/L or higher,” according to the National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine in 2006. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Register wrote In 2003 that “small amounts of fluoride help prevent tooth cavities, but high levels can harm your health.” The NASEM report concluded that “children exposed to the current maximum allowable connotation risk developing severe tooth enamel fluorosis…enamel loss, and pitting of the teeth.” Whether high or low, these doses are uncontrolled, usually over the EPA limit already, which is also just a recommendation, and have no consideration to fluoride exposure from other drinks, foods, drugs, etc., certainly blasting a person's daily intake to extremely high levels. Let us not forget that a lot of tooth decay is caused by diets saturated in processed foods and sugars too. A meta-analysis from 2012 further found that “children in high-fluoridated areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who livd in low-fluoridated areas.” A JAMA Pediatrics article from 2019 found that “1-milligram higher daily intake of fluoride among pregnant women was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score… in boys and girls.” However, the US Department of health can still claim in 2015 that fluoride can have “preventative benefits.” Yes, it can, “at 0.7mg/L,” and benefits that are only possible, not guaranteed. The accumulation of the substance naturally and artificially is more than cause for concern; it is cause for removing it from the water immediately where it is added by recommendation without knowledge or consent of the public. The US Federal government even acknowledged this in 2015 when the Department of Health and Human Services updated its recommendations that fluoride levels should never exceed 0.7mg/L. Even at so-called safe levels, it is not meant to be ingested!https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2023/fluoride/documents_provided_bsc_wg_031523.pdfhttps://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/cdc-experts-say-fluoridated-water-is-safe-contrary-to-rfk-jr-s-warnings/https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/epdf/10.1289/ehp.1104912https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2006/03/epa-standard-for-fluoride-in-drinking-water-is-not-protective-tooth-enamel-loss-bone-fractures-of-concern-at-high-levelshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4547570/pdf/phr130000318.pdfhttps://www.cancer.org/content/dam/CRC/PDF/Public/7030.00.pdfhttps://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=211&toxid=38https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/harvard-study-strong-link-between-fluoridated-water-and-bone-cancer-boyshttps://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/11571/fluoride_brief_final.pdfhttps://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/federal-government-calls-for-lowering-fluoride-levels-in-drinking-water/https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/national-academy-calls-lowering-fluoride-limits-tap-waterhttps://www.nidcr.nih.gov/health-info/fluoride/the-story-of-fluoridation#:~:text=In%201945%2C%20Grand%20Rapids%20became,the%20Institute%27s%20inception%20in%201948.

Welcome to the second of three special editions focused on our 2024 Global Outlook series of articles produced by the Chemical Watch News & Insight team. In this episode, North America managing editor Kelly Franklin and Europe managing editor Leigh Stringer join senior editor Terry Hyland to discuss the outlook this year for TSCA in the US and chemicals management in the EU.

Dennis Raglin has over 25 years of experience counseling and defending clients in California's Proposition 65 right-to-know chemical warnings law and is co-chair of Steptoe's Prop 65 group. He is a tenacious litigator who has represented clients in bet-the-company cases.  Dennis was trial counsel in one of the few Prop 65 cases to ever be tried to verdict in the law's 37-year history – representing a national food manufacturer. He was also part of the team achieving victory at the California Court of Appeals establishing federal law preempts Prop 65 warnings for generic over-the-counter medication.  He has also secured favorable settlements for national clients in high-profile Prop 65 suits brought by the state Attorney General. His practice includes knowledge of, and counseling on, a broad range of other state and federal chemical laws and regulations, including those related to foods and the FDA, PFAS, personal and children's products, TSCA and CPSIA, packaging and recycling, and green chemistry initiatives.  Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dennisraglin/ Steptoe: https://www.steptoe.com/en/

Dennis Raglin has over 25 years of experience counseling and defending clients in California's Proposition 65 right-to-know chemical warnings law and is co-chair of Steptoe's Prop 65 group. He is a tenacious litigator who has represented clients in bet-the-company cases.  Dennis was trial counsel in one of the few Prop 65 cases to ever be tried to verdict in the law's 37-year history – representing a national food manufacturer. He was also part of the team achieving victory at the California Court of Appeals establishing federal law preempts Prop 65 warnings for generic over-the-counter medication.  He has also secured favorable settlements for national clients in high-profile Prop 65 suits brought by the state Attorney General. His practice includes knowledge of, and counseling on, a broad range of other state and federal chemical laws and regulations, including those related to foods and the FDA, PFAS, personal and children's products, TSCA and CPSIA, packaging and recycling, and green chemistry initiatives.  Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dennisraglin/ Steptoe: https://www.steptoe.com/en/

This week I discuss with my colleague, Dr. Richard E. Engler, Director of Chemistry for B&C and The Acta Group, our consulting affiliate, what to expect in 2024 regarding TSCA developments. Rich is a leading voice on all things TSCA, especially new chemicals, and a widely sought after thought leader on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg), Congress' 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). We begin with the most recent Senate hearing on TSCA on January 24 and then discuss Rich's thoughts on key TSCA initiatives the rest of the year. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

This week, we're bringing you a panel discussion from the Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy's annual CDR conference. Our policy panelist, Wil Burns, hosted the conference and led this panel discussion on the role of mandates in growing CDR in the US. The US government has stepped forward into the role of subsidizing and encouraging CDR in recent years, offering a ‘carrot' to promote the new industry, in the form of large grants and tax incentives. But what could the government do to present a ‘stick'- requiring CDR using existing regulations? That's the topic of this policy panel featuring Dan Galpern, the Executive Director of the Climate Protection and Restoration Initiative, and Stephanie Arcusa, a researcher at the Arizona State University Center for Negative Carbon Emissions.  Dan spoke about using the Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate carbon emissions, including the possibility of mandating carbon dioxide removal as a condition for allowing ongoing emissions. He argues that the TSCA provides clear authority for such regulation, citing past precedents and legal interpretations. Stephanie discusses the concept of a Carbon Take Back Obligation, which would require fossil fuel producers to sequester a ton of carbon for every ton they extract. This policy aims to gradually transition to net-zero emissions by creating a demand for carbon removal and applying the policy upstream in the fossil fuel supply chain. Both approaches aim to address the challenges of scaling up carbon removal and mitigating climate change, but they also raise questions about political feasibility, environmental justice, and the impact on consumers, particularly those in lower-income households. We hope you enjoy this high-level look at the policy levers that may one day lead to the scaling up of CDR.   On This Episode Wil Burns Dan Galpern Stephanie Arcusa Resources Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy UN Production Gap Report Toxic Substances Control Act EU Industrial Net-Zero Act CA's CDR Market Development Act CBTO in the news Connect with Nori Nori Nori's Twitter Nori's other podcast Reversing Climate Change Nori's CDR meme twitter account   --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

On June 29, 2023, B&C, along with the Environmental Law Institute and the George Washington  University Milken Institute of Public Health, sponsored the all-day virtual conference, TSCA Reform -- Seven Years Later. The conference was hugely successful and over 700 people registered for it. The quality of the discussion, the caliber of the participants, and the timeliness of the content motivated us to repurpose the substantive sessions to enable our podcast audience to listen to the sessions in this venue. Our topic in this podcast is the Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) application to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of Lautenberg has influenced EPA's regulatory actions. Our experts address a range of subjects, including EPA's evolving definition of PFAS under TSCA, EPA's TSCA PFAS testing strategy, the PFAS reporting rule under TSCA Section 8(a)(7), and much, much more. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2023 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

On June 29, 2023, B&C, along with the Environmental Law Institute and the George Washington  University Milken Institute of Public Health, sponsored the all-day virtual conference, TSCA Reform -- Seven Years Later. The conference was hugely successful and over 700 people registered for it. The quality of the discussion, the caliber of the participants, and the timeliness of the content motivated us to repurpose the substantive sessions to enable our podcast audience to listen to the sessions in this venue. Our topic in this podcast is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new chemicals review process under Lautenberg. As many listeners know, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) New Chemicals Program was significantly revised by the 2016 TSCA amendments, and what the law requires has been vigorously debated and remains unclear. This panel discusses opportunities for transparency, processes to guide new chemicals review, new approaches to assess chemical risks, protection of workers, Section 5(e) orders, recent trends with EPA's review of new chemical substances, and much, much more. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2023 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

Tom, Matt, and EHS&S Practice Leader Jackie Baxley are breaking down the Toxic Substances Control Act rule just published in the Federal Register for PFAS reporting for manufacturers and importers.Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

On June 29, 2023, B&C, along with the Environmental Law Institute and the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, sponsored an all-day virtual conference, TSCA Reform -- Seven Years Later. The conference was hugely successful and over 700 people registered for it. The quality of the discussion, the caliber of the participants, and the timeliness of the content inspired us to re-broadcast the discussion to our podcast audience. This panel discusses the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 6 to manage chemical risks that EPA has determined to be unreasonable and options at EPA's disposal for deploying its authority. Panelists address how EPA manages workplace risks, enforcement mechanisms for risk management restrictions, whether EPA's risk management rulemakings are adequately addressing environmental justice concerns, potential legal challenges to final risk management rules, and much, much  more. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2023 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

On June 29, 2023, B&C, along with the Environmental Law Institute and the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, sponsored the all-day virtual conference, TSCA Reform -- Seven Years Later. The conference was hugely successful and over 700 people registered for it. The quality of the discussion, the caliber of the participants, and the timeliness of the content motivated us to repurpose the substantive sessions to enable our podcast audience to listen to the sessions in this venue. The topic of this podcast is the panel discussion on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) risk evaluation process under Lautenberg. The panel discussed various aspects of EPA's risk evaluation of chemical substances under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 6. The panel experts touch upon crucially important issues, including EPA's potential use of European Union (EU) Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) data, EPA's use of new approach methodologies (NAM), the effectiveness of a “whole chemical approach” to risk determinations, the incorporation of cumulative risk assessment (CRA) approaches, and  much, much more. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2023 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

PFAS Contamination Update with Clean Cape Fear Co-Founder Emily Donavan. Learn about the recent TSCA court ruling where four community groups petitioned the US EPA to require Chemours to conduct epidemiology studies that included 54 PFAS chemicals for thousands of North Carolina residents. Her reaction to the EPA's Proposed PFAS Drinking Rule for 6 PFAS chemicals and if the EPA should establish a Class of PFAS Chemicals to account for Short Chain and Long Chain chemical variants. We also talk about how the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill (BIL) will help communities to address drinking water treatment facility capabilities impacted with PFAS, and more. Thanks to our sponsors: Cascade, E-Tank, and the Institute of Hazardous Materials Management. 

This week, I sat down with the truly legendary Robert M. Sussman, of Sussman & Associates, to discuss Bob's extraordinary career engaging in all things Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), new and old. Bob was a prominent private-practice attorney and frequent senior official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before TSCA was amended in 2016. Since the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, Bob has been extraordinarily successful putting his TSCA know-how and finely honed litigation skills to effective use for a wide range of public-interest clients. During our conversation, we discuss Bob's amazing career, his litigation successes, his views on new TSCA, and his hopes for the future of chemical management. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2023 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

Welcome to the second of two special editions of the Chemical Watch podcast based on this year's Global Outlook 2023 series of articles produced by the Chemical Watch News & Insight team.

This year, we have created a new Environmental Law series on Lawyer 2 Lawyer, where we will cover cradle to grave treatment of chemicals and our laws on environmental biology.  In our first episode, we will spotlight the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which addresses the manufacturing, processing, distribution, use, and disposal of commercial and industrial chemicals. Host Craig Williams is joined by Managing Partner of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C, Lynn L. Bergeson who will give us an overview of the Toxic Substances Control Act, its history, impact, and the forecast for U.S. federal and international chemical regulatory policy.

This year, we have created a new Environmental Law series on Lawyer 2 Lawyer, where we will cover cradle to grave treatment of chemicals and our laws on environmental biology.  In our first episode, we will spotlight the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which addresses the manufacturing, processing, distribution, use, and disposal of commercial and industrial chemicals. Host Craig Williams is joined by Managing Partner of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C, Lynn L. Bergeson who will give us an overview of the Toxic Substances Control Act, its history, impact, and the forecast for U.S. federal and international chemical regulatory policy.

This week, Dr. Richard E. Engler, Director of Chemistry for B&C and The Acta Group (Acta®), our consulting affiliate, returned to the studio to discuss what to expect in Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulation in the New Year. While we cannot predict with precision, we know 2023 will be a consequential year for several reasons: the first final risk management rule will be issued, the final per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) reporting rule will be issued, and the final Confidential Business Information rule will be issued -- and this is the first quarter of the year! In addition to these new and significant final rules, we know the new Republican-led House is expected to schedule oversight hearings on a variety of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) topics, including TSCA implementation. Litigation is also likely to darken our collective doorways in 2023, so we discuss what issues are likely to be litigated and who might bring the lawsuits. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2023 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

This week, Dr. Richard E. Engler, Director of Chemistry for B&C and The Acta Group, our consulting affiliate, returned to the studio to discuss the stubbornly vexatious problem of TSCA's regulation of articles, a fancy name for products or finished goods. Most listeners to the podcast appreciate that this U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administration has specifically applied TSCA regulations to articles far more than in decades past. This policy pivot has caused a significant amount of commercial disruption and business uncertainty. This will not abate in the years ahead. Rich Engler explains why this is the case and suggests some steps regulated entities may wish to consider to comply with current regulations and prepare for the future. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

This week I sat down with James Cox, M.S., Senior Scientist with B&C. James is an exceptional biologist with significant experience assessing the risk of industrial chemicals. Before joining B&C, James served in a variety of leadership positions in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Pollution Prevent and Toxics, one of which was Chair of the Risk Assessment Technical Team, which provided recommendations to inform EPA's policy positions on New Approach Methodologies or NAMs. James discusses NAMs, their significance in chemical risk assessment under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), how NAMs will enable diminished reliance on animal testing, and some of the challenges facing chemical stakeholders in moving away from animal testing. Now, here is my conversation with James Cox. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

This week I sat down with Dr. Richard E. Engler, B&C's and The Acta Group's (our consulting affiliate) Director of Chemistry, to discuss the new chemical bias. Our listeners know that Rich Engler has worked for decades reviewing Premanufacture Notifications submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). PMNs are applications to manufacture or import chemical substances that are not listed on the TSCA Inventory and thus are considered “new.” Much has changed in terms of the new chemical review process since Congress revised TSCA six years ago. As we discuss in our podcast, however, one thing has not changed: the new chemical bias is as potent today as it was before Lautenberg was enacted in 2016. Rich and I discuss the new chemical bias, explain why it continues to confound chemical innovators, and what is being done to eliminate the bias and level the playing field. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

As we wait to hear whether the Supreme Court will toss WV v EPA altogether or apply the major questions doctrine to broadly rule against the EPA regulating greenhouse gases, period, a group of climate scientists and advocates are filing a petition this morning demanding that the EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions—not under the Clean Air Act, the legislation in question in West Virginia v EPA, but under a law no one has yet applied to climate change, the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Join us in part 2 of our Sexy Summer Series where we talk about how our oh, so sexy hormones get dysregulated. We talk about things like toxicity, external as well as internal factors, and what having dysregulated hormones really means. “There is an estimated 2000 additional new chemicals that are developed and put into commercial use every year. The TSCA, who's responsible for testing chemicals in United States, only tests about 20 chemicals at a time. And that testing takes a few years. So even if they find a problem, the companies using those chemicals get a five-year window to phase out the usage of that chemical.”The three things we focus on in this episode are:Transitions in your homeTransitions in your dietTransitions in  your supplemental healthcareThis episode goes really deep into all things toxic, what alternatives we can make, and how to make those transitions, including detoxification. But the goal is the more you know, the more informed you are, the more you make change, the more you improve, the more you gain vibrancy and wellness.We need to make sure that we are doing our job to take out the things that are easy, low hanging fruit to start with. See if we see some changes. And if you don't see changes, keep digging deeper. And that's really the theme of peeling back the onion. It's sort of like, take that first layer off and see how you feel. Take off that next layer and see how you feel. Take off the next layer, and the next layer, and the next layer. Keep going until you feel balanced. Links:Environmental Working Group https://www.ewg.org/Lara Adler - Environmental Toxin Nerd https://www.laraadler.com/Not So Pretty on HBO Maxhttps://www.hbomax.com/series/urn:hbo:series:GYjJrvg7QksLDwgEAAAAGThink Dirty apphttps://thinkdirtyapp.com/Make sure to follow us on Instagram. Also, click on the link over there to download a PDF of some of our favorite clean products and brands that we really love.https://www.instagram.com/peelingtheonionpodcast/

This week, I was delighted to visit again with Alexandra Dunn, now a Partner with Baker Botts and immediate past Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). As Assistant Administrator, Alex was respected and liked by a diversity of industrial and agricultural chemical stakeholders, revered by her immediate staff, and hugely popular as an EPA senior leader. Alex led OCSPP at a pivotal time in EPA's implementation of revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and worked tirelessly to meet the many deadlines imposed under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg). We discuss Alex's transition back into the private law sector, get a sense of the issues on which Alex is focusing now that she is back in private practice, and reflect on current EPA policies under TSCA and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to understand what has changed since Alex left EPA. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

This week I had the pleasure of sitting down with Kelly Scanlon, DrPH, CIH, Director of Environmental Policy & Research, Global Government Relations, at IPC. IPC, as many of you know, is an organization accredited by the American National Standards Institute as a standards development organization. It publishes the most widely used acceptability standards for the electronic industry. Dr. Scanlon was brought on at IPC in 2019 to direct environment, health, and safety (EHS) policy and research, a role that has become critically important given certain Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rulemakings that have extended TSCA jurisdiction to certain electronic product manufacturers. These regulatory developments, implemented against a backdrop of supply chain disruption occasioned by COVID-19, have made for a very eventful and likely unexpected first two years on the job. Dr. Scanlon and I discuss IPC's work on EHS policy, enhanced regulation of articles under TSCA, and other challenges the electronics industry faces. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

    They say everything is bigger in Texas, and when it comes to sporting clays, there is no doubt that it is huge!  Not only are the Nationals held in San Antonio, but the Texas state shoot is the largest state shoot in the country! Aside from the Nationals and the state championship, Texas also hosts several other big shoots, as well as some really cool smaller shoots.      We catch up with Ben McAnally, President of the Texas Sporting Clays Association, to let him breakdown these shoots for us, as well as some really cool news about the 2022 shooting year in Texas!  We also have a RE Ranger segment with Alec Sedlacheck, and a Barepelt segment with Ted Deppe! -OtoPro - https://otoprotechnologies.com-Rhino Chokes - https://rhinochokes.com-RE Ranger-https://www.reranger.com-BAREPELT-https://barepelt.com-GAMEBORE US-https://www.gameboreus.com-ATLAS TRAPS-https://www.atlastraps.com-NEGRINI CASES-https://negrinicases.com/the-dead-pair/- White Flyer Targets - https://whiteflyer.com-Chad Roberts-email-bpsipro@gmail.com

When the Toxic Substances Control Act was updated in 2016, EPA gained authority to require chemical manufacturers and industries to submit reporting, record-keeping, and testing requirements. Since this changed the way chemicals are developed, produced, and distributed, understanding TSCA is a must to remain compliant. Victoria Meyer explores this topic further with a certified TSCA expert, Lynn L. Bergeson. She is Managing Partner at Bergerson & Campbell PC and Host of All Things Chemical®. She explains how this act challenges chemical innovation and affects the global regulations of US-based businesses today. Lynn also discusses the rise of PFAS and what it actually means for chemical companies out there. Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share! http://www.thechemicalshow.com/

All Things Chemical will reach our 3rd anniversary on October 23rd and we want to share this celebration with you. As we look back on the last three years I wanted to bring back an older episode from the summer of 2020, “Implementing Lautenberg — A Conversation with former OPPT Director Jeffery T. Morris, Ph.D.” During this episode I spoke with Jeff Morris about how the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics implemented Lautenberg back in 2016, and how TSCA can be implemented in the future to address social inequities and achieve its goals of environmental justice. I hope you enjoy it and take this opportunity to listen to some more episodes from our archives. ====== This week I sat down with Dr. Jeff Morris, immediate past Director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), the EPA office that regulates the industrial chemical sector.  Jeff directed EPA's implementation of the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and headed the office most immediately impacted by the significant changes brought about by the Lautenberg amendments. In our discussion, we talk about how Jeff and his OPPT colleagues managed the daunting task of implementing a new law, and how the Agency has fared since the law's enactment four years ago.  We discuss Jeff's interest in environmental justice, and how TSCA might be used to address the impact of environmental harms and their disproportionate adverse impact on people of color and the poor. We also discuss Jeff's important role in EPA's Office of Research and Development and its research program on nanomaterials and nanotechnology, and how his background prepared Jeff well for addressing TSCA's application to emerging chemical technologies. We conclude by learning more about what Jeff is up to now in his new role as a principal in Jeff Morris Solutions, LLC.  I really enjoyed my conversation with Jeff.  He and I have known each other for many years, and I have long admired Jeff's integrity, his commitment to public service, and his epic understanding of chemical policy, science, and regulation. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2021 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

This week I sat down with my new colleague, Dennis R. Deziel, B&C's and our consulting affiliate's, The Acta Group, Senior Government Affairs Advisor, to discuss Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform. Dennis served as Director of Federal Government Affairs for the Dow Chemical Company when the TSCA amendments were considered and eventually enacted by Congress in 2016. After leaving Dow, Dennis served as EPA Region 1 Administrator (New England). I thought it would be interesting to speak with Dennis and seek his views on TSCA reform, as it was happening when he was a senior executive for one of the world's largest chemical companies, and then as a Senate-confirmed political appointee, after TSCA reform was enacted and he was part of the team implementing the new law. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2021 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

This week I sat down with Dr. Richard E. Engler, B&C's and The Acta Group's (our consulting affiliate) Director of Chemistry, to discuss the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) continuing struggle to regulate certain persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals, especially those found in finished products, what EPA refers to as “articles.” The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has always applied to the products, or articles, that contain chemical substances of interest to EPA under TSCA. While EPA previously used that authority somewhat sparingly, the 2016 Amendments to TSCA have jump-started a new wave of regulations that expressly apply to articles. EPA is required under TSCA to regulate certain PBTs, and EPA issued a final rule earlier this year that inspired chaos in the business community, especially in the electronics sector and its complicated supply chain. Rich and I discuss these PBT rules and help explain what may well be the new normal with regard to the regulation of finished products under TSCA. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2021 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

This week, I sat down with Daniel Rosenberg, Director, Federal Toxics Policy, Healthy People & Thriving Communities Program, at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Daniel's distinguished legal career has placed him at the forefront of the evolving law and policy of domestic chemical regulation. Daniel and I discuss new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of the 2016 amendments to TSCA under Lautenberg, several recent regulatory initiatives involving persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and much more. An engaging and formidable advocate, Daniel's views are always forcefully spoken and clearly articulated. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2021 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

Billions Of Sea Creatures, Lost To Heat Waves A couple weeks ago, the Pacific Northwest saw record-breaking temperatures. News coverage captured countless people suffering, and dying, during triple-digit heat the region had never seen before. Portland and Seattle reached their highest temperatures ever recorded. Canada set a new record for the highest temperature ever seen in the country with a measurement of 118 degrees Fahrenheit in British Columbia. However, there are still more victims of the climate crisis tragedy in the Pacific Northwest: coastal wildlife. Experts estimate that over the course of that one scorching weekend, over a billion sea creatures died. Starfish, mussels, oysters, clams, barnacles, sea snails—all of these animals and more virtually baked to death on the beach as they sat, helpless, in the intense heat during low tide.  Chris Harley, a marine biologist at the University of British Columbia, witnessed this die-off firsthand. He joins Ira to talk about what this loss means for the future of life along the coast.      EPA Whistleblowers Allege ‘Atmosphere Of Fear' Earlier this month, four whistleblowers from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) chemical safety office went public with allegations of intimidation and downplayed chemical risks, stating: “The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention is broken… The entire New Chemicals program operates under an atmosphere of fear—scientists are afraid of retaliation for trying to implement TSCA the way Congress intended, and they fear that their actions (or inactions) at the direction of management are resulting in harm to human health and the environment.” John Dankosky spoke with two of the whistleblowers, along with Sharon Lerner, an investigative reporter who originally broke this story for The Intercept. As EPA staff, they were not authorized to speak with the press, but chose to participate in this interview as private citizens regarding a matter of public concern. We contacted the EPA and received the following statement: “This Administration is committed to investigating alleged violations of scientific integrity. It is critical that all EPA decisions are informed by rigorous scientific information and standards. As one of his first acts as Administrator, Administrator Regan issued a memorandum outlining concrete steps to reinforce the agency's commitment to science. EPA takes seriously all allegations of violations of scientific integrity. EPA's scientific integrity official and scientific integrity team members will thoroughly investigate any allegation of violation of EPA's scientific integrity policy that they receive and work to safeguard EPA science. Additionally, EPA is currently reviewing agency policies, processes, and practices to ensure that the best available science and data inform Agency decisions. EPA is committed to fostering a culture of evaluation and continuous learning that promotes an open exchange of differing scientific and policy positions. Additionally, retaliation against EPA employees for reporting violations alleged to have occurred will not be tolerated in this administration.   EPA leadership are reviewing these complaints, and any appropriate action will be taken.”   How The Humpback Says Hello A humpback whale makes two kinds of noises. The first are songs, long, elaborate, patterned and rhythmic vocalizations made by mature males, with some connection to the mating ritual. Within any given pod, every male sings the same song, but the songs themselves are different in pods around the world. The second kind are calls, short sounds made by every whale, that seem much more consistent across populations and over time. Of around 50 documented kinds of calls, scientists have settled on the meaning of one for sure: the sound the whales make when feeding on one specific kind of fish. In the decades since scientists first began to investigate the calls and songs of humpback whales, the exact function of these noises has been a tough mystery to crack. Humpbacks' watery habitat makes researching them difficult and expensive, and the whales themselves live on slow time scales that make leaps in understanding a process that can take decades.  Now, the new documentary Fathom tells the story of two researchers working to further understand what humpback whales are saying, and why they say it. Cornell University researcher Michelle Fournet investigated a call—the ‘whup' call—that seems to be a greeting, and found when she played the sound underwater, the whales responded back to her. And University of St. Andrews scientist Ellen Garland scoured recordings of South Pacific humpbacks to find out how pods will suddenly adopt new songs despite little contact with other populations. Ira talks to Garland and Fournet about their work, the complexity of whale communication, and how understanding it better could help save them from human threats.

This week's Chemical Watch News Podcast sees North America managing editor Terry Hyland, consulting editor Geraint Roberts and Asia desk editor David Macfarlane join global managing editor Kate Lowe to discuss the latest developments in chemicals management.

The Whole View, Episode 464:  Forever Chemicals: What are PFAS? Welcome back to episode 464! (0:28) Science has shown, pretty unequivocally, how harmful these chemicals are for decades. It's not recent science. And what we see in modern days is regulatory agencies not being able to keep up with capitalism demands. This topic is difficult to see in something other than a "conspiracy" lens. But that is why it's important to Stacy and Sarah now, more than ever, to make sure they stick to scientific research as much as possible. There are specific areas known to have high levels of PFAS. If you know you're in one of those areas, it's possible to test your blood for your exposure levels. Stacy reminds the audience that she and Sarah are not medical professionals. So, if you have any health concerns around this topic, be sure to see a doctor.   What Are Forever Chemicals? PFAS are a class of man-made chemicals used to make products greaseproof, waterproof, and stain-resistant. (7:30) They are "forever chemicals" because they and their breakdown products are extremely persistent, lasting thousands of years or more. But, unfortunately, we have no way to speed up the breakdown, so they end up bioaccumulating in the environment and our bodies. Of the more than 9,000 known PFAS compounds, the U.S. uses 600 alone! Countless products, including firefighting foam, cookware, cosmetics, carpet treatments, and even dental floss, contain PFAS compounds. PFAS stands for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances- chemicals with at least one aliphatic perfluorocarbon moiety (e.g., -CnF2n-). PFAS includes multiple subclasses of chemicals: PFAA - perfluoroalkyl acids and perfluoroalkylether acidsPFOS - perfluorooctanesulfonic acid  PFOA - perfluorooctanoic acid (C8, used to make PTFE polytetrafluoroethylene, aka Teflon) PFAA precursors Fluoropolymers Perfluoropolyethers other (primarily less reactive) PFAS  The most consistent feature within the class of PFAS is that their perfluorocarbon moieties do not break down or do so very slowly under natural conditions. This is why PFAS have often termed "forever chemicals." Because PFAS are persistent, they accumulate or concentrate in the environment, including water, air, sediment, soil, and plants. Elevated levels of PFAS and their widespread presence in environmental media and drinking water stem from industrial sites that produce or use PFAS, airports, military bases (fire-training and response areas), landfills, wastewater treatment plants, and the spreading of PFAS-contaminated biosolids. Some PFAS are highly mobile in either air or water. This allows them to travel long distances from their sources.  It's important to note that we don't metabolize PFAS molecules. Sarah recommends this great article and this review for more information.    How Do They Harm Health? A better question might be how do they not harm health because their detriment is incredibly pervasive. (10:50) Data from toxicokinetic studies of PFAA indicate that they are generally well-absorbed after ingestion. After absorption, they distribute blood to organs and tissues that receive high blood flow, such as the liver, kidney, lung, heart, skin, testis, brain, bone, and spleen. Because PFAA can occupy sites on multiple receptors, proteins, and cell interfaces in the body, they can produce physiological effects across various tissues. Nine nuclear receptors are activated (controls gene expression), including PPAR-alpha, which controls fatty acid beta-oxidation and is a major regulator of energy homeostasis.  They also bind to a variety of serum proteins, including steroid hormones and albumins, which are transport proteins (e.g., vitamin D-binding protein)  Scientists have found direct links (with mechanisms identified) between PFAS exposure and kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage, developmental toxicity, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol, decreased fertility, pregnancy-induced preeclampsia and hypertension, and changes in hormone functioning. Immune dysfunction, such as Asthma, Osteoarthritis, Crohn's & U.C., R.A., Type 1 diabetes, Lupus, and M.S, are also linked to PFAS. PFAA and the Immune System Effects on the immune system are some of the most well-studied health effects of PFAA. (14:51) Multiple lines of evidence support PFAA as immunotoxicants and, more specifically, immunosuppressants at small administered doses in rodents and measured serum concentrations in humans.  Findings of suppressed vaccine response in humans and T cell-dependent antibody response in experimental animals led the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) to classify PFOA and PFOS as presumed immune hazards to humans. In a recent draft toxicological profile, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) extended this finding to PFHxS and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDeA), identifying all four compounds as suppressants of antibody response in humans. They are also unregulated greenhouse gasses! Sarah explains that these chemicals are in our environment, all around, which makes them impossible to avoid. Also, there is data showing they can, in fact, be absorbed through the skin, not just when ingested, as many company websites indicate. Additional associations still need further study to identify mechanisms, but dose responses are very damning! Obesity & Diabetes: A Review of Epidemiologic Findings Association with risk of cardiovascular diseases Obesity (dose response) Type 2 diabetes Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease Cardiovascular disease Osteoporosis PFAS magnifies metabolic effects of poor diet PFAS Buildup and Our Bodies Even more worrisome, this study showed 100% of breastmilk tested contained PFAS. An analysis of the available breast milk PFAS data from around the world showed that while the phased-out PFOS and PFOA levels have been declining, the detection frequencies of current-use short-chain PFAS have been increasing (with a doubling time of 4.1 years). This is consistent with the idea that they are forever and build-up. So even with using less, we're still seeing a build-up over time. There is a ton of current legislation pending to limit and/or ban PFAS in cosmetics. For listeners who might not know, Stacy is a huge advocate for clean beauty and safer skincare. She works with Beauty Counter to help get safer products into consumer's hands and uses her background in government to lobby for safer beauty standards. With all the safer skincare legislation Stacy has seen in recent years, she decided to research the history of PFAS to see if even more legislation is necessary. It turns out- it is. Sarah has recently gotten into the "Dark History" YouTube series by Bailey Sarian. Episode 1 is on this very topic, "The DuPont Chemical Poisoning."  The film "Dark Waters" (which Sarah just watched with a free Showtime trial) is a not-quite-as-cool Erin Brokovich approach to going into detail.   History: Discovery to Litigation  Stacy runs through a quick timeline: (25:52) 1930 General Motors and DuPont formed Kinetic Chemicals to produce Freon. 1935 Dupont opened "one of the first in-house toxicology facilities" on the advice of a DuPont in-house doctor named George Gehrmann. The facility was meant to thoroughly test all du Pont products as a public health measure to determine the effects of du Pont's finished products on the "health of the ultimate consumer" and that the products "are safe" before going "on the market".  6 April 1938 a 27yo research chemist worked at the DuPont's Laboratory with gases related to DuPont's Freonrefrigerants. When an experiment he was conducting produced an unexpected new product: polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), a saturated fluorocarbon polymer—the "first compound in the family of Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) marketed commercially." It took ten years of research before polytetrafluorethylene (introduced under its trade name Teflon) became known for being "extremely heat-tolerant and stick-resistant." 1950s 3M manufactures PFAS, according to the 2016 lawsuit brought against 3M, 3M had "disposed of PFCs, and PFC-containing waste at a facility is owned and operated in Oakdale, Minnesota (the "Oakdale Facilities")" during the 1950s. It contaminated residential drinking water wells with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals. It later became a city park after extensive cleanup. 1951 "The DuPont chemical plant in Washington, West Virginia, began using PFOA in its manufacturing process." 1954 DuPont received an inquiry about C8's "possible toxicity." 1956 A study at Stanford found that "PFAS binds to proteins in human blood." 1960s DuPont knowingly buries hundreds of drums of C8 on the banks of the Ohio River  1963 The Navy began to work with 3M to develop aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF). 1961 A DuPont in-house toxicologist said C8 was toxic and should be "handled with extreme care." 1965 DuPont sent an internal memo describing preliminary studies that showed that even low doses of a related surfactant could increase the size of rats' livers, a classic response to exposure to a poison. 1970s 3M (appears to) discover PFAS accumulate in human blood. 3Ms own experiments on rats and monkeys concluded that PFAS compounds "should be regarded as toxic." 1976 The Toxic Substances Control Act provides EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances generally excluded from TSCA include food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. This list did not disclose any PFAS contaminants. 1983 3M announced their $6 million hazardous waste cleanup from their disposal processes.  1998 "Dark Waters" lawyer, Robert Billott, took a case representing Wilbur Tennant, a W.V. farmer, whose had a herd of cattle decimated by strange symptoms. 1998 The EPA was first alerted to the risks of PFAS—human-made "forever chemicals" that "never break down once released and they build up in our bodies." In a 2000 Times article, the EPA said that they first talked to 3M in 1998 after they were first alerted to 3M's 1998 laboratory rat study in which "male and female rats [received] doses of the chemical and then mated. When a pregnant rat continued to get regular doses of about 3.2 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, most of the offspring died within four days."  Summer of 1999 Bilott filed suit. 2000 a study widely detected PFOS in wildlife throughout the world" and that "PFOS is widespread in the environment." They said that "PFOS can bioaccumulate to higher trophic levels of the food chain" and that the "concentrations of PFOS in wildlife are less than those required to cause adverse effects in laboratory animals." 17 May 2000 3M stopped manufacturing "PFOS (perfluorooctanesulphonate)-based flurosurfactants using the electrochemical flouorination process," which is a "class of chemicals known as perfluorochemicals (PFCs). Stacy didn't even get into how the Navy and other public services used them to fight fires and increase environmental fire with Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF). 17 May 2000 3M stops manufacturing Scotchgard because of their "corporate responsibility" to be "environmentally friendly." Their tests proved PFOS, an agent that 3M used in the fabrication of Scotchgard— which lingers in the environment and humans. Barboza said that 3M's "decision to drop Scotchgard" would likely affect DuPont's use of PFOAs in the manufacturing of Teflon. Their testing showed "it does not decompose, it's inert—it's persistent; it's like a rock." August 2000 Bilott discovers PFOA or C8 in DuPont's dumping sites Fall of 2000 Bilott gets access to 110,000 pages of documents dated back to the 1950s of DuPont's "private internal correspondence, medical and health reports and confidential studies conducted by DuPont scientists." March 2001 DuPont settled the lawsuit filed by Billot on behalf of Tennant for an undisclosed sum. Bilott sends a 972-page submission to directors of all relevant regulatory authorities: EPA and US AG demanding "immediate action to regulate PFOA 31 August 2001 Bilott files a class-action suit on behalf of thirteen individuals in the "Leach case." 23 November 2004 The class-action lawsuit settled and "established a court-approved scientific panel to determine what types of ailments likely linked to PFOA exposure." This led to thousands of residents then opting to pursue individual lawsuits after medical monitoring showed harm.  2005-2006 The C8 Health Project undertaken by the C8 Science Panel "surveyed 69,030 individuals" who had "lived, worked, or attended school for ≥ 1 year in one of six contaminated water districts near the plant between 1950 and 3 December 2004." 2006 The EPA brokered a voluntary agreement with DuPont and eight other major companies to phase out PFOS and PFOA in the United States. 2014 The EPA's Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO) developed and published a fact sheet which provided a "summary of the emerging contaminants perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), including physical and chemical properties, environmental and health impacts, existing federal and state guidelines, detection and treatment methods. 2016 The EPA "published a voluntary health advisory for PFOA and PFOS," which warned that "exposure to the chemicals at levels above 70 parts per trillion, total, could be dangerous." 13 February 2017 The 2001 class-action suit that Bilott had filed against DuPont, on behalf of the Parkersburg area residents, resulted in DuPont agreeing to pay $671 million in cash to settle about 3,550 personal injury claims. These claims involved a leak of perfluorooctanoic acid—PFOA or C-8— used to make Teflon in its Parkersburg, West Virginia-based Washington Works facilities. DuPont denied any wrongdoing. Fall 2017 abnormally high levels of PFAS found in Belmont, Michigan, became one of the first places where PFAS contaminations caught the media's attention.[71] Wolverine Worldwide, a footwear company, was said to be the cause due to their use of Scotchgard to "treat shoe leather" and had dumped their waste in that area decades ago. 2017 PFAS are on Canada's 2019 chart of substances prohibited by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) and by Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2012. These substances are under these regulations because they are "among the most harmful" and "declared toxic to the environment and/or human health," are "generally persistent and bioaccumulative." The "regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of the toxic substances listed below, and products containing them, with a limited number of exemptions." [72] 10 January 2018 According to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), studies in humans with PFAS exposure show certain PFAS may affect growth, learning, and behavior of infants and older children, lower a woman's chance of getting pregnant, interfere with the body's natural hormones, increase cholesterol levels, affect the immune system, and increase the risk of cancer." 30 January 2018 three branches of the EPA exchanged chains of emails with OMB, DoD, HHS, and the Pentagon, to put pressure on the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It aimed to censor a report that measured the "health effects" of PFAS that are "found in drinking water and household products throughout the United States." An email by an unidentified white house administration forwarded by OMB said that "The public, media, and Congressional reaction to these numbers is going to be huge. The impact to EPA and [the Defense Department] is going to be extremely painful. We (DoD and EPA) cannot seem to get ATSDR to realize the potential public relations nightmare this is going to be."  March 2018 The United States Department of Defense's (DoD) 's report to Congress said the test they conducted showed the amount of PFAS chemicals in water supplies near 126 DoD facilities "exceeded the current safety guidelines." [65] The DoD "used foam containing" PFAS chemicals "in exercises at bases across the country." The DoD, therefore, "risks the biggest liabilities" concerning the use of PFAS chemicals, according to Politico (published May 2018) 21 June 2018 The Department of Health & Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR) 697-page draft report for public comment, "Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls," was finally released. June 2019 Described as a "huge step toward cleaning up the prevalence of and prevent further contamination from PFAS chemicals in-ground, surface and drinking water," the Department of Environmental Services of the state of New Hampshire submitted a "final rulemaking proposal" for new, lower maximum contaminant levels. They then filed a lawsuit against Dupont, 3M, and other companies for their roles in the crisis in drinking water contamination in the United States. The lawsuit claims that the polluted water results from the manufacture and use of perfluorinated chemicals, a group of more than 9,000 compounds collectively known as PFAS.[2] September 2019, Andrew R. Wheeler, EPA Administrator, met with industry lobbyists and said that "Congressional efforts to clean up legacy PFAS pollution in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2020" were "just not workable." Wheeler refuses to "designate PFAS chemicals as "hazardous substances" under the Superfund law." 1 October 2019 A lawsuit filed in the Merrimack County Superior Court by 3M and two others against the state aimed to prevent the new permitted levels for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS from implementation.  4 October 2019 over 100 scientific experts representing many countries "recommended that a group of hazardous chemicals"—"Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), its salts, and PFHxS-related compounds"—be eliminated to better protect human health and the environment from its harmful impacts." 10 March 2020 EPA announced its proposed regulatory determinations for two PFAS in drinking water. In a Federal Register notice, the agency requested public comment on whether it should set maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS in public water systems.  April 2021: Landmark bipartisan legislation proposed to protect all Americans and our environment from harmful forever chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The package establishes a national drinking water standard for select PFAS chemicals, designates as hazardous to allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean up contaminated sites  https://debbiedingell.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2975 June 2021: No PFAS in Cosmetics Act introduced with bi-partisan support, coinciding with the publication of a study finding over half of cosmetics contain them. One study found toxic 'forever chemicals' widespread in top makeup brands. The act would require the Food And Drug Administration to ban the chemicals' use in such products within 270 days. June 2021 They also reintroduced the Personal Care Product Safety Act, a bill that would take a major step forward to update our laws governing cosmetics. These laws have largely stood unchanged since 1938. [caption id="attachment_45315" align="aligncenter" width="740"]Source: https://www.ewg.org/pfaschemicals/what-are-forever-chemicals.html[/caption] See this link for an even more detailed timeline of PFAS and toxic chemicals.   What Are PFAS In? PFAS functions in many capacities, including surfactants, friction reducers, and water, dirt, and oil repellents. (50:01) As such, they are used in a wide variety of consumer products to confer nonstick (waterproof, greaseproof, and stainproof) and low-friction properties.  Examples of products that contain or coated with PFAS include: Some grease-resistant paper, fast food containers/wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes, and candy wrappers  Nonstick cookware  Stain-resistant coatings used on carpets, upholstery, and other fabrics  Water-resistant clothing  Umbrellas, tents, any fabric that repels water (pet bed covers, some mattresses, shoes, etc.) Cleaning products  Personal care products (shampoo, dental floss) and cosmetics (nail polish, eye makeup)  Paints, varnishes, and sealants Electronics Some industrial glass and plastics PFAS are also used directly or as technical aids (dispersants and emulsifiers) in many industrial applications like metal coatings, lubricants for machinery, membranes, and firefighting foams.  PFAS are used in the synthesis of or as adjuvants in pesticides, in medical procedures and products, and in many other applications. PFAS in Cosmetics The FDA has a voluntary registration program (VCRP) which shows an overall decrease in use (about half from 2019 to 2020).  But their site states- "because registration and product listing are voluntary, this data cannot draw definitive conclusions about the types and amounts of PFAS present in registered cosmetics or to determine which cosmetics may contain PFAS but have not been registered in the VCRP." [caption id="attachment_45319" align="aligncenter" width="740"]Source: https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas-cosmetics[/caption] The Environment and Water Supply Because of their widespread use, release, and disposal over the decades, PFASs show up virtually everywhere: soil, surface water, the atmosphere, the deep ocean—and even the human body.  The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web site says that the agency has found PFASs in the blood of nearly everyone it has tested for them, "indicating widespread exposure to these PFAS in the U.S. population." Scientists estimated that more than 200 million people—most Americans—have tap water contaminated with a mixture of PFOA and PFOS. These are at concentrations of one part per trillion (ppt) or higher.   Problems with PFOA-Free (PFOS-free, PTFE-free) The most well-studied of these substances, PFOA, and PFOS, have been linked to various health problems. (59:45) Bad press and class-action lawsuits have put pressure on companies to discontinue the use of PFOA and PFOS, but not PFAS as a chemical class. The regulatory bodies have not kept up with the chemical industry either! When some major manufacturers phased out long-chain PFAS, most industries turned to structurally similar replacements. These include hundreds of homologues with fewer fluorinated carbons (short-chain PFAS) or other less well-known PFAS (e.g., per- and polyfluoroalkylether-based substances). Producers marked these replacement PFAS as safer alternatives because of their presumed lower toxicity and lower level of bioaccumulation in human blood. However, several lines of evidence suggest that short-chain PFAS are not safer alternatives.  Research demonstrated that short-chain PFAS can be equally environmentally persistent and are even more mobile in the environment and more difficult to remove from drinking water than long-chain PFAS. Bioaccumulation of some short-chain PFAS occurs in humans and animals. For example, fish research suggests they can do more than the long-chain compounds they aim to replace.  Short-chain PFAS also can be more effectively taken up by plants. However, a growing body of evidence suggests they are associated with similar adverse toxicological effects as long-chain PFAS. The ongoing accumulation of persistent chemicals known or potentially hazardous increases human and environmental health risks over an indefinite period. Look for PFAS-free specifically. It's not enough to be PFOA, PFOS, and PTFE-free.   What Can We Do About It? The problem with these chemicals is that there unavoidable. However, we can take steps to protect ourselves. (1:05:01) Make sure the makeup brands you're using test for safety! PFAS and toxic chemicals are the kind of thing someone wouldn't know about unless they checked and tested the product for them. If you shop Beautycounter, use code cleanforall20 for 20% off your purchase. Of course, you can always email Stacy for advice at stacy@realeverything.com! Avoid plastics and coated papers for food storage whenever possible. Also, avoid nonstick cookware or look for ceramic coatings that are PFAS-free, like Le Creuset or Greenpan or silicone liners. Filter your water. Stacy and Sarah love AquaTru, which they talked about in Episode 406. Also, be sure to think about other exposure areas, such as clothing, carpeting, etc. Call Your Representatives! April 13, 2021, House representatives introduced the PFAS Action Act of 2021, a comprehensive 40-page piece of legislation that would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take several significant PFAS regulatory actions. Keep Food Containers Safe from PFAS Act (H.R. 2727) is soon to be reintroduced by Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell. Call your representatives to support the proposed environmental justice plan that specifically calls out forever chemicals, tackles PFAS pollution by designating PFAS as a hazardous substance, setting enforceable limits for PFAS in the Safe Drinking Water Act, prioritizing substitutes through procurement, and accelerating toxicity studies and research on PFAS." The new administration could carry out all of these goals unilaterally through executive action without Congress's cooperation. Dan Kildee (MI) and Brian Fitzpatrick are heading the bipartisan PFAS Task Force. They have a LONG list of people in the task force with goals.  No PFAS in Cosmetics Act Personal Care Product Safety Act Natural Cosmetics Act (not updated since introduced in 2019) Also, Stacy encourages you to text Better Beauty to 52886, which will cover these bases.  Support advocacy groups like Environmental Working Group, Toxic-Free Future | Science, Advocacy, Results, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, Earthjustice: Environmental Law: Because the Earth Needs a Good Lawyer | Earthjustice other local groups. EPA says reverse osmosis (but not filters, like Brita, unfortunately) removes PFAS.  Lastly, don't get suckered into PFAS detoxes! Currently, there is no established treatment for PFAS exposure. However, blood levels will decrease over time after a reduction in exposure to PFAS.         

This week, I sat down with Bruce Jarnot, Ph.D., DABT®, Senior Manager, Product Compliance, at Assent Compliance. Bruce is a board-certified industrial toxicologist with much experience assisting businesses with chemical product compliance. I have known Bruce for years, but over the past several months, Bruce and I have spoken often about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and certain new rules that apply to manufacturers of finished goods, called “articles” under TSCA. Several rules issued in final this year or proposed apply to importers of finished goods and other downstream entities. A proposed reporting rule issued in June would apply to small businesses, a cohort historically exempt from TSCA reporting requirements. We discuss these rules and their significant commercial impacts, and we speculate on whether these broad reporting requirements are the new normal under new TSCA. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2021 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved