My guest today is Bryan McGannon. He is Policy Director for the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) and leads the Washington office for the organization. We’ll be talking about why the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) needs to be reformed and what is currently being done to reform it. Bryan brings a broad background in issue advocacy and political campaigns to his post at ASBC. Bryan has over a decade of experience in Washington, D.C. in advocacy roles addressing business and environmental issues. Outside of Washington, he was State Director in Ohio for the Alliance for Climate Protection’s Repower America campaign, and served on former Vice President Al Gore’s initiative to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation. Bryan’s political campaign experience spans presidential campaigns, congressional races, and local ballot initiatives. In addition, Bryan holds a B.A. in Political Science from the University of California, San Diego. www.asbcouncil.org
TOXIC FREE TALK RADIO
Why It’s Important to Have Regulation for Toxics and What We Need to Do
Host: Debra Lynn Dadd
Guest: Bryan McGannon
Date of Broadcast: November 03, 2015
DEBRA: Hi, I’m Debra Lynn Dadd, and this is Toxic Free Talk Radio, where we talk about how to thrive in a toxic world and live toxic free.
It’s Tuesday, November 3, 2015. I’m here in Clearwater, Florida. And it’s Election Day today.
So we’re going to be talking about toxics and government regulations. And my guest today is Bryan McGannon. He’s the policy director for the American Sustainable Business Council, ASBC. You’ll probably hear ASBC all through the show today instead of American Sustainable – I can’t even say it all. American Sustainable Business Council.
And he leads the Washington office for their organization. He works with Regulations all the time, and knows all about what’s going on here, and is going to explain it all to us.
Hi, Bryan.
BRYAN MCGANNON: Hi, Debra. How are you?
DEBRA: I’m really good. How are you?
BRYAN MCGANNON: Great.
DEBRA: Good. Well, first of all, tell us how you got interested in working on environmental issues, I guess is the way. You’re coming from an environmental perspective.
BRYAN MCGANNON: I’ve been working around politics for most of my career. One of the first environmental activist jobs I had was working in California in the early 2000s on the energy crisis in California, and forced into a variety of other campaigns, that when I arrived at the American Sustainable Business Council, is when I really got to delve into toxic chemical reform. And that’s about four years now.
It has been a steep, learning curve, but it’s remarkable how complicated but clear path forward to what really needs to get done to make a cleaner and safer world, especially in the marketplace.
DEBRA: Tell us what the American Sustainable Business Council does.
BRYAN MCGANNON: We are a business organization, a business policy organization that is advocating for a sustainable, just and robust economy. Through our membership, which is a group of business organizations, as well as individual companies, a network that reaches about 300,000 small and medium-sized businesses, we advocate for policies that will build a sustainable economy whether that is energy and environment issues, toxic chemical reform.
But it also ranges from tax policy to campaign finance reforms to sustainable agriculture.
So there’s a broad brush of issues that really feed into that broader notion of building a sustainable economy.
DEBRA: So you have a lot to do.
BRYAN MCGANNON: I do. And we have a great team. Thankfully, I don’t have to do it all by myself.
DEBRA: That’s good. First of all, let’s assume that the listeners know nothing about this. So let’s start with why don’t you explain the current regulations.
There are several different regulations that refer to toxics.
BRYAN MCGANNON: There are – it’s split up into different aspects. Pesticides is governed by law that EPA implements. Chemical manufactured, just general chemicals, is under the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. Cosmetics and personal care products are under a different law, and that’s regulated by the FDA.
So it’s quite interesting who split out of things, and I’m sure there probably are some other small jurisdictions. Certainly, states have some oversight too of chemicals in their states.
But those are the big buckets of how toxics are looked at by regulators.
DEBRA: But the most important one, I think, is the people are looking at wanting to make change in is the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA.
BRYAN MCGANNON: That’s correct. So TSCA was a law that was enacted in 1976. It’s the same era as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the major environmental bills that became law.
But the problem with the TSCA bill, the TSCA law, is that it was challenged in court and as they were trying to regulate asbestos, the court found that it’s the way the law was written had a flaw in it that basically put EPA in an analytical loop cycle.
So they could never prove beyond a reasonable doubt or they had to measure against cost benefit and so are they getting the best cost analysis – so basically, broke with the law. That case broke the law.
So EPA has had its hands tied on regulating chemicals since the mid-80s.
DEBRA: Could you explain how the government currently – I’m not quite sure how to ask this question.
So I’m an individual, and I can go to a toxicology book or to my website, or environmental working group, or many other places online, and look at studies which say x chemical produces y symptoms. And I can decide that I don’t want to be exposed to that chemical, and I can find products that don’t have it.
How does the – what seems odd to me is that why can’t the government look at those very same studies I’m looking at and everyone else is looking at, and say, “This is a toxic chemical. It shouldn’t be allowed on the market.”
BRYAN MCGANNON: So the government can look at it, they can research it, they can develop data, and many times they do. But what happens is they need the authority to take an action on those chemicals.
The TSCA law, originally, the intention of the TSCA law was to give the EPA the authority to make a regulatory judgment that chemical x that harms the human health or the environmental health, and these are the remedies that the government can take.
We can restrict it, we can ban it, limit it in certain ways in the marketplace.
Because the law doesn’t work, EPA can research – it has the capacity to research, but it can’t take an action on those chemicals.
Now, there are smaller provisions that are very arcane that give the EPA some limited access to do restricting the use of chemicals. But there has been very few – if we’re talking – bear in mind there are 60,000 to 80,000 chemicals in commerce, not all are huge right now. But [inaudible 00:08:26] as a scale of the problem.
A very few of those have been formally reviewed, and had an action. I think maybe five or six have actually been restricted.
DEBRA: Let me just say this back to you, so to make sure I heard this right. That the government doesn’t have the authority, that’s the problem. It’s not that they can’t make a decision that something is toxic, it’s that they don’t have the authority to do anything about.
BRYAN MCGANNON: The federal government, that’s correct.
DEBRA: The federal government.
BRYAN MCGANNON: Yes. So these states have stepped up, and in many cases, have filled that void with different types of laws. The big one is Prop 65 in California, which is a labeling bill, which has basically – it has shaped the marketplace, where if you have something where there’s known to be cancer-causing chemical, you have to put a safety label, a warning label on your product.
DEBRA: I know, but wait. Let’s talk about Proposition 65 for a minute.
We need to go to break in a minute but let’s start talking about this because Proposition 65, I’d lived in California when Proposition 65 first came out. And in theory, I think that it’s a really good idea. I say over and over on this show that we shouldn’t have to label things as being pure like certified organic. We should say that apple sauce has apples with pesticides on it. That that should be on the label.
And so I think the Proposition 65, in theory, is trying to do that. But what ends up happening is that sometimes they’re required to put the label on things like a little tiny part that’s on the inside of a washing machine that you’re never exposed to.
And so it’s – I think I recall that there was a label on a jar of instance iced tea once I looked at. And it’s just the consumer gets to a point where you don’t even look at it anymore. The consumer doesn’t look at all those warning and caution and all these things.
We need to go to break, and when we come back, I want to hear what you have to say about this.
You’re listening to Toxic Free Talk Radio. I’m Debra Lynn Dadd, and my guess today is Bryan McGannon. He’s the policy director for the American Sustainable Business Council, and leads the Washington office for the organization. Their website is ASBCouncil.org.
And we’ll be right back.
DEBRA: You’re listening to Toxic Free Talk Radio. I’m Debra Lynn Dadd, and my guest today is Bryan McGannon. He’s a policy director for the American Sustainable Business Council, ASBC, and we’re talking about government regulations regarding toxics.
Okay Bryan, tell us about Proposition 65.
BRYAN MCGANNON: I think what has been effective, certainly, Prop 65 has some flaws, as is all legislation. They have these unknown, unanticipated consequences. But there are finds at the Center for Environmental Health. They have a great report out that talks specifically about products that were reformulated naturally because of Prop 65.
Prop 65 did move the market, so a lot of corporations fear having that label of –
DEBRA: Yes.
BRYAN MCGANNON: – there are some things that are known that lead to cancer on their product. So they have moved and reformulated their products.
So CEH.org, the report is called State – I have it right here. Let me give you the name. State Action National Change.
So it’s a fascinating study of getting toxic chemicals out of toys. A number of companies that have reformulated, re-engineered their products, to take the perk out of their products – cleaning the solutions.
I think that despite some flaws in Prop 65, it does have a broad effect throughout the market because corporations are not inclined to make a product for California and then a different product for the rest of the country.
The California market, for example, is one of those big movers that a California company will have to address that issue.
DEBRA: That’s correct. I see that too.
So California, in a way, given that the federal government in Washington is not doing this, California has taken the lead and is making those changes. And they have other programs in California now that are evaluating other kinds of products.
We just had a change in – I forgot the number. But it’s about the fire retardants on furniture and that took effect at the beginning of this year. And so this year, we’ve seen a big change in more furniture being available without fire retardants.
BRYAN MCGANNON: The 117 [inaudible 00:16:38].
California is not alone. Washington State, Minnesota, Vermont, Connecticut, New York is, I think, undertaking an effort as well for children’s products. These are significant marketplaces that are changing the laws and they will benefit states like New Mexico and Colorado and Texas.
This actually feeds into a dynamic in the federal legislation as they’re negotiating with these last changes that I’m sure we’ll get to but [inaudible 00:17:19] because it is important to know that this state-level action does benefit the entire nation.
DEBRA: Yes, I think so.
So then if – and I would also say that I looked at websites for these states, and some of the things that they’re doing. And so anyone, any of us citizens could go there and see what are the list of chemicals that they’re working with that these states have identified chemicals that they want to eliminate from the marketplace.
And so we can then say, okay, the government in those states has determined that these chemicals are toxic, and use those as guidelines for ourselves.
I’ve actually been researching this, and I’ve been finding many, many lists.
BRYAN MCGANNON: Absolutely. It’s funny to be in some of these conversations. In the legislating process [inaudible 00:18:16] in federal level. It said let’s see what you’re talking about. You’re referring to the Washington list. Are you talking about the Minnesota list? Are you talking about the EPA work plan list?
It’s roughly the same badge of numbers of which chemicals, but they all vary, but it is a great starting point. But it does take time, and that’s – it’s not for every consumer to be able to have to do that. And that’s why it’s [inaudible 00:18:42] that the government has the authority to do the science, really found judgments on what chemicals should be restricted, and how they should be available in commerce.
DEBRA: I agree. I just wanted to ask you, off the subject here, but – and I don’t have it right in front of me, but I think, didn’t last week, didn’t the Senate decide that GMOs were safe?
BRYAN MCGANNON: They have not – there’s a bill moving through both Houses that the [inaudible 00:19:23] want to ban [inaudible 00:19:27]. It’s a bill that would restrict the states from having a labeling program for GMOs.
And so the punks on our side of the table who believe that the state should have the right to label it, called it the Dark Act. It had a hearing in the Senate Agriculture Committee.
I don’t know if that committee had actually taken a vote on it yet or not, but the democratic – the ranking member voiced their support for that. So that ensures that it will move through.
It has already passed the House. So it doesn’t look good at this point. Just like TSCA, there’s a long way to go to actually get it passed. But if you want to know what’s in your stuff that it’s not the best feeling in the world, that it’s going to be moving through the Senate.
DEBRA: Again, we get back to – and I’ll probably say this five times during the hour. When we get back to consumers needing to look for negative labeling, where it says there are no GMOs in those, instead of saying that there are GMOs.
I’ve seen some labels from Europe where they actually put on this is GMO soy. It’s GMO corn and whatever. And I think that that’s part of the ingredients.
BRYAN MCGANNON: And I haven’t worked on that issue as much, but I think that you’re onto something about that positive labeling.
And I think companies that appreciate that, it is not a skull and crossbones – we don’t want to put that on all of our products, but you do have the right to know that there are elements in this product that you should – if you want to –
DEBRA: You do. We do have the right to know.
We need to go to break, and we’ll come back and talk about this more.
You’re listening to Toxic Free Talk Radio. I’m Debra Lynn Dadd, and my guest today is Bryan McGannon. He’s the policy director for the American Sustainable Business Council, ASBC. They’re in Washington DC, and they work on policies that have to do with making the world more sustainable.
We’ll be right back.
DEBRA: You’re listening to Toxic Free Talk Radio. I’m Debra Lynn Dadd, and my guest today is Bryan McGannon. He’s the policy director for the American Sustainable Business Council, ASBC, in Washington DC. And their website is ASBCouncil.org.
Bryan, if California or another states are doing such a good job of moving us in the right direction, why do we need that [inaudible 00:26:55]regulations?
BRYAN MCGANNON: The states are taking very narrow approaches that – the Prop 65 doesn’t necessarily ban anything. It just labels things. Right now, asbestos can’t be banned under current law. Everybody knows it’s a horrible thing, and lawsuits and huge settlements have been paid out, but it is not, under TSCA, banned.
So we need a functioning system that is national, that has a basic standard that has clear, scientific process that can evaluate chemicals in commerce that has the authority to restrict.
DEBRA: I totally agree with you.
So what has been done already and why has it not succeeded? What are the problems we’re running into?
BRYAN MCGANNON: As far as the why we can’t get to that process?
DEBRA: What are we already done? I know there has been some bills introduced about TSCA reform that haven’t gone through. And so what has already been done, how long have we been working on this, and where are we now, and what needs to be done?
BRYAN MCGANNON: So efforts to reform TSCA has been underway for a number of years. There have been a number of folks that have been probably since the early 90s that have been trying to address this.
This is the one major environmental law that has not been updated.
Clean Air Act has had updates. Clean Water Act has had updates.
And so efforts at fixing TSCA have been thwarted either by chemical manufacturers that have seen the legislation as being [inaudible 00:29:05] to their business interest. So there have been legislative attempts, and where we are today is that we have probably the closest progress to getting TSCA reform done. It is not an ideal solution, but there is a potential to get some incremental progress, and get EPA the authority to start reviewing chemicals as a baseline ability.
Senator Lautenberg, the late Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey, was a champion in the Senate, and had the Safe Chemicals Act, which was a bill that a lot of the environmental health organizations as well as ASBC, had endorsed.
He eventually crafted a compromise with Senator David Vitter from Louisiana that once you scratch the surface, the compromise didn’t look so good.
Senator Udall from New Mexico has taken over for the late Senator Lautenberg and has carried a bill that has been improved but still not really where we want – we think reform should go. And that is pending on the floor of the Senate. So it’s passed out of committee and we are awaiting a full Senate vote.
Now, the House has passed a smaller, more narrow bill that basically gives EPA the authority and the obligation to review 10 chemicals a year.
DEBRA: 10 chemicals a year?
BRYAN MCGANNON: That seems like a small – a minimum 10. That seems like a small one. The Senate bill is even fewer. So these are not ideal solutions but they are incremental progress. It’s not a done deal because these two bills don’t look like each other, and as we know, in the legislative process, both sides have to agree to exact identical bills before they go to the President to be signed into law.
So there are features on both of the house bill that a lot of folks on our side believe are good features. And there are few features in the Senate bill that are good features. So the idea where the current fight stands is that we think the Senate will eventually, once they can get time on the Senate floor, they will pass their version of TSCA reform.
What we’re busy advocating for is that when they try to marry these two bills that they take the best so we can get the best possible outcome.
It’s not a great outcome, but it’s the best possible outcome in the process.
DEBRA: I just don’t understand, and you may not have an answer to this, but I want to say it anyway. I just don’t understand how so many people in the world can look at these chemicals and know that they’re toxic and decide that they don’t want them in their lives. And that the government can’t put together enough agreement.
I guess it’s agreement that if everybody in the House and the Senate could understand that these chemicals are toxic and they shouldn’t be in consumer products, and that people are dying, and that people are being crippled, and that people are getting cancer and all the things that these chemicals do.
BRYAN MCGANNON: There are two reactions to that.
So one is the original law is very complicated and that there’s a lot of detail about how to you do it. There are a lot of vested interest as well that basically want to slow that process down.
So let’s not beat it around the bush that there are losers that would, by restricting chemicals, there are people that would lose out by not having their chemical in commerce.
DEBRA: But they could do something else that’s not so toxic.
BRYAN MCGANNON: Businesses are smart and they innovate. I find that a false scenario as well. But the other reaction to [inaudible 00:33:46] is that the consumers are becoming informed, and they’re making decisions, and they’re shaping the marketplace.
A lot of members in our organization, the companies that we are working with on this fight are the ones who are being transparent or they’re disclosing what’s in their [inaudible 00:34:03]. And they’re not using those chemicals in their products.
So they are working hard to meet and increase consumer demand. And whenever I talk to members of the Congress or their staff, I always remind them that our members are working to meet this increased consumer demand because it is out there.
Parents are being more vigilant about the products they buy for their children. People who are cleaning homes or workplaces are being more vigilant about how their employees are being exposed.
That is really driving a lot of this desire to get something done in Congress.
DEBRA: Good. We’ll talk more about that when we come back.
You’re listening to Toxic Free Talk Radio. I’m Debra Lynn Dadd, and my guest today is Bryan McGannnon. He’s the policy director for the American Sustainable Business Council, ASBC, and their website is ASBCouncil.org.
We’ll be right back.
DEBRA: You’re listening to Toxic Free Talk Radio. I’m Debra Lynn Dadd, and my guest today is Bryan McGannon, the policy director for the American Sustainable Business Council, ASBC.
Bryan, when I first heard about toxic chemicals in consumer products in 1978, that was a long time ago, it was because I got really sick. And it turned out to be toxic chemicals in my home. And I said, “What? There are no toxic chemicals in my home. The government is watching out for us. I can just go into the store and buy anything I want and nothing’s toxic.”
Until I found out that wasn’t the case by getting sick.
BRYAN MCGANNON: That’s the hard way. We have a mutual friend, Barry Cik, who co-founded Naturepedic, and he tells this fantastic story that Naturepedic makes crib mattresses with no flame retardants and no toxic chemicals.
He was having his first grandchild and went into a baby store to say, “My wife sent me to get a crib mattress for our first grandchild.” And he’s got background in toxic chemicals. He looked at the label of all the products. It’s got vinyl, it’s got flame retardants, it’s got all these really bad things.
And he asked, “Where’s the more natural product?”
And the store clerk said, “If these things weren’t safe, the government wouldn’t let us sell one.”
DEBRA: He really said that?
BRYAN MCGANNON: That’s a rap that he does in every meeting we go to on Capitol Hill. It’s jaw-dropping, isn’t it?
DEBRA: It is.
BRYAN MCGANNON: I think it’s the conventional wisdom.
DEBRA: It is the conventional wisdom. It’s really hard for me to get information about – if I call a store and say, “Does this have formaldehyde in it?” They don’t know what that is.
They really don’t. And so we have all these people selling these products, and they don’t know anything about this issue.
BRYAN MCGANNON: Another aspect of chemical form is not really being addressed in the current legislation, but is vital to businesses like the ones we represent, is this transparency of the supply chain. So upstream, a few formulated product here mixing things together, and then you’re selling it. And if you don’t have clear understanding of what’s in the material you’re putting into your product, you can’t validate to your consumer that this is a clean and safe product.
DEBRA: That’s right.
BRYAN MCGANNON: So the one thing that we fight for that we’re probably not going to get this round on advocating is transparency in the supply chain. So there’s a part of the law that protects confidential business information.
So a lot of companies have been hiding behind this and they just say, “Well, we’re not going to tell you because it’s our proprietary information.”
But if you could create a transparency through the supply chain, the market would really drive companies to be really more open, and be able to say, “I know with a great degree of certainty that my product does not contain anything known to be hazardous to you.”
DEBRA: There are some companies working on it. I know Seventh Generation is a company that’s working on really understanding their supply chain. And part of the problem is that there are so many – I think a lot of consumers don’t know what I’m about to say.
I didn’t know it when I first started doing my work, which is that you can see some ingredients on the label. A lot of products don’t have ingredients even listed.
Let’s take a personal care product where it lists the ingredients.
Most consumers don’t know that those products are made because when you go the factory, it’s a barrel of this and a barrel of that, and they mix it up, like you mix the recipe in your kitchen.
But the person who is making it, the company that’s making it, all they’re doing is putting barrels of stuff together. They don’t know where that stuff came from, they don’t know what’s actually in it. It’s just x, y, z chemical.
BRYAN MCGANNON: Right, it is. And there’s a lot of – one thing I learned was that there are lot of steps in the value chain. You make know who the person you’re buying that barrel of x from, but that’s just the commodity. It could be coming from – if they don’t know where – the seller doesn’t know where it’s coming from, and they have no obligation to declare where it came from.
So it is really amazing.
Then you did the whole process with the personal care products of having – the fragrances are one of the biggest that hide some of the worst chemicals, and they don’t have to disclose, and they don’t have to tell their formulation. And that’s a real challenge, especially in the personal care products.
And even in household cleaning products, a lot of our members don’t use fragrances because they can’t validate what the materials in those fragrances are.
DEBRA: That’s so good. I know that when I’m recommending websites – part of my website is Debra’s List, where I put links to websites that sell these toxic-free products. And a lot of them are not big-named products that are in stores. A lot of them are little, tiny businesses where they are taking those ingredients from the field where they grew them, and turn them into products, so they know what it is. That’s very simple.
BRYAN MCGANNON: It really is. And a lot of the businesses in this space really did start that way. They have grown as the market has grown, but a lot of folks, the [inaudible 00:44:38] generation [inaudible 00:44:41] just a whole bunch of them have really started — [inaudible 00:44:44] Badgers are another great example where they were just mixing lip balm in their home in New Hampshire, and their products have just taken off, because, again, the demand is there.
[inaudible 00:44:59] internet. Information is available. You have access to government research. You have academic research. You have
Meet a Mum group, the Mum bloggers, are these fantastic researchers.
You don’t want to cross them. I’ll tell you that much.
DEBRA: So I think from my viewpoint, I think that we do need to have government regulations that the government should – there’s a bunch of pieces of the pie here, and it’s not just one thing or another that we need the consumers to want the products because I know way back when I first started doing this, a lot of people were saying, “Well, we would make something less toxic but nobody will buy it.”
But that’s not the case anymore.
And so consumers need to want the products, retailers need to want to sell them, manufacturers need to make them, and the government needs to ensure that there aren’t toxic chemicals. Doctors need to recognize that there are toxic chemicals making people sick, and treat them appropriately, instead of giving them drugs.
BRYAN MCGANNON: I think that’s a great way to describe it. That there are many aspects to this that we need to be active on all of them.
DEBRA: Yes, I totally agree. And consumers definitely have our part, and the manufacturers definitely have their part. So it’s great that you have so many businesses that are concerned about this.
BRYAN MCGANNON: Absolutely. It’s not every day that you have businesses saying, “We want regulations.” The typical narrative in Washington that all businesses think regulation is bad. But you know what? Well-done, well-crafted new business regulation drives innovation. It’s going to create jobs especially in the green chemistry field, which is a burgeoning field of chemistry that is built around creating chemicals that are effective, cost-competitive and reducing the toxicity of them.
And that is a huge opportunity. And so what happens if you regulate – if there are 80 chemicals on the [inaudible 00:47:18] work plant, investors and inventors will look and be able to say, “EPA is eventually going to regulate these chemicals.”
So that might be a smart place for me to go and try to find it, a substitute, or develop a substitute that I could eventually sell to replace that chemical and do it in a non-toxic way.
DEBRA: I totally agree. I was just thinking that when I made the decision so many years ago that I was going to eliminate these toxic chemicals from my life because they were making me sick, and I did, and I got well, but the thing is that I am not a scientist. I’m not an engineer. I’m not any of those things. I’m just a homemaker.
And yet, I need to wash my hair, and wash my dishes, and make my bed, and all those things. And I had to figure out how I was going to each and every one of those things without toxic chemicals, and I did. And other people have done that too.
So to me there’s no excuse for every company in the world to not do that as well.
BRYAN MCGANNON: Absolutely. It’s the future, and I think you are seeing more and more companies striving to do better in their supply chain. Some are better than others. But you are seeing, especially the big chemical manufacturers even have really big green chemistry programs because that is the – they see the writing on the wall too. The marketplace that is [inaudible 00:48:57] they realize that the government will step in, whether it’s the state government or the federal government.
It’s encouraging, and we hope it will happen faster. But it is sustainability throughout the business cycle. It’s a vital component, and I think that’s where we’re heading towards.
DEBRA: Well, thank you so much for being on the show. This has been somewhat so informative.
We’ve got about 45 seconds left. Anything you’d like to say in closing?
BRYAN MCGANNON: I want to encourage folks to get engaged. If you’re a business owner, go to ASBCouncil.org and click on our campaigns. We’ve got Companies for Safer Chemicals campaign. One of our ally organizations is the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition, and that’s a great place for individuals to get plugged in to see what’s happening and how they can get active.
That’s SaferChemicals.org.
We could use as much help as we can, and the fight is not over, and we’re going to continue to make the marketplace a good, sustainable place as hard as we can.
DEBRA: Thank you so much. You’re listening to Toxic Free Talk Radio. I’m Debra Lynn Dadd. Be well.
