The State-Level Push for Safer Products

For years, individual states have led the charge in restricting dangerous chemicals found in everyday
items. Thes bans,implemented at the state level,address a wide array of products including
bisphenol in children’s items,mercury in personal care products and PFAS in food packaging and
clothing.

California’s proposition 65, for example, stands as a landmark initiative, requiring businesses to
provide warnings about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other
reproductive harm. Other states have followed suit with targeted bans, such as Washington prohibiting
lead in cookware, Nevada banning flame retardants in children’s toys, and Maryland restricting
phthalates in cosmetics.

“The states are on the front lines and they’ve been stepping up because communities want these
laws,” said Sarah Doll, the national director of Safer States, which advocates for state-level
restrictions on toxic chemicals.”People don’t want toxic chemicals in their homes. Firefighters
don’t want to be exposed to PFAS in firefighting foam.”

The effectiveness of state laws also lies in the pressure they exert on manufacturers. For instance,
the increasing number of states banning PFAS in clothing is prompting companies to discontinue using
the chemicals altogether,rather than producing separate lines for different markets. Chemical giant 3M
announced it would stop making PFAS in part because state laws banning the chemicals complicates
their use.

Federal Regulatory Shifts and Concerns

However, there are concerns that federal actions could undermine state-level progress. Changes to how
the Environmental Protection agency (EPA) conducts chemical risk evaluations have raised alarms among
public health advocates.

The Trump administration initiated a rule that reworks how risk evaluations are performed. the Biden
EPA approach stated that if any specific use of a chemical – clothing, cosmetics, or food packaging,
for example – presents an “unreasonable risk”, the entire chemical should be considered a risk.
States can regulate chemicals that are considered an unreasonable risk.

The Trump EPA’s new rule would require the agency to evaluate weather a chemical presents a risk for
each intended use.Formaldehyde, for example, has 63 uses. The agency plans to claim most
chemicals do not present an “unreasonable risk” in consumer goods because they make up such a small
part of products, the EPA employee said.

Critics argue that this approach could lead to a situation where the EPA finds that a chemical does
not present an “unreasonable risk” for a specific use,thereby preventing states from enacting
stricter regulations.

“This will increase health risks to consumers by exposing them to toxic chemicals,” said an EPA
employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

EPA Employee

the employee further explained, “It also allows the market for toxic chemicals to continue, because
it maintains the financial incentive for them to be made for all these consumer products.”

This shift in risk evaluation methodology has the potential to significantly impact the ability of
states to protect their citizens from harmful chemical exposures.

PFAS “Forever chemicals”: A Spotlight on persistent Contamination

Among the chemicals of greatest concern are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), frequently enough referred
to as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the habitat and the human body.

These synthetic chemicals have been used for over 50 years in various industrial applications and
consumer products, including stain-resistant treatments, non-stick cookware (like Teflon), and
waterproofing materials. However, widespread use has resulted in significant environmental contamination,

Given Dr. Reed’s emphasis on the role of states in regulating toxic chemicals, what specific actions can states take to strengthen their regulatory authority and protect public health?