EWG

Sign up to receive email updates, action alerts, health tips, promotions to support our work and more from EWG. You can opt-out at any time. [Privacy]

 

Testimony & Official Correspondence

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Heather White testifies before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy on Regulation of New Chemicals, Protection of Confidential Business Information,  and Innovation

Thursday, July 11, 2013

ORAL TESTIMONY – HEATHER WHITE

Executive Director
Environmental Working Group

Before the

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

On

Regulation of New Chemicals, Protection of Confidential Business Information, and Innovation

Thursday, May 30, 2013

The Environmental Working Group's legal team has concluded that the Chemical Safety Improvement Act proposed last week (May 21) by Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and David Vitter (R-La.) would provide far weaker protections for public health and the environment than either the ineffective Toxic Substances Control Act, federal law since 1976, or the Safe Chemicals Act, the legislation previously introduced by Sen. Lautenberg.

Would the Chemical Safety Improvement Act protect children and other vulnerable people?

Click here to see the overview Memorandum.

How does the Chemical Safety Improvement Act stack up against the Safe Chemicals Act?

Click here to read the side-by-side comparison.

EWG's section-by-section comparison concludes that the Chemical Safety Improvement Act:  

  • Uses a weaker safety standard;
  • Opens the door to heightened judicial review;
  • Lacks minimum data requirements;
  • Includes broad preemption language that would undermine states' ability to set their own standards;
  • Lacks fee and cost-sharing provisions;
  • Fails to focus on vulnerable populations and biomonitoring data.


 

Key Issues: 
Wednesday, May 22, 2013

The Environmental Working Group this week (May 21, 2013) submitted comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration urging it to deny an industry petition to change the official definition of milk and 17 other dairy products. Granting the petition would allow the industry to add controversial artificial sweeteners to dairy products such as flavored milk and yogurt without using a “reduced calorie” or similar label on the front of the package.

Key Issues: 
Tuesday, February 19, 2013

On February 14, 2013, EWG President Ken Cook testified before the Washington State Senate's Agriculture, Water & Rural Economic Development Committee in support of the state's common-sense ballot initative to label foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. 

Key Issues: 
Thursday, August 23, 2012

EWG comments on EPA’s on draft guidance for oil and gas companies that use diesel in fracking fluids. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act requires them to obtain an EPA permit before injecting chemicals into the ground during drilling operations.

Key Issues: 
Thursday, September 20, 2012

EWG commends EPA for taking action to protect Americans from perchlorate, an endocrine-disrupting compound and contaminant in tap water.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

EWG's Kari Hamerschlag and authors Anna Lappé and Dan Imhoff write the House Agriculture Committee to protest cuts of $16 billion from nutrition assistance and $6.1 billion from conservation programs.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Thomas Cluderay, EWG assistant general counsel, testifies New York City before state lawmakers at a public forum on hydrofracking. He highlights EWG's report exposing behind-the-scenes communications among New York regulators, drillers and their representatives and raises questions whether New York's review of fracking will live up to Gov. Cuomo's promise that it would be fair, transparent, and science-based.

Key Issues: 
Tuesday, July 10, 2012

 

Thomas Cluderay, EWG assistant general counsel offers remarks on New York's draft drilling plan on the steps of New York City Hall. He presents information received by EWG revealing that state regulators gave the drilling industry exclusive access to detailed rule proposals and draft permit language weeks before sharing them with the public.

Key Issues: 

Pages