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

Friday, June 15, 2007

Beyond DuPont’s Game Face On Federal Teflon Chemical Inquiry Lie Aggressive and Illegal Efforts To Control Damage

A routine-seeming government meeting this Friday marks the public debut of what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says is one of the most sweeping regulatory inquiries it has ever mounted on an industrial chemical. The chemical happens to be the key manufacturing aid for what is unquestionably DuPont’s marquee product brand, Teflon.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

A routine-seeming government meeting this Friday marks the public debut of what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says is one of the most sweeping regulatory inquiries it has ever mounted on an industrial chemical. The chemical happens to be the key manufacturing aid for what is unquestionably DuPont’s marquee product brand, Teflon.

Monday, February 26, 2007

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cheryl L Mitchell" < Cheryl.L.Mitchell@USA.dupont.com >
To: [NAME REMOVED]

Subject: Use of DuPont trademark

To Whom It May Concern:

Key Issues: 
Friday, April 11, 2003

EWG asks EPA administrator Whitman to investigation apparent reporting violations by DuPont Chemical. EWG submits documentation that DuPont had determined that 2 of 7 babies born to Teflon-exposed female workers in the company's Parkersburg WV plant had facial birth defects. DuPont had not reported this information to EPA as required under Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Monday, March 17, 2003

 

Testimony before the Consumer Product Safety Commission

Jane Houlihan
Vice President for Research
Environmental Working Group
Washington DC

Download the PowerPoint File

March 17, 2003

I appreciate the extended time and the opportunity to present our viewpoints here.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

The federal government has published proposed, revised cancer risk assessment guidelines that contain significant conclusions and changes in the way the EPA will assess the risk from cancer-causing chemicals in the environment.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Susan Meek
Vice-President of Licensing & Communications
Hedstrom Corporation
3436 North Kennicott
Arlington Heights, IL 60004

Dear Susan,

I am writing to thank you for Hedstrom’s laudable step of discontinuing use of arsenic (CCA) pressure treated wood in children’s playsets. Clearly, this is a beneficial action that will help in protecting children from the risks of exposure to arsenic, a human carcinogen, at unsafe levels. It is also a step of industry leadership.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Statement by Richard Wiles, Environmental Working Group, Before the Committee on Use of Third Party Toxicity Research with Human Participants

January 8, 2003

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Download letter and analysis as PDF

December 6, 2002

Ms. Dorothy Sussman Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Environmental Health Division of Laboratory Sciences Mail Stop F-20 4770 Buford Highway Atlanta, Georgia 30341

Dear Ms. Sussman:

Thursday, July 3, 2008

A review of federal and industry science on the toxic industrial chemical commonly called C8 (perflouroctanoic acid, used to make Teflon) reveals that water pollution policy by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is far less protective than previous industry standards.

The findings, authored by the Washington-based research organization Environmental Working Group (EWG), undercut public assertions by state officials that their drinking water standards are based on sound science.

Pages