A new study shows that the broad mixtures of chemicals, which most humans are exposed to on a regular basis, pose a great threat to male fertility.
The scientific committee at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently published a draft opinion that the limit value for Bisphenol A (BPA) should be lowered by 100 000 times. The committee thereby concludes that every EU citizen is at health risk from exposure to BPA through their diet.
If we needed more reasons for faster, tougher and more far-reaching regulation on endocrine-disrupting chemicals, could this imminent threat against human reproduction be the straw that finally broke the camel’s back?
ChemSec, in collaboration with Apple and other corporate members in the NGO’s Business Group, has developed a step-by-step approach to help companies advance chemical safety within their products and supply chains. ChemCoach, published today, provides a framework to identify, phase out, and replace harmful chemicals with safer alternatives. This resource is now available publicly and free of charge.
Some chemicals come back over and over again, not unlike Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character “Terminator”. One of those chemicals is resorcinol, an endocrine disruptor which we added to the SIN List back in 2011.
What are people searching for when using the SIN List? Here are the 10 “most wanted” hazardous chemicals that SIN List users are particularly interested in.
Here are five things from the strategy that us folks at ChemSec think will matter the most to businesses. The aim here is to help you to quickly get an idea of what the strategy is and, more importantly, the actual consequences it will have for your company.
Of 40,000 personal care products, more than 6,000 contain at least one ingredient from the SIN List.
With miniscule letters it read on the box: “Not intended for the immediate eye area”. My friend and I looked at each other and wondered if we had understood it correctly. Where else if not the immediate eye area is eyeshadow meant to be used? What’s next, a lipstick that isn’t intended for the immediate mouth area? This is of course a symptom of a much bigger problem than just one company trying to safeguard itself against angry and dissatisfied customers with rashes around their eyes.