During the last ten years or so, Bisphenol A, or BPA for short, has arguably become the “poster child” for hormone-disrupting chemicals in everyday products. Lately, we have been asked by both companies and regulators if there is a “next BPA” to keep track of.
We believe there is one such chemical: melamine.
Today, ChemSec and the FRAM Centre at the University of Gothenburg can show that if member states stand to lose money by the regulation of certain chemicals, these substances are less likely to be passed through the legal bodies of the EU.
It is very hard to say anything in general about the safety of nano. Some materials are probably safe, a few we know are very hazardous, but in general there is a huge gap in knowledge and data.
In case you thought 722 pages was a bit long and didn’t have the time to read the whole thing, don’t worry. ChemSec has done it for you.
The mounting evidence against PFAS have now surpassed the sole awareness of the scientific community, and today many regular citizens are aware of this problematic group of chemicals.
This begs the question: If PFAS are that bad, how on earth can they still be allowed?
74 percent of substances where a concern for human health and the environment has been demonstrated has not received any regulatory follow-up to control the risk and are still allowed on the EU market, says new report.
Member States in the European Union are described as “captured states, allowing corporate interests to malignly influence their decisions” in a new report by the research and campaign group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO).
Tolerable intakes for PFAS could be much lower than scientists previously thought. EFSA’s scientific panel recommends lowering these levels drastically, indicating that the presence of PFAS in the food chain is a big problem to human health.
