Monthly Archives: March 2011

BACKGROUND: Deadline extended - Draft indicators for America's Children and the Environment, Third Edition (ACE3) available for public review and comment EPA is preparing a third edition of America's Children and the Environment (ACE), following the previous editions published in December 2000 and February 2003. ACE is EPA's compilation of children's environmental health indicators and related information, drawing on the best national data sources available for characterizing important aspects of the relationship between environmental contaminants and children's health. EPA has prepared draft indicator documents for ACE3 representing 23 children's environmental health topics and presenting a total of 42 proposed children's environmental health indicators.  Several new topics of importance to children's environmental health have been added to ACE3, and topics included in the previous editions have been extensively revised and updated. EPA is interested in your comments on the draft indicator documents for ACE3. These draft documents are being circulated only for purpose of obtaining comments, and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.  EPA will consider the comments and other information provided to EPA through this public review and a simultaneous peer review by technical experts in deciding whether to make revisions to the indicators or other elements of the draft indicator documents. EPA intends to publish the final ACE3 report in 2011. The deadline for submitting comments has been extended by 15 days.  Comments will be accepted through April 21, 2011. You may view the draft indicator documents, instructions for submitting comments, and further information about the ACE3 process at: www.epa.gov/ace - please follow the link at the top of the page for ACE3 Draft Indicators.  Or you may go directly to the ACE3 page at:  www.epa.gov/ace/ace3draft.

TinyTimmy.org Comments: To Whom It May Concern: My name is Claudia Tietze and I represent approximately 50,000 supporters who include concerned citizens, parents and pet owners. TinyTimmy.org is an ambitious effort to help educate pet owners on harmful flea and tick products and advocate for use of safer alternatives. Thank you for allowing TinyTimmy.org to respond with suggestions to ACE3. Sadly, labels do little to educate pet owners on the true dangers of these products, brought intimately into our homes, and particularly the risks to children, especially toddlers, from these products. This is a message I recieved on our website, which has a page that allows people to light virtual candles for those harmed by flea and tick products. "We would like to light a candle on behalf of our daughter, Reeses Marie Meyer, who is currently struggling to overcome Sentry products. We would like to light this in hope that our family can find strength to help her fight a good fight and stay strong like mom and dad tell her every day. She is our light and a blessing. Mr & Mrs. Meyer" Reeses Marie is not alone. There are numerous accounts of children being harmed  by flea and tick products designed for use on companion animals. Most of these adverse reactions are settled privately and so little comes to public light. This should never happen. These parents should have been informed, prior to use of the Sentry companion animal product, of any and all risks to children. I believe that ACE3 is a step in the right direction, however was incredibly saddened to see that companion animal flea and tick products were minimally addressed. Considering that these products, in the form of collars, sprays, spot-on/drops/squeeze on, shampoos, mousse, powders and dips leave residue that is widely unmeasured in the home environment to date and due to the habits of children, particularly toddlers, the exposure to these pesticides is very intimate and has been shown to be incredibly high. For example, the NRDC has submitted a petition to the EPA requesting immediate cancellation of certain flea collars. They were incredibly concerned about the use of flea collars on companion animals, particularly those containing propuxor and tetrachlorvinphos in their active ingredients. These are both considered neurotoxins to mammals and known to be carcinogentic. These collars and their active ingredient chemicals pose risk of damaging the brain and nervous system of humans, especially toddlers, as well as the pets that they are used on. You can read the NRDC press release from April 23, 2009 http://www.nrdc.org/media/2009/090423a.asp Here is an excerpt (my highlights):

…tested the fur of dogs and cats wearing flea collars to measure the invisible pesticide residues left on the pets from these collars. This analysis, which was the first study of propoxur residues on pet’s fur, found that propoxur levels are so high in some products that they pose a cancer risk in children that is up to 1,000 times higher than the EPA’s acceptable levels, and up to 500 times higher for adults. The study also showed that after three days, 100 percent of the pets wearing collars containing propoxur and 50 percent of the pets wearing collars with TCVP posed a significant neurological risk to toddlers. Testing also revealed that unsafe levels of pesticide residue remain on a dog’s or cat’s fur two weeks after a collar is put on an animal. Families with multiple pets that wear flea collars have even greater exposure risks.

Many flea and tick products for companion animals contain heavily restricted pesticides or those cancelled for other household uses, yet remain in the home environment through the application on our companion animals, in our homes and in our yards. Often the carriers are more of a concern, such as the use of benzene, which is not required to be disclosed by claiming an entire formularly is CBI. The flea and tick products regulated by the EPA do not have adequate aftermarket surveillance in place. Pet products are only required to submit fairly short term studies regarding acute toxicity and the potential for long term issues often goes disregarded by the registrants when reports are submitted to the EPA regarding adverse reactions. For example, there is no way to currently measure the increases in certain cancers or other health issues to humans, toddlers and companion animals from the use of such products. There have been no submitted tests or statistics that I am aware of submitted to the EPA from manufacturers, although there are such studies showing an increase of bladder cancers among dogs who are treated as little as once per year with such topical flea and tick products from non-industry sources. Many of these companion animal flea and tick products contain ingredients that are known endocrine disruptors, particulatly to children whose systems are still developing and due to their habits, increase their exposure risk. TEDX - The Endocrine Disruptor Exchange, has compiled a large number of studies on permethrin, for example, and it's effects found in scientific studies. Permethrin is a very common ingredient found in many pet products as well as house sprays, foggers and similar products to fight insects in general, particularly fleas and ticks. You can find the link to download the raw data and charts here http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/pesticides.permethrin.spreadsheets.php It is, of course, alarming that children are exposed in schools and day care centers to potentially high levels of pesticides, however it is more alarming to me that parents, believing they are being responsible and good pet owners, bring such intimate contact to these potentially devastating pesticides into their homes. Labeling of these products does not allow a pet owner to make educated decisions as they do not include a complete list of known adverse reactions, nor the dangers that may be caused to humans and children, let alone to their companion animals. Owners mistakenly believe that if these products are available on store shelves that they must  have a high margin of safety. This is completely untrue and, again, long term testing is inadequate. Registrants have a vested interest in not completing more thorough studies, particularly to the exposure risk that children and especially toddlers face from their products. In order for the EPA to get accurate information regarding the risks to children and toddlers, the EPA must implement other measures of acquiring such studies. I recommend that registrants pay into a pool either a small percentage of their profits, or what they would normally invest in such studies, and that the pool is governed by an independent organization with no relations to the pesticide or chemical industry. The purpose of such a pool would be to stimulate studies that are more impartial and still take the burden of the cost of studies out of the budget of the EPA. It is naive and reckless for the EPA to continue to rely solely on industry backed studies for toxicology and environmental information. This has been shown over and over to harm the environment, human health, and wild life. I understand that the EPA must follow certain guidelines and legalities put in place since the 70's that benefit industry and protect profits. However, human life, particularly that of our legacy in the form of our children, is more precious than another million here or there. The EPA should create an incentive program for registrants to explore and market known safer alternatives in the fight of fleas and ticks (and other pests found in agriculture and in schools and daycare centers) such as diatomaceous earth. Patents could be given in the form of novel and new application methods of such safer alternatives. It is my opinion that ACE3 is a step in the right direction, but that pet products for use on companion animals have not been given the attention they ought to have, particularly the exposure these products bring to our toddlers and children. My recommendations are as follows and none require "re-inventing the wheel" - meaning all pertinent resources are already present:

1. The use of now available computer models that accurately predict long term toxicity in humans, children, toddlers, companion animals, wild life, the environment.
2. Clear labels on pet products that state, much as prescriptions for humans do, known health risks from both acute and chronic exposure, to companion animals, human adults, children and toddlers from active and inert/inactive ingredients and entire formularies of pet pesticide products registered by the EPA.
3. A fund, seeded by industry by either a small percentage of profits or what industry has traditionally paid for studies in one year, administered by a non-industry panel which includes concerns citizens, to allow the EPA to carry out scientific toxicology studies showing both acute and chronic exposure risks from the use of pesticide pet products used on companion animals.
4. The inclusion of data already statistically assessed of studies reviewed by TedX - The Endocrine Disruptor Exchange when evaluating exposure risks to humans, children and toddlers.
5. More thorough examination of the exposure risks to children and toddlers from the use of pesticide pet products, which includes adequate estimates of hand-to-mouth transmission as well as sleeping arrangements with treated pets and the number of pets and type treated in a household.
6. The public discloser of inert/inactive ingredients of all products containing pesticide products in the home and strict regulation and discloser of entire formularies including synergists and their mode of action in making active ingredients even more harmful to mammals, including children and toddlers.

It is my belief and that of the 50,000 supporters I represent, that not including a more thorough study of pet flea and tick product residue and risks in the home that ACE 3 will be sadly flawed an incomplete. Yours, Claudia Tietze TinyTimmy.org -- ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Visit me at http://www.tinytimmy.org

Webinar Registration Available for Community IPM for Preventing Tick-Borne Diseases Conference [TinyTimmy.org NOTE: IPM stands for Integrated Pest Management. IPM seeks to reduce the use of pesticides by integrating different strategies to reduce pests and to use pesticides only when necessary as a compliment to other strategies such a landscaping.] While the in-person capacity of the Community IPM for Preventing Tick-Borne Diseases Conference has been reached, you may still register to attend the conference by webinar.  You must register for each day separately. --To register for the first day of the conference, March 30, use this link:  https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/989522586. --To register for the second day of the conference, March 31, use this link:   https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/229683738. The agenda for the conference is available at http://www.epa.gov/pestwise/events/TickConferenceAgenda-2011-03-25.pdf.  The conference is scheduled from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time each day. Pet Product Cancellation Notices [Link here]: Often the EPA will request a voluntary cancellation of a product. If the manufacturer (or registrant) does not take action, they still have a fairly long time frame to phase out their product. They usually have a generous time period where they can still manufacture the product, another to continue to distribute existing stores and yet another time period in which they are allowed to sell through the product still on the store shelves. EPA Registration Number: 002596-00119 Name: Hartz Rabon Flea and Tick Dip for Dogs and Cats. Active Ingredients: Garadona (cisisomer) EPA Registration Number: 073510-00008 Product: Marketquest One Drop Flea & Tick Control-2. Active Ingredient: Permethrin NOT SPECIFICALLY PET RELATED, BUT OF INTEREST Pesticide Federal Register Items for the Week of March 21-25, 2011 [TinyTimmy.org NOTE: The Federal Register gives industry and the public a chance to comment on different items up for consideration - in this case items from the Office of Pesticide Products at the EPA which regulates most flea and tick treatments for the home, yard and companion animals. It is important to take part in the public process in order to change policy within the EPA and to strengthen the enforcement of policy. Industry certainly makes use of these dockets in the Federal Register and the public comment periods. Most citizens do not know this process exists. Usually in a docket you will find a summary, a lot of documentation and also public comments on a specific subject - in this case pesticides. Most companion animal products flow into your homes and onto your pets from agricultural pesticides, so it is worth while to comment on those as well when you are able.]

• Aspergillus flavus AF36; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance Date of publication:  March 23, 2011 Citation:  Volume 76, Number 56; Pages 16297-16301 http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/2011-6545.htm Purpose:  This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the microbial pesticide, Aspergillus flavus AF36, in or on corn food and feed commodities, when applied/used as an antifungal agent. The Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an amendment to the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Aspergillus flavus AF36. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36 under the FFDCA. Chemical(s):  Aspergillus flavus AF36 Comments:  EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0101.  This regulation is effective March 23, 2011. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 23, 2011, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. Contact:   Shanaz Bacchus, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, telephone number: (703) 308-8097; e-mail address: bacchus.shanaz@epa.gov. TinyTimmy.org Recommends: No pesticide should ever be exempt from "tolerance" studies. These are the studies that determine the toxicity level and degree to humans, animals, wild life and the environment. It's hard to believe with the thousands of pesticides on the market (including insecticides and herbicides) that there is only one alternative to use for any specific crop or pest.

• Dichlormid; Pesticide Tolerances Date of publication:  March 23, 2011 Citation:  Volume 76, Number 56; Pages 16301-16307 http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/2011-6440.htm Purpose:  This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of dichlormid in or on field corn, pop corn, and sweet corn commodities. Dow AgroSciences requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Chemical(s):  Dichlormid Comments:  EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0477.  This regulation is effective March 23, 2011. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 23, 2011, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. Contact:   Pv Shah, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, telephone number: (703) 308-1846; e-mail address: shah.pv@epa.gov. TinyTimmy.org Recommends: Corporations profiting from higher use of their pesticides by changing the tolerance requirements has little to do with public welfare, the environment or protecting your health and everything to do with profits maximized from the sale of their products.

• Flubendiamide; Pesticide Tolerances Date of publication:  March 23, 2011 Citation:  Volume 76, Number 56; Pages 16308-16311 http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/2011-6888.htm Purpose:  This regulation establishes, modifies and/or revokes tolerances for residues of flubendiamide N2-[1, 1-dimethyl-2-(methylsulfonyl) ethyl]-3-iodo-N1-[2-methyl-4-[1, 2, 2, 2-tetrafluoro-1-(trifluoromethyl) ethyl] phenyl]-1, 2-benzenedicarboxamide, in or on multiple food and livestock commodities which are identified, and will be discussed in detail later in this document. Bayer CropScience LP in c/o Nichino America, Inc. (U.S. subsidiary of Nihon Nohyaku Co., Ltd.) requested these tolerances, and revisions to tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
  Chemical(s):  Flubendiamide Comments:  EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0099.  This regulation is effective March 23, 2011. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 23, 2011, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. Contact:   Carmen Rodia, Registration Division (7504P), Office of Pesticide Programs, telephone number: (703) 306-0327; fax number: (703) 308-0029; e-mail address: rodia.carmen@epa.gov. TinyTimmy.org Recommends: Corporations profiting from higher use of their pesticides by changing the tolerance requirements has little to do with public welfare, the environment or protecting your health and everything to do with profits maximized from the sale of their products.

• Summitec Corporation; Transfer of Data Date of publication:  March 23, 2011 Citation:  Volume 76, Number 56; Pages 16409-16410 http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/2011-6658.htm Purpose:  This notice announces that pesticide related information submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including information that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) by the submitter, will be transferred to Summitec Corporation in accordance with 40 CFR 2.307(h) (3) and 2.308(i) (2). Summitec Corporation has been awarded a contract to perform work for OPP, and access to this information will enable Summitec Corporation to fulfill the obligations of the contract. Chemical(s):  N/A Comments:  EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0038.  Summitec Corporation will be given access to this information on or before March 28, 2011. Contact:   Mario Steadman, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, telephone number: (703) 305-8338; e-mail address: steadman.mario@epa.gov. TinyTimmy.org Recommends: Corporations do not need to make public some information - even to the EPA in some cases - things that they can claim as "trade secrets" or Confidential Business Information. This is never a good thing for the general public and hinders the EPA in properly reviewing proposals from the companies in some cases. Trade Secrets could include inert ingredients in pesticides, some toxicology studies or results, some adverse reactions or things as silly as the amount of product that is actually sold (without which it is difficult to tell what the percentage of adverse reactions might be).

The ASPCA should be ashamed of themselves when it comes to the welfare of animals. Although some of their programs do good in the community, these are usually efforts taken on by their local brances, not the main corporate ASPCA. When you donate to the ASPCA from the "hot line" number on their commercials featuring Sarah McLaughlin that show pitiful cases of animal abuse and neglect sure to jerk many tears from your eyes, this money is spent primarily on their corporate offices and very little is seen by ASPCA local branches. All local branches must do their own fundraising for the lions share of their operating budget. Yet, corporate ASPCA pledged a whopping $5.2 million to open NEW spay/neuter clinics across the country, instead of supporting those already under the ASPCA. Yeah, we fell for the sad commercial too. Now we are diverting the monthly "membership" from the ASPCA to MEOW CAT RESCUE, an organization in Washington State that helps cats (and dogs through their dog division) find homes. They often take on animals who have extra issues like FeLV, amputations or CH. They are solely funded by donations and receive no grant money. Here are some disturbing facts about the ASPCA Pet Poison Control Center and their Professional Services department, particularly to their conflict of interest with reporting correctly to the EPA the cases of pet poisoning and adverse reactions to flea and tick products.

1. The ASPCA Toxicology Pet Poison Control Center is one of the largest in the nation. They charge a hefty $65 for their services. Despite other similar agencies, like the Humane Society, stating that over-the-counter flea & tick products are harmful, the ASPCA maintains that although their call volume has increased tremendously, their reports of adverse incidences have not increased. The ASPCA official blame goes, again, to pet owners for misusing the products such as titrating doses from large animals to smaller ones or applying dog products to cats. Manufacturers (known as stakeholders or registrants in EPA lingo) and the PPCC also seem to feel the majority of pet owners cannot follow label directions. According the EPA's recent findings, "user error" accounts only for 12% of incidences of adverse reactions based on 2008 figures. However, the ASPCA's last Press Release on this subject from March 2010 shows support for the mitigation plan of spot-on products designed by the EPA with manufacturers. The plan focuses on re-labeling efforts, again because they hold that owners have mis-applied the product, though the numbers don't add up to the empirical data of the study. Re-labeling efforts have not worked in the past and don't make the product any safer. As a side note, manufacturers sigh a huge sigh of relief. They want the EPA to chase tail for years on re-labeling efforts instead of pulling or restricting the use of these products on market.
2. Dr. Steven Hansen, who was the VP of the ASPCA's Poison Control Center, and promoted to Senior Vice President of Animal Health Services, a division "dedicated to providing pet health and wellness information to pet owners", came to the ASPCA from Wellmark. Wellmark owns many companies that make over-the-counter flea & tick products that have a high incidence of adverse reactions, such as the brand Zodiac. He was was the Director of Veterinary Research and Support for Bensenville, IL-based Wellmark International (Sandoz Agro Animal Health Division). - That should be interpreted as instrumental in getting and keeping bad flea & tick products into the open market.
3. Dr. Steve Hansen also received the Vet of the Year award twice, lastly in 2007, sponsored by none other than Hartz.
4. And why shouldn't Dr. Steve Hansen receive an award sponsored by Hartz when he worked a sweetheart deal with the company. All calls that come into the PPCC regarding Hartz products go directly to Hartz and the $65 dollar fee is waived. Hartz, in return, gets to skew it's reporting information by filtering all complaints first. No other company had such a deal with the ASPCA PPCC at the time.
5. Dr. Steven Hansen was promoted to ASPCA's COO on July 21, 2010. I see many more dubious brokered deals in their future.
6. Dr. Steven Hansen brokered a sponsorship deal with IAMS for the ASPCA. In return, he "reviewed" the care of the animals in one facility in the face of an outcry of foul and inhumane treatment of test animals. IAMS is well known for it's horrific experimentation practices, despite there being other models available to gather information. One example is an experiment to see how much sawdust an animal could take in before dying. You make PET FOOD.
7. He is not the only conflict of interest story at the ASPCA. Dr. Jill A. Richardson also worked for the ASPCA PPCC while working for Hartz Mountain Corporation. Dr. Jill Richardson was the Associate Director, Consumer Relations & Technical Services of Hartz while apparently also working for the Pet Poison Control Center. As such, when a consumer complained about a Hartz product, it was part of her job to sent them a very standard letter letting them know that a Hartz product, for a variety of reasons she could insert into the empty space, could not have been responsible for the adverse reaction.
8. In addition, to make sure Hartz had the monopoly on special treatment from the PPCC, they gave an incentive to NOT include other flea & tick manufacturers in their sweetheart deal. The ASPCA accepted a large volume of in-kind donations and corporate sponsorship from Hartz Mountain. Yet the ASPCA fails to disclose all their corporate sponsors on their website as most charitable organization of any size do. They also fail to disclose that their major food sponsor is IAMS.
9. The ASPCA recently started a new partnership with WalMart to sell ASPCA licensed carriers and pet products in their stores. WalMart is a major player in selling and promoting flea & tick products with the highest incidences of adverse reactions. The flea spray that caused Timmy's neurological harm was "only $2 at WalMart". The flea powder that kill Oliver was also purchased at WalMart. WalMart also sells "packages" for a bulk price of flea & tick products to promote over use of these harmful chemicals. These packages may contain a collar, spray, fogger and lawn treatments all for one price. One of the largest arguments a manufacturer makes is that if other treatments are used, it could be a contributing factor to adverse reactions due what is known as Body of Burden - or the amount of toxins built up in the body from all sources. Many of these products state clearly NOT to use them in conjunction with other treatments. All the "bulk packaged" products are made and marketed by Hartz.
10. According the ASPCA financial statement for 2008 their mission statement is "to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States." They spent over $74 million on their different programs, including the largest amount to communications of $23.1 million. Anti-cruelty programs came in second to last of spending at $8 million. Apparently they launched 5,227 animal cruelty investigations and only made 78 arrests relating to animal cruelty. Meanwhile, in 2007, Edwin J. Sayres, the President of the ASPCA earned $490,315. If you only take the excess of his salary over $400,000 and applied it to spay/neuter programs and rescues at $50 allocated for spay/neuter and vaccines, that would help 1,806 animals. The ASPCA brought in a total  of $105.2 million in income. I am curious as to where the other $31.1 million went to? They claim 2% or $1.7 million goes to administrative expenses and that they had 525 paid employees. Apparently in 2008, they also state they "joint costs" for fundraising of $28 million, with only $25,706 going to administrative costs and they received nearly $1.8 million in in-kind donations, including media resources and another $25,000 in pet food (There's IAMs again!).

Do not be fooled. If you think your donation to the corporate ASPCA seen on TV and in print ads is going to help stop animal cruelty, you are wrong. Only a small portion does. If you think you are helping your local ASPCA with your donation to the larger ASPCA, only a tiny portion goes to help them. Never think that a non-profit status means NO PROFIT. Your donation would be better served with a small local rescue who depend on donations for operating costs, or your local branch of the Humane Society.

While lounging on his Milty Blanket, something amazing happened to Timmy. He went to bed a special kitty and awoke to find himself the first place winner of Week 7 in the Bissell MVP contest! I want to thank everyone who voted all week and promoted Timmy and his Healing Journey. Timmy won the Bissell Most Valuable Pet Contest for Week 7!!! A special thank you goes out to the secret donor of the photoshoot for Timmy to enter the contest! (... You know who you are...) The Bissell contest is one of the largest pet photo contests in the US and Canada, so it is quite an honor, but we remain always aware that Timmy could not have won without the love and support of thousands of friends across the globe. HE did not win the Bissell week - WE won it together. By winning this week, more people will learn about Timmy's Healing Journey and his story. Slowly, one by one, we will help educate pet owners. One by one, we will eventually become a wave and put an end to the abuses of pet pesticide products (now say that 5 times fast!!!) that harm tens of thousands of cats and dogs each year. In April, the top 5 finalists of all 12 weeks of the Bissell MVP contest will go onto the finals. In the finals, Bissell judges choose the top winners. The finalists will get their picture on a Bissell box, a shopping spree, a Bissell vacuum and win money for the non-profit of their choice. THANK YOU!!! YOU ARE AMAZING!

This year EWG is leading one of the most important environmental campaigns in history – the drive to pass the Safe Chemicals Act in Congress. This legislation will revolutionize how we protect children and other vulnerable people from toxic chemicals – a long overdue change.