News Recap 6-18-21
CNN: Makeup May Contain Potentially Toxic Chemicals Called PFAS, Study Finds — A new study reports high levels of a marker for toxic PFAS substances in 52% of 231 makeup products purchased in the United States and Canada. The study found that more than three-quarters of waterproof mascara, nearly two-thirds of foundations and liquid lipsticks and more than half of eye and lip products had high fluorine concentrations—which the study cited as a sign of PFAS.
Politico: Progress on Infrastructure, but Roadblocks Remain — The House Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee advanced a trio of drinking water measures on Wednesday to the full committee, including the PFAS Action Act. The bill would require the EPA to issue at least nine different types of rules and policies to curb the use of PFAS, and obtain more information about them to inform future regulatory decisions.
The Cap Times: Environmental Groups Seek to Intervene in WMC’s PFAS Cleanup Lawsuit — Environmental advocates are seeking to intervene in a lawsuit they say would “severely undermine” the state Department of Natural Resources’ ability to regulate PFAS chemicals. At issue is the DNR’s application of the state’s “spills law,” which requires anyone who “possesses or controls a hazardous substance” to take the necessary actions to restore the affected area.
JD Supra: The “Everywhere Chemical”— Might Phthalates Become the Next PFAS? — Mounting public concerns regarding phthalate exposure may result in a rapid expansion of regulatory and litigation risk for impacted businesses. As the science around phthalate-related health risks develops, states may take regulations into their own hands.
JD Supra: Emerging Chemical Issues – Ethylene Oxide (Part 4 of 5): Special Considerations Related to the Sterilization Industry — Potential EtO regulation is made more complex due to FDA’s oversight of commercial sterilization operations. This dynamic of potentially overlapping agency jurisdiction complicates EPA’s regulatory process for sterilization operations, since EPA not only has to account for dangers associated with EtO emissions, but also has to do so in a way that doesn’t infringe on FDA’s regulatory programs that protect the sterility of medical devices.