text:
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
What began in 2008 with a few states enacting laws to address the perceived threats to children from chemicals in toys and kids' products has become a full-fledged "green chemistry" movement in dozens of states. These laws are taking hold, predominately directed at manufacturers and distributors of children's products, except in California where green chemistry regulations are not so limited.
With Congress still unable to come to an agreement on a strategy to update the Toxic Substances Control Act[1] — the 1976 law designed to regulate chemicals in consumer goods nationally — the future will involve more of the same. That is, more states will adopt their own laws to address chemicals in certain products sold in those states. While the idea of preventing harmful chemicals to children or citizens is a laudable goal, it presents a growing burden to companies trying to do business nationwide.
As we are seeing in the states that have recently passed these chemical laws, there are differences in some cases between what is required of a company to comply in one state versus another. And, perhaps more importantly, in this push toward individual state regulation, companies need to be prepared to devote more time and resources to monitoring and understanding them given that many of these laws include the ability for states to impose penalties, including in some cases the ability to bar a company's product from being sold if it is deemed not to comply with the law.
We hear the term green chemistry frequently now. For our purposes here, it refers to the concept of government regulation trying to impose on the marketplace a method to ensure "safer" products are sold to consumers. The thinking behind these laws is that they will encourage companies to eliminate "harmful chemicals" from products in the design phase. These laws ask whether certain chemicals are necessary in the product at all and, if they are, are there "safer alternatives" through the use of different substances that can be used?
These questions are answered by the state first identifying target chemicals from scientific bodies and other supposedly reputable sources, and then requiring in certain cases that companies report if the products they sell in the state contain any of these chemicals. These laws also can require a company to conduct a scientific alternatives assessment demonstrating whether or not any safer alternative chemical can be used to make the product. If one can, and if the cost is not unduly prohibitive, then the laws are designed to encourage a product's redesign by replacing the offending chemical or chemicals and empowering states to impose penalties on a company that refuses, including imposing fines and even barring the product from being sold in the state. Given that we are early in the green chemistry revolution at the state level, we have not yet seen examples of the alternative assessment or penalty phases, but we can expect these uncharted waters will present risk and expense to companies who must sail them as there remain many unknowns.
To date, the most sweeping green chemistry law in the nation is in California. The "Safer Consumer Products Regulations" took effect when they were approved by the state administrative office on Oct. 1, 2013.[2] This finalization was the fruition of a tortuous years-long rulemaking process by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC"). The regulations were developed after the law creating them was enacted in 2008.[3] The regulations call for the DTSC to list annually "priority products." These are a combination of a type of product and then a chemical, or chemicals, from the state's list of chemicals which it can regulate. (Priority product = widget containing Chemical X from the state's list.)
The DTSC has proposed three priority products to be regulated and, after the public comment period, these will likely be finalized for enforcement later this year.[4] Companies making these product-chemical combinations will have to adhere to the regulations, namely reporting to the state that they make the product, listing the chemicals in them and, if they intend to keep selling the products in California, conducting an alternatives assessment analysis showing that the chemical is necessary for the product's manufacture or design and analyzing whether there are any other chemicals that could make the product safer. The regulations allow the DTSC to impose penalties on companies who do not comply with the regulations, including imposing fines and, in the extreme instance, banning the sale of a product in the state. And, something we see in California and in virtually all the legislation that has been proposed in other states considering similar laws, the regulations require the information companies report to be made available to the public through a website. This part of the law has yet to go live in California, so how this reporting and searching of data publicly, and whether the information will be accurately posted by the DTSC, remains to be seen.
What of the rest of the nation?
Since 2008, at least 15 states either have some form of chemical reporting law, limited chemical ban on children's products or pending legislation concerning chemicals in products. Unlike California, these other states' laws are all directed at children's products. Maine and Washington were the first states to enact omnibus regulations targeting children's products and mandated chemical reporting. Since Maine and Washington, the green chemistry push centered on children's products in the states has ramped up considerably. States that have considered similar legislation, or bans on certain chemicals in children's products, in the last couple of years include Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Vermont.
Though not all efforts resulted in laws passed, the fact that legislatures in both "red" and "blue" states are seriously debating and advancing them underscores how chemical regulation of consumer products has now become the province of the states when such a notion would have been unheard of a decade ago. Of the states that are proposing chemical reporting schemes, the proposals share most of the basic framework as the California regulations detailed above, meaning lists of chemicals would be created by state agencies, companies doing business in the state must report if their products contain certain chemicals, the information is in most cases supposed to eventually be publicly available to some extent, the state in certain instances may be able to compel some form of scientific alternative assessment by the companies selling products with targeted chemicals in them and to impose penalties for noncompliance.
How did we get to this point where states are, or at least are considering, calling the shots when it comes to chemical regulation? Isn't this a step backward from a uniform, easy-to-understand set of rules that the federal government ought to be tasked with? How did we get to a point where, to be vigilant and protect itself and its brand, a company need now devote resources to monitoring dozens of states' individual regulations, or debates on proposed regulations, to know which chemicals are on what states' individual chemical lists? How did we get to the point where companies now, ultimately, need to seek counsel on how to both comply with various state laws and report and protect sensitive — potentially trade secret — information required by the laws while avoiding penalties?
The answer is Congress. Congress has not updated the TCSA, even though the average consumer in America has changed a great deal in the last 30 years. More Americans want more information about what they buy, eat and drink. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act's targeting of heavy metals in children's products was a significant step in terms of federal regulation. And though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has made some attempts to address broader chemical regulation, the significant updates needed to the law have yet to occur. Reforms and amendments have been repeatedly proposed to the TCSA in recent years, only to go nowhere in the House of Representatives.
The most recent push involves draft legislation in the form of the Chemicals in Commerce Act ("CICA"), which was authored by Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., and recently circulated for debate. The draft proposal would give the EPA the ability to designate chemicals either low or high priority. If a chemical were designated high priority then the EPA would have the ability to require the manufacturer to test the chemical for risks and these chemicals could be subject to restrictions on use and warning label requirements. Most importantly, the draft calls for preemption of state regulation of a chemical if the EPA found it would not pose a "significant risk." That determination would apply in all states preempting more stringent state regulations of the chemical in question. Query whether the genie is out of the bottle now with the growing regulatory framework at the state level. And, even if Congress passed this legislation and some type of meaningful TCSA reform were enacted at the federal level, would the states that have started blazing this regulatory trail willingly give up their authority?
Such a question probably need not be answered yet. A betting man would say we shouldn't expect action from Congress on changes to the TCSA anytime soon. If that bet wins, we can expect more states enacting more chemical reporting laws. This in turn means we should expect the existing laws will start to take hold and move to the next level, requiring more from companies — more information reported, more analyses on what chemicals are in their products and more assessments of whether there are other chemicals that can make the products "safer."
The three priority products proposed under California's green chemistry regulations will become official later this year and then each year the state will list additional products to regulate. Several states have already banned some chemicals in certain children's products, such as bisphenol A. The states that have already enacted chemical reporting for children's products will continue listing chemicals on their respective lists, increasing the number of chemicals that are subject to state regulation. These laws will eventually bring companies to the point where if they wish to sell the offending products in those states that have erected these laws, they will have to conduct the alternative analyses showing that the products cannot be made safer with any other chemical combinations.
Not only will this process likely involve significant cost, it will require the proper legal counseling to ensure sensitive information is reported to the states in ways so as not to hurt a company's brand, but which will provide the proper context. In other words, just because "Chemical X" is in a widget does not mean that the widget is "dangerous" to a child or her parents. There needs to be a proper understanding of how much of a chemical it takes and over what period of time and in what uses, would a chemical pose a possible danger. Will these state regulatory schemes allow for this context? Will companies be able to present the truth and the sometimes complicated details? Will the public and consumer groups with agendas care about the details when they can use the information to prove that "Chemical X" is in a widget used by children? This all remains to be seen.
The best defense for companies is monitoring for now and preparing for compliance (i.e., knowing what has to be reported by ascertaining whether products contain any of the chemicals on lists) with the various states. Companies must also continue learning their supply chains — they need to know what is in the products supplied and ensure suppliers are agreeing to comply with all applicable state and federal laws. Companies should consider conducting spot testing from vendors. The risks for violations of state chemical laws, including established laws like California's Proposition 65, are too great.
Considering whether the increased focus on chemical compliance calls for counseling in how best to understand and comply with these laws is also prudent, particularly with the unknowns of these laws requiring information from companies' disclosures being made public. To protect branding and products, a company is better off understanding and being prepared ahead of time before finding itself on the receiving end of a state agency claiming noncompliance, threatening a penalty or banning a product's sale.
(This article originally appeared in Law360 on June 16, 2014.)
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Sedgwick LLP
Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*
JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.
JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.
The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.
JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.
If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.
Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.
JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.
If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at firstname.lastname@example.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.
Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.
In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.
This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.
We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.
If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: email@example.com.
Already signed up? Log in here
Back to Top
Explore 2016 Readers' Choice Awards
Copyright ©


text:
Battle lines drawn in country park fight
The battle lines have been drawn between those who support controls on the use of two country park enclaves in Sai Kung and those who oppose controls, but the sizes of the rival forces look a bit out of balance.
With the three-month public consultation on the proposal for interim land use zonings on the sites at To Kwa Peng and Pak Tam Au ending today, only five supporting submissions, all from green groups, had been received by last night.
By contrast, 201 objections had been filed with the Town Planning Board, most believed to be from indigenous villagers in Sai Kung or Tai Po, alarmed by plans to curb village house developments on the sites.
Acknowledging the sites as important ecologically and facing small house developments, the plans make suggestions on how the sites should be zoned, including turning parts of them into conservation areas.
Most of the objecting villagers say the zonings will infringe their private property rights and hurt the interests of indigenous inhabitants.
Poon Kei-yuen, describing himself as a consultant for Pak Tam Au Village, said in a submission that the board should relax approval for small house applications filed before the imposition of the plan.
Poon also proposed expanding the village boundary to accommodate more houses, especially for at least 59 villagers who were returning from overseas. A proposal to build a five-metre-wide road linking to Pak Tam Chung Road, with the possibility of widening it to 12 metres, has also been sent to the board, according to Poon's submission.
Conservancy Association campaign manager Peter Li Siu-man, who recently visited To Kwa Peng, said the site remained largely unchanged after the previous land excavation and removal of vegetation, although there had been some movement of soil that lowered the level of the site.
'The zoning process has just begun and it is too early to say who will win eventually,' he said.
The board will take up to three years to finalise the detailed zoning plans for the two sites.
Most Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5

subset: commoncrawl


text:
D-Tox; is a combination of specific vitamin, mineral and botanical ingredients proven to have cleansing and antioxidant effects. There are many factors of everyday life that can have an impact on our bodies. Stress, poor diet, alcohol consumption, lack of sleep, medication, even exercise. There are side effects to these factors that can lead to a build up of toxins within our bodies that can eventually affect our health.D-Tox contains ingredients that are clinically proven to help rejuvenate & cleanse the Liver, aid digestive health, improve thyroid function, boost the immune system and provide significant anti-oxidative effects. Give your body a D-Tox. Suggested Use; Take 2 capsules per day with a meal.Nutrition Information; Serving Size - 2 capsules Serving per container - 30 Artichoke 500mg 80% Silymarin Odourless Garlic 500mg Vitamin C 100mg Curcumin 100mg Grape Seed Exract 95% 50mg Alpha Lipoic Acid 50mg Selenium 50mcg.
Cheapest price we found
|Visit Store
Prices are updated periodically, the prices quoted here were correct at the time of last update.
Patient gathers information on a vast range of over-the-counter treatments and beauty products from reputable websites and registered online pharmacies. We perform a price comparison so that you can see who offers the best price.


text:
STARmeterSEE RANK
Up 137,061 this week
Carl Froelich (1875–1953)
German motion picture pioneer, associated with the industry from 1903. Cinematographer from 1906, later also turning to producing and directing. In conjunction with the actress Henny Porten, he set up his own production company, Froelich-Film GmbH, in 1920. Porten often featured in his output. Froelich was at his peak during the 1930's, turning ... See more trivia »
Born:in Berlin, Germany
Died:(age 77) in Berlin, Germany


text:
Stylish and modern design. Model Number: LMB044. Features:. ; Chrome Frame Acrylic Pendant. ; 60W B22 GLS (General Lighting Service). ; 21W Energy Saving. ; Height: 250 mm. ; Width: 210mm. ; Model Number: LMB044
Thank you for visiting Chrome Frame Acrylic Pendant Light on cheapelectricalsonline.co.uk
We bring the products from many websites to one website for you to search, save and compare.


text:
Wordpress cms (readjust/ design chosen template)
- Status Closed
- Budget £1500 - £3000 GBP
- Total Bids 79
Project Description
I need an experienced Wordpress designer to get a chosen Wordpress template to the finished article. The website will be around 20 pages or so, we have an existing logo but this needs to be redesigned to look more modern to keep in touch with the times. Our main competitor is a website named [url removed, login to view], it will give you an idea of where we need our site to be. Obviously this site would need to be unique, and simple layout enabling easy navigation. All content, pictures etc would be provided by us.Get free quotes for a project like this
Skills Required
Looking to make some money?
- Set your budget and the timeframe
- Outline your proposal
- Get paid for your work
Hire Freelancers who also bid on this project
Looking for work?
Work on projects like this and make money from home!Sign Up Now
- Forbes
- The New York Times
- Time
- Wall Street Journal
- Times Online


text:
Sabres, Patrick Kaleta agree on three-year deal
Patrick Kaleta cashed in on his pesky role with the Buffalo Sabres by agreeing to a three-year, $3.825 million contract with the team on Tuesday.
Kaleta is set to make $1.275 million each season. That means the restricted free agent earned a $300,000 raise over what he made last season.
From nearby Angola, N.Y., Kaleta has played four full seasons with the Sabres after being selected by Buffalo in the sixth round of the 2004 draft. He had five goals and 10 points, and a career-high 116 penalty minutes in 63 games last season.
MORE: NHL free agent tracker
Overall, Kaleta has 50 points (26 goals) and 434 penalty minutes in 267 career NHL games.
The Sabres have focused on adding grit this offseason to a high-priced team that underachieved last year by missing the playoffs. Buffalo added forward Steve Ott in a trade that sent center Derek Roy to Dallas in early July.
Buffalo has yet to re-sign playmaking center Tyler Ennis, who is also a restricted free agent.
Red Wings sign pick
The Detroit Red Wings signed Martin Frk to a three-year, entry-level deal.
He was their first pick (second round) in the June draft.
The Czech native played for the Halifax Mooseheads of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League.
Posted | Updated


text:
The best way to buy our wines is through membership in our wine club. Enjoy the high quality and the wide variety we offer at special prices.
SHIPMENTS: Receive 3-4 shipments per year delivered to your home or office (law permitting), billed to your Mastercard or Visa at our club discount of 15% off of regular prices for the 3 bottle club, 20% off of regular prices for the 6 bottle club and 25% off of regular prices for the12 bottle club. The average cost per shipment is 280.00 for our 12 bottle Club which includes 12 bottles per shipment (2 bottles each of 6 wines), $144.00 for our 6 bottle Club which includes 1 bottle each of 6 wines and 100.00 for our 3 bottle Club which includes 1 bottle each of 3 wines, plus shipping and any applicable taxes.
SHIPMENT SCHEDULE: Shipments are planned for February, April, October and December (no 12 bottle Club in Dec.). An email will be sent out notifying you of the shipment 1 week in advance. If you will not be able to receive the shipment on the week planned we will change the ship date to accommodate you.
COST/MEMBERSHIP: There is no fee for joining our Wine Club. Members and recipients of wine shipments must be at least 21 years of age and have a wine shipment-legal receiving address. You can cancel you membership any time after the second shipment. Membership continues until you notify us otherwise.
Club Benefits
Please click HERE to view current shipments/newsletters


text:
Ducks' Pronger takes blame for decisive play
NEW YORK -- Ducks defenseman Chris Pronger blamed himself for the play that resulted in Scott Gomez' decisive power-play goal at 12:39 of the third period in Tuesday night's 4-2 New York Rangers victory at Madison Square Garden.
After New York's Nikolai Zherdev dropped a pass for defenseman Michal Rozsival low on the right-wing boards, Rozsival got the puck back to Zherdev on the opposite side of the ice. Zherdev flicked the puck in front to Markus Naslund, who was able to make a backhand pass that set up a sharp-angle, backhand shot by Gomez that beat Ducks goaltender Jonas Hiller from low on the right side.
"It was just a soft play on my part," Pronger said. "I'm worried about Gomez coming behind me. If I close (on Naslund) earlier, he's not a factor. By just standing there and not closing, it allows them the time. He (Naslund) just kicked it over, it goes just past my leg and just gets past Hillsy and hits the inside of the post.
"If I'm harder on him (Naslund), it's not even an issue. Right now, we're just shooting ourselves in the foot. It's not fun."
Related stories:
- Ducks' special teams falter against Rangers
- Ducks' Miller set for Garden debut
- Timing perfect for Ducks winger Bodie
- With Rangers up next, Ducks seek consistency
- Fathers join Ducks sons in Big Apple
Most Popular
- Protesters gather in Anaheim over LAPD officer firing gun during confrontation with teens
- Lakers' young core comforted by Magic Johnson calling them 'untouchable'
- 500-pound great white shark caught from Huntington Beach shore
- Video surfaces of off-duty LAPD officer firing gun during altercation with juveniles
- CHP motorcycle officer dies after Sacramento pursuit crash
User Agreement
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our Privacy Policy Policy & Terms of Use
Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to republish your name and comment in additional Register publications without any notification or payment.


text:
Icycle 2010: Mens Final
Ice Bike Races at Dufferin Grove Park, Toronto
An exciting moment in the Mens' final. The guy in blue on the right had crashed a few laps back. I thought there was no way he'd catch up again, but he managed to not only catch up to the leaders again, but he passed them and ended up winning the event.
537 views
5 faves
2 comments
Taken on February 13, 2010