Complete list of press releases

(CHICAGO – March 22, 2017) The Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) today approved a process called “NextGrid” to begin building a smarter, more dynamic electric system that allows for greater customer choice and control. More advanced technologies such as rooftop solar, electric vehicles, and energy storage will be deployed at scale due to Illinois’ Future Energy Jobs Act, which doubles the state’s energy efficiency portfolio and kick-starts renewable energy development. Environmental Defense Fund and the Citizens Utilities Board (CUB) also have been pushing for a new regulatory framework aimed at empowering customers and communities, driving economic development, and creating an innovative, 21^st-century utility business model.

“After the historic passage of the Future Energy Jobs Act last year, Illinois is once again making clean energy headlines. The ‘NextGrid’ process will reimagine how electric utilities can best serve Illinoisans, ensuring customers can play a more active role in how their electricity is made, moved, and used. Environmental Defense Fund is ready to roll up its sleeves and help build a healthier energy system.”

• Dick Munson, Director, Midwest Clean Energy

“CUB thanks the ICC for launching NextGrid, and we look forward to participating in this effort during a time of dramatic change in the energy industry. As Illinois revamps its power grid and prepares to implement the Future Energy Jobs Act, one of the key challenges is: How do we maximize consumer value? The NextGrid is a vital step toward that goal. This is a great opportunity to create the regulatory framework necessary to allow Illinois consumers to take full advantage of an electricity system that is more reliable and more affordable.”

• David Kolata, Executive Director, Citizens Utility Board  

(Baton Rouge – March 22, 2017) Louisiana could lose as much as $3.6 billion in homes, businesses and other infrastructure over the next 50 years if the state takes no action to curb its coastal land loss crisis, according to a new study released today by the Louisiana State University (LSU) Economics & Policy Research Group. The study, “Regional Impacts of Coastal Land Loss and Louisiana’s Opportunity for Growth,” comes out as the state is reviewing the Draft 2017 Coastal Master Plan. The study was commissioned by Environmental Defense Fund and builds upon a previous 2015 study by LSU and the RAND Corporation.

In addition to damage to buildings and infrastructure, the study also identifies $7.6 billion in lost wages, consumer spending and supply chain disruptions that could “spread throughout the nation due to the state’s importance in shipping, energy production, chemicals and other sectors” if no action is taken to restore the coast.

Continued loss of coastal wetlands could also mean far greater economic damages to the state further inland when major storms strike the coast. In addition to the direct impact of land loss, the report identifies damages in lost businesses, residential and infrastructure assets that could increase by as much as $138 billion from one single major storm, with a possible additional $53 billion in disrupted economic activity.

“While the imminent risk of land loss is well known across coastal Louisiana, this report shows how the economic consequences would reach far beyond those areas directly impacted,” said Stephen Barnes, primary author of the study and director of the Economics & Policy Research Group at LSU.

The study goes further and outlines potential regional economic losses for the five most vulnerable areas of south Louisiana. If the state takes no action to restore the coast, these regions could face the following economic damages as a direct consequence of land loss alone:

New Orleans: $1.7 billion in infrastructure replacement costs; $1.7 billion in business disruptions

Baton Rouge: $60 million in infrastructure replacement costs; $600 million in business disruptions

Houma: $1.4 billion in infrastructure replacement costs; $1.4 billion in business disruptions

Lafayette: $140 million in infrastructure replacement costs; $390 million in business disruptions

Lake Charles: $420 million in infrastructure replacement costs’ $490 million in business disruptions

These regional costs would increase if a major storm were to hit the coast. For example, if nothing is done to stop Louisiana’s land loss crisis, an eastern-tracking storm with a path similar to Hurricane Katrina would cause $130 billion in replacement costs and $26 billion in business disruptions in New Orleans alone.

The report buttresses growing concern among coastal regions about whether businesses will survive without urgent coastal restoration. “Restoring and protecting our coast is vital to the protection of the industries that support our economy,” said Mike Dever, President of the Chenier Plain Coastal Restoration and Protection Authority. “We depend on oil and gas, LNG, petrochemicals, fisheries, and ports, which by necessity are located on the coast. If the coast washes away, the facilities and communities that support that economy will be washed away. You cannot have one without the other.”

But the study also found cause for optimism. Investing in coastal protection and restoration will not only buffer existing coastal communities and infrastructure, but it will also support up to 10,500 total jobs every year and generate as much as $1.5 billion in additional annual economic output. Investments in coastal restoration could provide sustained jobs for construction workers, plumbers, pipefitters, engineers, architects, computer programmers and others, according to the study.

“LSU’s ground-breaking research shows the importance of making sure that every dollar designated for coastal restoration goes to coastal restoration,” said Steve Cochran, Associate Vice President for Coastal Protection at Environmental Defense Fund. “If we take action to restore our coast, we can not only avert catastrophic losses, we can actually improve the state’s economy and grow jobs. Louisiana could become the model for coastal communities across the globe that are struggling with land loss, rising seas and increased storms.”

“There is no question that the state has to continue to be aggressive in its fight against land loss and storm vulnerability, but this report also helps clarify the tremendous economic benefits that come from that investment,” said Johnny Bradberry, Executive Assistant to the Governor for Coastal Activities. “Sustaining over 10,000 jobs per year and creating added value for the state are just more reasons CPRA’s commitment to the coast is so important to Louisiana.” 

###

What Regional Business Leaders Are Saying about the Report

“Most people don’t associate coastal land loss with the Baton Rouge Region, but this report shows that the economic disruptions could be severe. Over the past few years, Baton Rouge has established itself as a globally-recognized destination for companies and countries seeking to solve complex coastal, deltaic and other water challenges, thanks to our being home to Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, Louisiana State University, The Water Institute of the Gulf and The Water Campus.” - Kyle Zeringue, Senior Vice President, Baton Rouge Area Chamber

“Cameron Parish is on the front line of coastal land loss in Louisiana; however, those communities who sit farther inland are not immune to the effects of our eroding coastline. Our state cannot afford to lose any more of our precious coast. Residents, businesses and major industries must educate themselves and commit to taking bold steps together to protect, preserve, restore and save our coast.” - Clair Hebert Marceaux, Port Director, Cameron Parish Port, Harbor & Terminal District

“At Port Fourchon, we understand the importance of having natural protective buffers for our communities and critical infrastructure. This report helps to quantify what we’ve been saying all along about the importance of coastal restoration as a vital component of economic and community resiliency as evidenced by the fact that the Houma region has the second-highest potential economic losses due to storms, despite being the smallest market studied.” - Chett Chiasson, Executive Director, Greater Lafourche Port Commission

“While the economic risks our coastal land loss pose to the Greater New Orleans region are undoubtedly the existential threat of our generation, the jobs created through restoring our coast provide significant economic returns for our parishes and communities. However, these jobs represent more than just paychecks: they illustrate an unprecedented opportunity for the workforce, businesses, and universities of Southeast Louisiana to emerge as a hub of water management expertise, and export our lessons learned nationally and internationally.” - Michael Hecht, President and CEO, Greater New Orleans, Inc.

“This is valuable research that helps us all better appreciate the importance of Louisiana’s land loss challenges as well as the opportunity to work together to solve them.” - Jason El Koubi, President and CEO, One Acadiana

“Without coastal restoration, Houma and New Orleans are the two regions that would be hardest hit in terms of both infrastructure damage and economic disruption. People and industries of south Louisiana support the state’s Coastal Master Plan because it’s our best hope for maintaining and growing our economy in the future.” - Vic Lafont, President and CEO, South Louisiana Economic Council

“The people of Southwest Louisiana and its economy are dependent on the coast and its resources. Whether industry with our ports, fishing economy, tourism and recreational fishing, the region is tied to the coast. With land loss and erosion our economy and lifestyle are threatened. It is vital that coastal restoration and protection be a top priority; otherwise, all that we have will be taken away acre by acre.” - George Swift, President and CEO, Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance

“President Trump’s budget proposal is reckless. Its funding cuts would put the health and safety of all Americans at risk, and hobble our efforts to build a vibrant clean energy economy and take action against the threat of climate change. We will do everything we can to protect the valuable programs that keep us safe. 

“The unconscionable 31 percent funding cut for the Environmental Protection Agency would erode the federal government’s ability to protect our communities from pollution. It would take America’s environmental cop off the beat by weakening EPA’s enforcement, thus freeing polluting companies to do whatever they want — no matter the impact on our health.

“All Americans expect and deserve clean air and water. EPA’s job is by no means done. Even today, up to ten million homes across America still get their drinking water through lead pipes – in Flint, Michigan and across the nation. Half of all Americans live in counties with unhealthy air quality. We need to be moving forward, not backward – especially when it comes to protecting children, the elderly, and others who are vulnerable to lung and heart disease.

“President Trump’s budget proposal eliminates all funding for the Clean Power Plan – the centerpiece of our fight against climate change – and returns us to the days of unlimited climate pollution. It eliminates funding for international climate change programs and climate change research. It also eliminates funding to clean up the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, and for more than 50 other EPA programs that help make sure our families have clean air and safe water.

“The budget proposal nearly halves funding for EPA’s Office of Research and Development, gutting the scientific underpinning of much of EPA’s work, including the toxics program. That cut would do serious damage to EPA’s ability to implement the bipartisan reforms of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which Congress passed just last year.

“President Trump’s budget would slash funding at the Department of Energy, including eliminating the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy program (ARPA-E), which commercializes cutting-edge technological innovations from batteries to clean cars. It would slash funding for other clean energy programs as well. Clean energy technologies like wind, solar and energy efficiency have been one of the few bright spots of steady job growth for the energy industry.

“Internationally, cutting funding from the State Department’s critical climate programs hurts America diplomatically, and would open a leadership void for China and Europe to step into. The rest of the world understands that climate change isn’t a hoax. The U.S. risks falling farther behind in the clean energy race.

“The budget proposal slashes climate change research and adaptation programs at NASA and NOAA, undermining our ability to get reliable scientific information and help coastal communities adapt to changing conditions. Cuts to the Department of the Interior will eliminate our National Heritage Areas and the National Wildlife Refuge Fund.

“This is an all-out assault on the health of our planet and the health and safety of the American people. President Trump’s budget proposal is an overzealous attempt to undermine America’s most basic environmental protections, with no concern about the serious harm it will cause to our families and communities.

“Cleaning up our air and protecting our waters are core American values. The ‘skinny budget’ threatens those values – and puts us all at risk.”

            - Fred Krupp, president, Environmental Defense Fund   

“According to news reports, President Trump will release a budget blueprint tomorrow morning that will slash funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by a shocking 31 percent. If these reports are true, the Trump Administration is putting the health and safety of all Americans at risk.

“These cuts will hobble EPA’s ability to protect the air we breathe, to help states with clean drinking water funds, to enable communities to clean up and economically re-develop toxic sites, and to enforce the law against criminal polluters. The real-world result will be more asthma attacks and developmental problems for our children from smog and toxic mercury pollution, more premature deaths, and a much more dangerous future from unlimited climate pollution.

“The most shocking part is that it’s not really about saving money. Out of every ten dollars the government spends, EPA only gets two cents. The agency’s budget is tiny by comparison to other government spending and has already been cut substantially in recent years. This is an overzealous attempt to undermine America’s most basic environmental protections, with no concern about the serious harm it will cause American families.

“Cleaning up our air and protecting our waters are core American values. Demolishing EPA’s funding threatens those values – and puts us all at risk.”

            - Fred Krupp, president, Environmental Defense Fund   

At this morning’s Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Board meeting, Col. Michael Clancy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stated that the new target date for issuing a permit, in consultation with other federal agencies, on the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion is October 2022 – two years behind the schedule proposed by the state of Louisiana.

In response, Restore the Mississippi River Delta – Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation – released the following statement:

“We are very disappointed to hear that the proposed permitting date for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion is now October 2022 – a full two years behind the schedule proposed by the state. This is completely unacceptable.

“Given the severity of our state’s land loss crisis, we must advance large-scale restoration projects like Mid-Barataria as quickly as possible. Sediment diversions are a cornerstone of our state’s Coastal Master Plan and use the natural power of the Mississippi River to build and sustain wetlands to protect people, wildlife and industries.

“The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion was recently included on the federal dashboard for oversight and proposed as a high priority project by Governor Edwards under the Administration’s executive order to expedite environmental review. It is imperative that this project be implemented according to the timeline proposed by the state.

“Every day that we wait is another day we put our coastal communities at risk. We need to do everything in our power to get the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion under construction as soon as possible. We don’t have time to lose.

“We applaud the state for moving with urgency on the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion and urge the federal government to do the same.”

(Washington, D.C. – March 15, 2017) The Trump Administration’s decision to reconsider critical vehicle emission standards for cars will create uncertainty, slow innovation and hurt U.S. economic leadership. Americans want cleaner cars and lower bills at the gas pump — and these forward-looking standards are delivering. The Administration is wrong to doubt the ability of American workers and engineers to produce the most advanced and cleanest cars in the world.

“Americans can out-compete anyone in the world if we set smart goals,” said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund. “The administration is making a mistake to retreat on the standards and let other countries take the lead in developing the next generation of cars. If President Trump continues down this path, it will mean higher gas bills for families, more pollution, more dependence on oil, and less innovation. Our economy needs to go forwards not backwards.” 

The Clean Cars Program will eliminate an estimated six billion metric tons of carbon pollution over the life of the vehicles subject to the standards, which is more than a year’s worth of U.S. carbon emissions. And thanks to these standards, the 86 percent of Americans who finance their vehicle with a five-year loan will immediately realize the cost savings from cleaner, more efficient vehicles — thousands of dollars over the lifetime of a vehicle.

The standards will also enhance our nation’s energy security by reducing oil consumption by two million barrels per day by 2025 – more than we import from any single country other than Canada. As these cleaner vehicles become a greater percentage of the nation’s fleet, oil savings will grow and ultimately reach more than 4 million barrels per day – almost as much as we import from all OPEC countries combined. 

Security experts agree that our nation’s dependence on oil is a threat to security, and that cleaner cars and trucks will help reduce that threat. As Ret. Lt. General Richard Zilmer has said, “Over-reliance on oil ties our nation to far-flung conflicts, sends our troops into harm’s way, and endangers them once they’re in conflict zones. Ensuring that the cars and trucks we drive every day go farther on every gallon of gas makes our nation stronger.”

During the height of the economic recession in 2008, the American auto industry was on the verge of collapse. This prompted the Obama Administration to develop a bailout package for the industry, which provided the boost the industry needed to help rebound. Last year, drivers in the United States bought more cars than ever before – roughly 70 percent more vehicles than during the recession – as fuel economy rose to its highest levels yet.  

In total, the auto industry has added nearly 700,000 direct jobs since the recession – supporting several million indirect jobs throughout the economy. Auto manufacturing jobs account for 40 percent of all net jobs added in U.S. manufacturing since the recession.

In a letter supporting EPA’s proposal to reaffirm the Phase II standards, the UAW noted “UAW members know firsthand that Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards have spurred investments in new products that employ tens of thousands of our members.” 

Going backwards in the race to produce the world’s cleanest, most advanced cars is a mistake.

A new report released by Environmental Defense Fund grades all 50 US states and the District of Columbia on their lead pipe disclosure policies. The report analyzes the disclosure policies based on their ability to help homebuyers make informed decisions about lead service lines (LSLs) before they sign a sales contract. LSLs – the lead pipes connecting water mains under the street to homes and other buildings – are the largest source of lead in drinking water. Disclosure policies vary considerably from state to state. Only 3 states received A- grades, while 12 received failing grades, and 35 states and the District of Columbia fell somewhere in between.

 “Parents go to great lengths when buying a home to ensure that their kids are in the best schools, in a safe neighborhood, and safe from traffic,” said Tom Neltner, EDF Health’s Chemicals Policy Director. “Yet, many have no idea that the home’s drinking water could put their child at risk. Buyers deserve to know if their home has lead service lines before they sign on the dotted line. I hope our report today inspires states that fall short to improve their policies and ensure parents get the information they need.”

An estimated 6 to 10 million homes across the country still get their water from these lead pipes buried in our yards, which can have serious health impacts for children in the home. When done properly, removing the full LSL significantly reduces the risk of exposure.

For this report, EDF analyzed and graded the housing disclosure policies of each state. Connecticut, Delaware and New York scored an A-. Twenty states scored a D or F. The remaining 27 states and the District of Columbia scored a B or C because they help buyers but are silent or ambiguous on lead pipes, or the disclosure of lead pipes is voluntary. Of the states that failed, several enforce “buyer beware” clauses, meaning the responsibility is on the buyer to investigate potential defects on the property.   

Disclosure protects buyers from purchasing a home without being aware of the property’s likely defects or hazards. An informed buyer can value the home and decide how to finance replacement if there is an LSL. The alternative situation is not as desirable; homeowners sometimes first learn their home has an LSL from their utility with their first water bill, long after the sales contract and mortgage are finalized.

“Just last week, I replaced the lead service line at my home,” said Sarah Vogel, Vice President of EDF’s Health Program. “The process was very easy, but would have been made much easier had I known about the lead service line before I moved into the home years ago and started a family.”

The dangers of lead exposure, especially to children, have been well established. Even at low levels, lead can harm brain development in children resulting in learning and behavioral problems and reduced IQ for the rest of their lives.

Many utilities address the problem of LSLs by treating the water to build a protective coating on the inside of the pipe to prevent the leaching of lead, a process known as corrosion control. However, as the Flint water crisis illustrated, corrosion control can fail—either systematically, as in Flint, or when an individual line is disturbed, resulting in the release of unpredictable levels of lead into drinking water. The most effective way to deal with LSLs in the long-term is to locate and fully replace them using methods shown to protect residents. Housing disclosure policies can help create market incentives for removal.

EDF is part of the Lead Service Line Replacement Collaborative – a diverse group of organizations that aims to accelerate full LSL replacement. The Collaborative identified expanding disclosure policies to include LSLs as an opportunity to help consumers make informed decisions.

The report can be found at www.edf.org/state-lead-pipe-report and additional information on lead in drinking water is available at www.edf.org/leadpipes.

In an interview with CNBC today, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt denied that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to climate change:

“Scott Pruitt’s comments are breathtakingly wrong. His opinion that carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to climate change contradicts a mountain of empirical evidence from the best scientists in the world – including those at NASA, NOAA, and EPA itself.

“It’s appalling that Pruitt – a lawyer – is claiming to understand climate science better that the climate scientists. His statement is an early warning system for a raft of anti-environmental actions coming as soon as next week that will put Americans’ health and our children’s future in danger. Pruitt has begun an unprecedented attack on our families’ safety and on science itself.”

            - Fred Krupp, president, Environmental Defense Fund   

(NEW YORK, NY – March 9, 2017) The New York Public Service Commission today announced an interim pricing plan for clean, distributed energy resources, such as rooftop solar and energy storage. The new plan aligns compensation for these clean power sources with the value they provide to the electric system. It will encourage continued growth in the state’s distributed energy market by providing a market-based pricing structure for large solar projects, and preserving net energy metering for rooftop solar and small wind. 

“Everyone is set to benefit from this new plan. By harnessing the full potential of distributed energy resources, it creates more opportunities to improve the efficiency and reliability of New York’s electric system. This will help reduce the need for traditional electricity infrastructure and give customers greater control over their energy bills.”

• Rory Christian, Director, New York Clean Energy, Environmental Defense Fund

This morning, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards sent a letter to the Administration outlining the state’s coastal restoration and protection infrastructure priorities. In his letter, Governor Edwards proposes that the Administration give high priority status to five projects included in the state’s Coastal Master Plan: Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, Mid-Breton Sediment Diversion, Houma Navigation Canal Lock Complex, Calcasieu Salinity Control Measures, and River Reintroduction to Maurepas Swamp. These five projects are also priority projects supported by the Restore the Mississippi River Delta coalition.

“Infrastructure means more than roads and bridges – it’s also the large-scale coastal restoration and protection projects that protect those roads and bridges. These five projects proposed by Governor Edwards are exactly the types of infrastructure investments most appropriate for prioritization under the President’s recent executive order.

“Large-scale coastal restoration will provide long-term protection for Louisiana’s communities, ecosystems and nationally significant industries and economies. Sediment diversion projects harness the natural land-building power of the Mississippi River to build and sustain land, providing storm protection, hunting and fishing habitat, and a myriad of other environmental and economic benefits.

“Investing in Louisiana coastal protection and restoration will help protect the region’s vital industries – including fisheries, oil and gas, transportation and navigation – as well as create jobs and build a sustainable coastal economy. The urgent need to rebuild Louisiana’s coastal infrastructure is one of the most important issues facing our country.”

— Joint statement from Restore the Mississippi River Delta and Coast Builders Coalition

(WASHINGTON – March 2, 2017) EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today told 15,000 oil and gas companies they are free to withhold vital pollution data from thousands of sites across the country. This abrupt halt to vital data collection will leave communities in the dark on methane and other harmful pollutants in their own back yards, and make it harder for state and federal officials to assess progress on basic health and environmental goals.

Reversing the policy now effectively punishes companies that had already met the first deadline for submitting the data, and rewards those operators who hadn’t reported.

Before taking office, Pruitt had been working with a group of state attorneys general to challenge methane standards for new and modified emissions sources, and just yesterday officials largely overlapping that same group asked EPA to rescind the data request. His overnight response to these requests raises the same concerns about  Pruitt’s commitment to EPA’s core function of protecting public health and the environment that were raised during his confirmation hearings.

Statement by Mark Brownstein, EDF Vice President for Climate & Energy:

“The EPA administrator is telling oil and gas companies to withhold vital data about pollution from the public, and depriving local communities across the country of their right to know what’s going on in their own backyards. It’s a slap in the face for operators that followed the rules, and a reward for those that held back. This is precisely the kind of cozy collaboration with the worst actors in the oil and gas industry that dogged Pruitt throughout his controversial confirmation process.” 

(WASHINGTON – March 2, 2017)  Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Director Craig Butler finalized new general permits that will reduce air pollution from natural gas compressor stations. The policies target Volatile Organic Compounds, which can cause negative health impacts, as well as methane – a potent, yet invisible, greenhouse gas responsible for about a quarter of global warming.

The policy requires companies to use existing technologies to check new equipment at compressor stations for leaks on a quarterly basis. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, these types of facilities are responsible for approximately a third of U.S. oil and gas methane emissions. Reducing leaks not only reduces health and environmental impacts, it also reduces the amount of gas that companies waste—returning a valuable energy resource to the consumer. 

“Oil and gas emissions are a serious problem that can cause irreparable damage to our health, our climate, and our energy economy — requiring companies to find and fix leaky equipment is an affordable way to both reduce harmful pollution and grow the economy. Simply put, it’s the right thing to do. 

“This policy is vital as it comes during a period when many of our nation’s environmental protections are under attack. This action demonstrates the strength of Kasich’s leadership on a critical issue, and secures Ohio’s place among the growing list of red and blue states that are implementing common sense polices to ensure Americans maintain access to a healthy economy and a healthy environment.”

According to news reports, the Trump Administration plans to propose big cuts to the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

“Here’s what cutting EPA’s budget means in the real world: more air pollution, more asthma attacks for kids, more health problems. This isn’t about budget savings. It is about giving big polluters a license to pollute without consequences. And it goes against the wishes of the American public – 67 percent of whom think EPA should stay the same or should be strengthened.

“Half of all Americans live in counties with unhealthy air quality – increasing the risk of asthma attacks, heart disease and lung disease. More than 10 million Americans live in homes that get their drinking water through lead pipes – in Flint, Michigan and many other places. Americans will be less safe if Congress goes along with this reckless budget.”  

            - Elizabeth Thompson, EDF Vice President for Climate and Political Affairs

Advocates Petition FDA to Bar Toxic Lead Compound from Hair Dyes
Despite bans in Europe and Canada, neurotoxin remains widely used in American hair dyes 

(February 27, 2017)  A group of public health advocates today announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will consider removing its approval of lead acetate in hair dyes such as Grecian Formula. The group filed a joint petition that requires FDA to revisit a 1980 decision allowing the neurotoxin and carcinogen to remain in hair dye. Lead acetate is the active ingredient that slowly darkens grey hair when used every few days.

“We now know that lead is more dangerous, especially to children, and skin absorption is a more significant route than FDA thought in 1980,” said Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director at Environmental Defense Fund. “We also have evidence that when the dye is applied, lead spreads widely in the immediate environment. This puts more people, including children, at risk of unknowingly ingesting it.”

“Government agencies at all levels are making great strides in reducing exposures to lead from legacy sources like paint, old water pipes and other uses long-since banned,” said Howard Mielke of Tulane University School of Medicine.  “The fact that FDA continues to allow a dangerous toxicant like lead acetate in consumer hair coloring products is shocking. Our petition would force FDA to get the lead out of cosmetics being sold, haphazardly used by consumers, and stored in home medical cabinets. The FDA action will bring its regulation into the 21^st Century.”

“An FDA ban on lead acetate is long overdue,” said Tina Sigurdson, EWG assistant general counsel. “Lead acetate can expose people to lead, which has been linked to serious health problems like developmental, reproductive and organ system toxicity, as well as cancer. It’s unconscionable that this potent neurotoxin is still used in a handful of men’s hair dye formulas. Lead acetate already has been banned in Canada and the European Union. It’s time for the U.S. to take action.”

“Lead poisoning is not a problem of the past, and we will continue to damage our future and our children’s future if we do not commit to removing all sources of lead from our products, air and water,” said Eve Gartner, litigator in the Healthy Communities Program at Earthjustice, where she heads efforts to protect human health from toxic chemicals. “It is unacceptable that as we struggle to remove lead contamination in our water supplies and old homes, we still allow lead in home-use hair dyes that many people apply by hand on a daily basis. The FDA must take action now to protect people from this continued source of exposure to lead.”

“Nearly twenty years ago, CEH action created strict rules to protect California consumers from lead acetate in hair dyes. It is long past time for FDA to take action to protect all Americans by banning this unnecessary and toxic ingredient,” said Caroline Cox, Research Director at Center for Environmental Health.

“It’s been almost 40 years since the country banned lead from the paint we use on our walls, but the FDA still allows this powerful poison in the cosmetics that touch people’s heads,” said Erik D. Olson, Director of the Health program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “There should be zero tolerance for use of lead in any product in this day and age.”

In 1980, the FDA approved lead acetate as a repeated use hair dye with minimal restrictions, including a vague warning label and a restriction that it only be used on the scalp and not facial hair.  The levels of lead in the product are allowed to be as high as 6000 ppm. Three years earlier, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the sale of household paint containing more than 600 ppm of lead.

The petitioners cited major advances in science since the 1980 FDA decision allowed lead to remain in hair dye. The petition cites a study showing lead contamination from the hair dyes—especially on surfaces touched after using the hair dye like blow-dryers, combs and faucets.

The study found these surfaces had up to 2,804 micrograms of lead per square foot. In 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that more than 40 micrograms of lead per square foot on the floor posed a hazard to children.

Dr. Maricel Maffini, an expert consultant to EDF, said that “The risk from an innocent mistake is real: one user who didn’t realize it should not be used on the beard lost feeling in his hands and feet after only seven months. He did not return to normal for a year.” 

While use of lead acetate remains common in the United States, it is prohibited in Canada (since 2005) and in the European Union (since 2004).

The petition was filed by Environmental Defense Fund, Earthjustice, Environmental Working Group, Center for Environmental Health, Healthy Homes Collaborative, Health Justice Project of Loyola University, Chicago School of Law, Breast Cancer Fund, Improving Kids’ Environment, Consumers Union, Natural Resources Defense Council, Consumer Federation Of America, Learning Disabilities Association Of America, Maricel Maffini, and Howard Mielke.

Under the law, the agency must make a final decision within 180 days. If the petition is approved, the ban would be effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.