This document discusses the health impacts of toxic chemicals in consumer products and the environment. It notes that childhood cancers, fertility issues, developmental problems, and learning disabilities are on the rise and linked to chemical exposures. Voters strongly support policies to require safety testing of chemicals and disclosure of toxic chemicals in products. The document advocates updating laws to reduce chemical exposures in order to improve public health and the economy by creating market incentives for safer alternatives.

1. • As many as 90% of childhood
cancers may be explained by
environmental exposures.1
• There was a 60% increase in
testicular cancer between 1973 and
2003,2
and evidence of decreased
sperm counts and increased birth
defects of the male genitals since
the 1990s.3
Increases in phthalate
levels in men have been linked to
fertility problems.4
• Early puberty is becoming more
common in girls — some as young
as seven or eight5
— and endocrine
disrupting chemicals have been
shown to have complex effects on
testosterone production and puberty
in boys.6
• Learning and developmental
disabilities affect approximately
one in six children in the US—
a rate that is increasing every year.7
Growing scientific evidence demonstrates
that chemicals used in everyday consumer
products contribute to these and other
diseases and disorders.8
Voters want solutions!
• Voters want candidates who will protect
children, families and their health
• Voting parents want elected officials
who will step up with solutions
• Voters want candidates who will work
to build their state’s green economy
Will you be that candidate?
Toxic Chemicals,
Health and Economy
2014 Guide for Those
In and Seeking Public Office

2. It’s Time for Our Laws to Catch Up
to Modern Science
By updating and improving our state and federal laws governing toxic chemicals,
we can reduce exposure, improve health and lower health care costs. A healthier
and more prosperous future is within reach with leadership that embraces these
fundamental ideals.
1. Toxic Chemicals Don’t Belong in Consumer Products or People
Hundreds of studies have concluded that every American is contaminated
by several hundred synthetic chemicals—chemicals found in everyday c
onsumer products. Exposure can come in childhood, from bisphenol A in
baby food jars and cadmium in children’s jewelry, but it starts even earlier.
One groundbreaking study showed that infants at birth have over 200 toxic
chemicals in their bodies,9
and the major OB/GYN organizations are urging
doctors to warn patients about the long-lasting effects of this toxic expo-
sure.10
When known toxic chemicals are removed from everyday consumer
products, we reduce exposures
and help break the toxic chain
that can lead to illness, some-
times decades later in life.
2. Comprehensive Reform Is Good for Business
Companies are highly motivated to identify and use safer alternatives
to toxic chemicals. They recognize that safer chemicals protect human
and environmental health, and cut the costs of regulation, hazardous
waste storage and disposal, worker protection, and future liabilities,
while making them more competitive in a global marketplace and
creating new jobs. In the past year, we’ve seen major retailers from
Target11
to Walmart12
introduce chemical policies. And the small
businesses agree— according to recent surveys, 80% support dis-
closure and regulation of toxic materials,13
and nearly three quarters
support proposed reform of outdated federal chemical law, the
Toxic Substances Control Act.14
3. Safer Products Create Economic Opportunity
Companies and governments alike are realizing the
benefits of investing in innovative technology, and requir-
ing safer products. Herman Miller, SC Johnson, Nike and
Hewlett-Packard are among the many companies that
have created opportunities by modernizing chemical
policies and practices. Smart government is realizing it can
jumpstart economic opportunity and innovation through
tax incentives, assistance programs, and partnerships with
education institutions to develop safer chemicals and
products, and use its purchasing power to buy safer prod-
ucts that support the creation of green American jobs.

3. ❝I’m a conservative Republican…safe chemistry
is not a political issue, it’s a people issue. And when
I talk about this stuff with my equally conservative
friends they say, you’re right, we need to do better.
We’ve all been touched by cancer, or infertility issues,
or asthma—all of these issues seem to be on the rise,
and I don’t think it’s because we’re devolving, I
think it’s because something has happened.”
Howard Williams, Construction Specialties23
Voters Want Candidates Who
Respond to their Concerns about
Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
An overwhelming majority of American voters are
concerned that the hazardous chemicals found in every-
day consumer products—such as lead and bisphenol A
—are linked to the rise of illnesses such as cancer and
other chronic diseases.
Voters across demographic groups and party affiliation
do not believe that current regulation of chemicals is strong
enough.15
Most believe that we are already seeing the long-
term impact of chemicals, and want candidates who champion
solutions that protect public health while harnessing American
ingenuity to grow the economy.
This is such a compelling issue for voters, especially women
voters, that a majority are more likely to support a candidate who
favors chemical regulation reform and less likely to support
candidates who oppose reform.
National polling over the years shows strong and consistent
concern over toxics, most recently in an August 2013 poll by
Global Strategy Group that found that 86% of voters support
policy that would ensure new chemicals be deemed safe before
use in consumer products—support that spans across party lines.16
These findings are reinforced in dozens of individual states in-
cluding a November 2013 poll of likely Oregon voters in swing
districts which found 81% support requiring companies that
83%93% 75%
Democrats
(93% support,
75% strongly)
Voter support for determining the safety
of new chemicals before they can be put in
consumer products cuts across party lines.
57%
62%
82%
Independents
(83% support,
62% strongly)
Republicans
(82% support,
57% strongly)
All support new legislation by wide margins and
with high intensity.
85%80% 91%
Support for determining the safety of new
chemicals spans demographic lines.
83%87% 88%
Men
Women
Voters
under
55
Voters
aged
55 or
older
No
College
College
grads
sell children’s products to disclose their use of toxic chemicals and
seek safer alternatives.17
Another example includes an October
2011 poll of New Hampshire voters that found 77% of state
voters support stricter regulation of chemicals produced and used
in the United States, with support across the political spectrum
including Tea Party Republicans.18
State leadership and passage of state policies and laws reflects voter
interest and broad public support. In fact, over the last 10 years,
34 states adopted over 200 policies protecting communities from
toxic threats with broad support across the aisle.18
Voters want
this leadership, with 89% supporting states’ right to enact
tougher chemical policies.18
Voters are united in their support for
legislation that would ensure all new chemicals
are determined likely safe for human use
Oppose
9%
21%
support65%
strongly
support
Other
5%
Source (all charts): Global Strategy Group August 2013

4. 1 Landrigan et al. (2002) Environmental Pollutants and
Disease in American Children: Estimates of Morbidity,
Mortality, and Costs for Lead Poisoning, Asthma, Cancer
and Developmental Disabilities. Environmental Health
Perspectives. Vol 110; part 7:721–728.http://www.sehn.
org/tccpdf/childhood%20illness.pdf
2 Mona Shah, et al., “Trends in Testicular Germ Cell Tumours
by Ethnic Group in the United States,” International Journal
of Andrology, 30 (2007): 206–13.
3 Toparri et al. (1996) Male Reproductive Health and
Environmental Xenoestrogens. Environmental Health
Perspectives Supplements. Vol. 104.No.S4. http://
www.ehponline.org/members/1996/Suppl-4/toppari.html
4 http://www.asrm.org/Effects_of_BPA_and_Phthalates_
on_Conception_and_Pregnancy/
5 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/
early/2010/08/09/peds.2009-3079.abstract
6 http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/content/218/2/R1.full
7 Steven G. Gilbert, “The Scientific Consensus Statement on
Environmental Agents Affiliated with Neurodevelopmental
Disorders,” (Bolinas, CA: Collaborative on Health and the
Environment, 2008), abstracted in Neurotoxicology and
Teratology, 31, no 4, (July–August 2009): 241–2.
8 Collaborative on Health and Environment Consensus
Statement. Accessed March 2008. http://www.
healthandenvironment.org/about/consensus
9 Environmental Working Group (2009) Pollution in People:
Minority Cord Blood Contaminants in Minority Newborns.
http://www.ewg.org/files/2009-Minority-Cord-Blood-
Report.pdf
10 http://www.acog.org/Resources_And_Publications/
Committee_Opinions/Committee_on_Health_Care_for_
Underserved_Women/Exposure_to_Toxic_Environmental_
Agents
11 https://corporate.target.com/_media/TargetCorp/csr/
pdf/Target-Sustainable-Product-Standard-1.pdf
12 http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2013/09/12/
walmart-highlights-progress-on-the-sustainability-index
13 American Sustainable Business Council. The Main Street
Alliance and Small Business Majority. “Opinion Survey:
Small Business Opinions on Access to Credit and
Proposals to Boost the Economy,” January 26, 2012.
14 http://asbcouncil.org/node/846
15 http://www.saferchemicals.org/PDF/Lake_Research_
Findings.pdf
16 Global Strategy Group National Survey, August 22–25, 2013
Printed on recycled 100% post-consumer, Process Chlorine-Free paper with soy-based inks. ● production: Safer States/saferstates.org ● Design: David Gerratt/NonprofitDesign.com
17 Gerstein, Bocian, Agne Srategies, Oregon,
November 11–13
18 http://www.nrdc.org/media/2011/111102.asp
19 http://www.saferchemicals.org/resources/opinion-
2010.html
20 http://www.saferchemicals.org/PDF/resources/schf-
poll-2011-final.pdf
21 internal Safer States analysis, October 2013
22 Lake Snell Perry & Associates. “Public Attitudes Around
TSCA Reform: Finding from Survey Research” October
2009. http://www.saferchemicals.org/PDF/Lake_
Research_Findings.pdf
23 Amy Westervelt, “Better Profits Through Green Chemistry,”
Forbes.com, December 28, 2011.
24 SAFER States http://www.saferstates.com/states_in_
the_lead
25 Safer States & Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
“Healthy States: Protecting Families from Toxic Chemicals
While Congress Lags Behind” November 2010.
26 http://watoxics.org/research/whats-on-your-list-toxic-
chemicals-in-your-shopping-cart
It’s widely recognized that the federal system for regulating chemicals
is outdated. As momentum for change builds, states and municipalities
across the country have become the laboratories for innovative laws and
policies.24
These policies have passed with overwhelming bipartisan
margins.25
An example of the broad impact of these policies is the 2008 Washington
State Children’s Safe Products Act, which set up requirements for makers of
children’s products to report to the state if they used any of 66 hazardous
chemicals defined by the law. So far, companies like Target, Safeway, Nike
and Toys”R”Us have submitted 4,605 reports, revealing toxic chemicals
such as formaldehyde and BPA in a range of children’s products such as
clothing, toys and tableware.26
• Governors and legislators in California, Maine, Minnesota and
Washington enacted laws to reform chemicals policy, establishing priority
chemicals of high concern and in some cases requiring manufacturers to
disclose the toxic chemicals they add to products, authorizing the state
to require safer alternatives where feasible.
• Thirteen states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Vermont,
Washington, Wisconsin) and several municipalities have passed policies
that ban bisphenol A (BPA) from baby bottles and sippy cups, and in
some cases from infant formula, baby food cans and jars, thermal
receipt paper and sports bottles.
• Oregon, Vermont, Maine, Maryland, New York and Washington are
phasing out the use of certain highly toxic flame retardant chemicals.
• Several states—including Minnesota, Michigan, California, Oregon
and Maine—are investing in green chemistry research and economic
development as an emerging job-creation engine for the 21st century.
Voters across the spectrum respond to positive
messages about protecting our health and promoting
a clean, vibrant economy. We encourage you to publicly
communicate your support for these common sense
principles:
• Toxic and untested chemicals do not belong
in everyday consumer products. Highly persistent
and well-studied toxic chemicals should be phased
out of commerce for non-essential purposes.
• Consumers and downstream businesses have
a right to know the exact chemicals in the products
they buy for their families and place on their store
shelves.
• Chemical manufacturers should be held
responsible for the safety of their products and
should be required to provide full information on
health hazards associated with their chemicals.
• Green chemistry research should be expanded
and safer chemicals favored over those with known
or suspected health hazards.
• All people—especially pregnant women, children,
and workers—should be better protected from
toxic chemical exposure.
• The ability of the states to enact stringent
chemical policies must be maintained and state/
federal cooperation on chemical safety encouraged.
Tap Into Public Support
for Safer ChemicalsGovernment Leadership
E ndnotes
(Endnotes)
15 http://www.saferchemicals.org/PDF/Lake_Research_Findings.pdf
16 Global Strategy Group National Survey, August 22–25, 2013
17 Gerstein, Bocian, Agne Srategies, Oregon, November 11–13
18 http://www.nrdc.org/media/2011/111102.asp
19 Internal Safer States analysis, October 2013
20 Lake Snell Perry & Associates. “Public Attitudes Around TSCA
Reform: Finding from Survey Research” October 2009. http://
www.saferchemicals.org/PDF/Lake_Research_Findings.pdf