The Survive and Thrive Boomer Guide

A Veterans Day 2009 look at what veterans need

America has 23.2 million veterans. About 10.9 million of them are baby boomers.

On this day that we stop to remember the contributions of our service men and women, what’s being said about veterans and their needs on Veterans Day?

President Barack Obama said that there have been times in the past when America didn’t stand by its veterans. Obama pledged that this wouldn’t happen again:

That is my message to all veterans today. That is my message to all who serve in harm's way. To the husbands and wives back home doing the parenting of two. To the parents who watch their sons and daughters go off to war, and the children who wonder when mom and dad is coming home. To all our wounded warriors, and to the families who laid a loved one to rest. America will not let you down. We will take care of our own.

And to those who are serving in far-flung places today, when your tour ends, when you see our flag, when you touch our soil, you will be home in an America that is forever here for you just as you've been there for us. That is my promise – our nation's promise – to you.

Veterans for Common Sense, a veterans’ advocacy organization, said that today’s observance offers the opportunity to raise awareness about the mental health needs of service members, veterans, and families:

Of the two million U.S. service members deployed to the two war zones since 2001, researchers at Stanford University estimated 500,000 or more Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are likely to return home with mental health conditions such as post traumatic stress disorder…

As more and more service members deploy to war and redeploy home, the scope of the health care crisis among our veterans continues to worsen…

Our list of concerns included the need for more military mental health care providers, the need for universal, mandatory medical exams before and after going to war, and the need for a stronger anti-stigma message to encourage our soldiers and veterans to seek care.

An article in the Christian Science Monitor, “Veterans Day Highlights New Efforts to Help Homeless Vets,” said veterans have a high rate of homelessness:

An estimated 131,000 former members of the armed services are homeless – with vets twice as likely as non-vets to be out on the streets. With high unemployment a nationwide problem, vets face higher-than-average jobless rates as well.

New initiatives by President Obama, by Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki and by members of Congress focus on improving living standards for veterans.

On Veterans Day and throughout the year, we need to think through and take action on ways the federal government, local and state governments, veterans groups, community groups, foundations, religious organizations, educational institutions, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and Americans citizens can improve the lives veterans.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist 

Cash for Clunkers program trades old pickups for new ones

It’s extremely disappointing to learn that highly touted Cash for Clunkers program mostly exchanged old Ford or Chevrolet pickups for new ones that receive only slightly better gas mileage.

An analysis by The Associated Press, as reported by Yahoo! News, shows:

The single most common swap – which occurred more than 8,200 times – involved Ford F150 pickup owners who took advantage of a government rebate to trade their old trucks for new Ford F150s. They were 17 times more likely to buy a new F150 than, say, a Toyota Prius. The fuel economy for the new trucks ranged from 15 mpg to 17 mpg based on engine size and other factors, an improvement of just 1 mpg to 3 mpg over the clunkers.

The AP's analysis of sales of $15.2 billion worth of vehicles at nearly 19,000 car dealerships in every state also showed:

Owners of thousands more large, old Chevrolet and Dodge pickups bought new Silverado and Ram trucks, also with only barely improved mileage in the middle teens.

Those deals helped the Ford F150 and Chevy Silverado – along with Ford's Escape midsize SUV – climb into the top 10 most-popular vehicles purchased with the government rebates, reports Yahoo! News’ article “'Clunker’ Data Show Pickup-for-Pickup Trades.” The most common truck-for-truck and truck-for-SUV deals totaled at least $911 million.

It's a violation of the Cash for Clunkers program to give the rebates for new cars and trucks that got the same or worse mileage.

Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating these violations and dealers that submitted invalid trade-ins will have to return the rebate, it’s upsetting that consumers and dealers defrauded taxpayers and the federal government.

Consumers, businesses, and the government need to work together in a spirit of fairness and honesty to come through the Great Recession and restore our economy. Turning in a gas guzzling pickup or SUV for a new gas guzzling pickup or SUV doesn’t cut it in terms of producing a good outcome for all.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Flickr photo by JFeister

MoneyGram to pay $18 millions to settle fraud charges

MoneyGram International Inc., the second-largest money transfer service in the United States, will pay $18 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the company allowed its money transfer system to be used by fraudulent telemarketers to bilk U.S. consumers out of tens of millions of dollars.

MoneyGram also will be required to carry out an anti-fraud and agent-monitoring program.

The commission charged that between 2004 and 2008, MoneyGram agents helped fraudulent telemarketers and other con artists who tricked U.S. consumers into wiring more than $84 million within the U.S. and to Canada. These consumers were falsely told they had won a lottery, were hired for a secret shopper program, or were guaranteed loans.

The $84 million in losses is based on consumer complaints to MoneyGram – actual consumer losses likely are much higher, reports the commission.

The commission charged that MoneyGram knew that its system was being used to defraud people but did very little about it, and that in some cases its agents in Canada actually participated in these schemes.

“Money transfer services have a responsibility to make sure their systems don’t become conduits to rip people off,” said David C. Vladeck, director of the commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in an announcement about the settlement. “In this case, MoneyGram not only ducked this responsibility, but also looked the other way while its agents took part in the scams.”

Advertisement

In many of the scams, the con artists used counterfeit checks to induce consumers to send money back by wire transfer. Most often these scams were lottery or prize schemes in which consumers were told they had won thousands of dollars and just had to pay a fee for “taxes,” “customs,” or “insurance” to a third-party to collect their winnings, reports the commission.

Consumers paid the fee using MoneyGram, but received nothing.

In another scheme, telemarketers told consumers they were guaranteed loans, regardless of their credit score. All they had to do was pay “insurance,” “paperwork,” or “processing” fees to complete the transaction.

Consumers who sent funds using a money transfer service received nothing in return.

In mystery shopping scams, the con artists called U.S. consumers or sent them a piece of direct mail in which they claimed to be hiring consumers to visit stores such as Wal-Mart to evaluate MoneyGram money transfer operations. The con artists sent consumers a cashier’s check, telling them to deposit it in their checking account and then send most of the money back using a money transfer at Wal-Mart.

When the counterfeit checks bounced, consumers realized they had lost the money they transferred. By this time, however, the money transfer agents had already received and paid out the money, often either without checking IDs or by using fake drivers license information.

The agreed-on court order settling the commission’s charges bars MoneyGram from knowingly providing help or support to any sellers or telemarketers that are violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule and requires it to carry out an anti-fraud program.

Under the program, MoneyGram must conduct background checks on prospective agents; educate and train its employees about consumer fraud; institute agent monitoring; and discipline agents who don’t comply with the rules.

The order also requires MoneyGram to provide a clear and conspicuous fraud warning on the front of all its money transfer forms.

The order contains monitoring and discipline provisions that will ensure MoneyGram is properly training, monitoring, and taking actions to address problems related to its agents.

In addition, MoneyGram will pay the commission $18 million, which will be used to provide payments to consumers who lost money.

Consumers interested in finding out about recovering funds should call 202-326-3755.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Recall of the Week: Ford vehicles due to fire danger

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is alerting owners of Ford vehicles about a fire hazard involving an additional 4.5 million vehicles in the latest in a series of related recalls.

Including the latest announcement, there has been a total of eight safety recalls involving approximately 16 million Ford vehicles equipped with a faulty cruise control deactivation switch manufactured by Texas Instruments.

The switch can leak hydraulic fluid, overheat and then burn, potentially causing vehicle fires even with the ignition turned off and the vehicles parked and unattended, reports the administration.

Visit www.SaferCar.gov for more information on the previous recalls.

“These hazardous cruise control switches pose a safety risk even while the cruise control is not in use and vehicles are turned off or unattended,” cautioned U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in an advisory about the recall. “I urge consumers to pay attention to this warning and bring the affected models in to have them repaired as soon as possible.”

Today’s recall involves a total of approximately 4.5 million vehicles, including:

•    1995-2003 model year Ford Windstars
•    2000-2003 model year Ford Excursion diesels
•    1993-1997 and 1999-2003 Ford F-Super Duty diesels
•    1992-2003 Ford Econolines
•    1995-2002 Ford Explorers and Mercury Mountaineers
•    1995-1997 and 2001-2003 Ford Rangers
•    1994 Ford F53 motorhomes

The safety agency warned consumers to be on the look out for certain warnings of possible imminent fires, including cruise control systems that stop working or can’t be activated, brake lights that stop working, brake lights and ABS warning lights illuminating on the dash board, or not being able to get the vehicle out of park.

All owners of recalled Ford vehicles should immediately make appointments with their dealers and not park their vehicles in garages or near homes until repairs are made, the administration recommends.

Advertisement

ConsumerAffairs.com has been following the fire hazard issue with Ford vehicles for years and calls the recall “the latest in a series of too-little, too-late recalls” in the article “Ford Recalls Millions of Vehicles to Fix Fire Danger.”

See the article “Ford F150 Engine Fires,” also by ConsumerAffairs.com, to read accounts from consumers whose vehicles have caught on fire.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

What are the top 10 risky foods regulated by the FDA?

Leafy greens, eggs, and tuna are on the top of a list of the 10 riskiest foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Those and seven other foods account for nearly 40 percent of all foodborne outbreaks linked to FDA-regulated food.

That's no reason to forgo salads, says the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which wrote a report on risky foods, nor pass up tomatoes, sprouts, and berries, even though those foods are also on the list.

But the consumer advocacy group says the presence of so many healthy foods on such a list is why the U.S. Senate should follow the House and pass legislation that reforms outdated food safety laws.

The FDA is responsible for regulating produce, seafood, egg, and dairy products, as well as packaged foods such as cookie dough and peanut butter – nearly 80 percent of the food supply.

More than 1,500 separate outbreaks were associated with the top 10 riskiest FDA-regulated foods, causing nearly 50,000 reported illnesses, reports CSPI. Since most foodborne illnesses are never reported, these outbreaks are only small part of a much larger problem.

Advertisement

CSPI identified 363 outbreaks linked to iceberg lettuce, romaine, spinach, and other leafy greens, contaminated with E. coli, Norovirus, or Salmonella, and causing 13,568 cases of illness. Manure, contaminated irrigation water, or poor handling practices are all possible culprits in those outbreaks, CSPI’s research shows.

The FDA doesn’t currently require farms and processors to have written food safety plans, nor does it provide specific safety standards for growers – even the largest companies – to meet.

Eggs were linked 352 outbreaks and 11,163 illnesses; tuna to 268 outbreaks and 2,341 cases of illness; and oysters to 132 outbreaks causing 3,409 illnesses. Outbreaks involving potatoes don’t often make headlines, but they’re linked to 108 outbreaks and 3,659 cases of illness. Cheese, ice cream, tomatoes, sprouts, and berries round out the top 10 list.

The data come from CSPI's Outbreak Alert! Database, which includes outbreaks from 1990 to 2006, using data collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other sources.

"As consumers, we don't have the power to check on these products," said Kathleen Chrismer, whose 9-year-old daughter Rylee Gustafson was hospitalized for a month after becoming seriously ill from eating spinach salad contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. "Without a better system to protect us, we are totally at the mercy of the next outbreak."

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Tougher action needed to halt criminal activities used by pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs

Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization, is outraged that record criminal fines aren’t stopping drug companies in America from using selling practices that harm consumers.

"The recent $2.3 billion settlement between Pfizer and the U.S. Justice Department for unlawful prescription drug promotion may sound large, but it’s not enough to ensure drug companies will curb their bad behavior," said Sidney Wolfe, M.D., director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, in a statement about the settlement.

Pfizer broke the record set by Eli Lilly & Co. in January for what was then described by the Justice Department as the "largest individual corporate criminal fine" in U.S. history. The fine was more than $500 million in criminal penalties for off-label promotion of Zyprexa, a drug used to treat the symptoms of psychotic conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Pfizer record-breaking criminal fine of $1.2 billion is the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. The rest of the $2.3 billion represents civil penalties.

The settlement focused mainly on Pfizer's promotion of Bextra, an anti-inflammatory drug pulled from the market in 2005 for safety reasons, reports the article "Pfizer Agrees to Record 2.3 Billion Fine" on The Washington Time’s Web site.

Authorities said Bextra had been approved in 2001 for only three ailments – uterus pain and two forms of arthritis. Pfizer had asked for Food and Drug Administration approval to have Bextra prescribed to treat all types of pain, but the FDA refused because of concerns about it causing blood clots in the heart.

But Pfizer marketed the drug as a general pain reliever anyway, though it remains unclear how many patients fell ill as a result, according to the article.

Public Citizen reports that American drug companies have a long history of criminal activities in selling drugs:

The U.S. pharmaceutical industry, long one of the most profitable in the country, with profits last year of close to $50 billion, has engaged in an unprecedented amount of criminal activity in the past decade, all aimed at increasing sales, often by illegally promoting drugs for diseases for which evidence that benefits outweigh harm is lacking – also known as illegal off-label promotion.

When doctors are induced, either by being bribed or misled by drug companies, to prescribe drugs for such purposes, there is a reasonable chance that the drugs will do more harm than good and patients may be seriously injured or killed by such promotion.

In addition to Pfizer and Eli Lilly (Pfizer also pleaded guilty to criminal charges for off-label promotion of Neurontin in 2004), other drug companies found to have engaged in criminal activity in the past 10 years include Abbott, Schering-Plough, Astra-Zeneca, Purdue, and Bayer, Public Citizen reports.

"Unfortunately, the ever-escalating fines are unlikely to stop drug companies from continuing to bribe doctors because they represent just a fraction of drug company profits and no one has gone to jail," Wolfe said.

"Until corporate titans are forced to fork over a much larger proportion of their illegally gotten profits and are put behind bars, nothing will change," he said.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

What does spirituality mean in America?

 

A new survey by Parade magazine reports 69 percent of Americans believe in God, 77 percent pray outside of religious services, and 75 percent believe it’s a parent’s responsibility to give children a religious upbringing.

However, even though 45 percent of respondents called themselves religious, 50 percent said they rarely or never attend worship services.

The Parade survey offers an interesting look at spirituality in America.

In analyzing the data, Christine Wicker, author of the book "The Fall of the Evangelical Nation," said what Americans are doing today is separating spirituality from religion, with many people disavowing organized practice altogether while privately maintaining some form of worship.

The old terms – "atheist" and "agnostic" – are no longer catch-alls for everyone outside traditional belief, Wicker said. For example, 24 percent of respondents put themselves into a whole new category: "spiritual but not religious."

That phrase means different things to different people, she said. Some may be members of traditional religions but want to signal that they aren’t legalistic or rigid. At the other end of the spectrum, "spiritual but not religious" can apply to someone who has combined diverse beliefs and practices into a personal faith that fits no standard definition.

As Americans’ ideas of spirituality have become more expansive, so have their attitudes toward people of different faiths, Wicker said. Only 12 percent of respondents said that their own religion was the only true faith, 12 percent said no religion has validity, and 59 percent said all religions are valid.

Take a look at the survey results. It makes for interesting reading.

For example, only 15 percent of respondents thought religion should be a key factor in political decisions, while 58 percent said religion and politics should not mix at all.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Preventing breast cancer: 20 risk factors

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

The Breast Cancer Fund is an organization that works to identify – and advocate for elimination of – the environmental and other preventable causes of breast cancer. It says:

Research has taught us that many widely understood risk factors play a role, including our genetic makeup and whether or not we've had kids or breast-fed.

But these risk factors don't explain it all. A substantial body of scientific evidence indicates that exposures to common chemicals and radiation, alone and in combination, may contribute to the unacceptably high incidence of breast cancer.

Here are risk factors the Breast Cancer Fund offers in its article “How to Prevent Breast Cancer: 20 Risk Factors”:

1. Cook with stainless steel. Aluminum may be a risk factor for breast cancer. To be cautious, avoid aluminum pots and pans and aluminum-based deodorants.

2. Use natural sunscreens. Many sunscreens contain chemicals that may be breast cancer risk factors.

3. Check your old foam furniture. Old foam mattresses and furniture can contain PBDEs, flame retardants that may be a breast cancer risk factor.

4. Minimize car exhaust. PAHs in vehicle exhaust are a breast cancer risk factor, particularly at certain vulnerable moments in life. Minimize your exposure.

5. Eat soy, but not too much. Natural plant-based estrogens in soy may provide healthy benefits in low doses, but may be a risk factor for breast cancer in higher doses.

6. Avoid CT scans and x-rays. Some common medical procedures may come with a high dose of radiation, a known breast cancer risk factor. There are alternatives.

7. Check older toys. Exposure to phthalates in plastics, present in many older – and not so old – toys and children's products, could be a breast cancer risk factor.

8. Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy. If you use HRT, use estrogen-only formulations to avoid a well-documented breast cancer risk factor.

9. Recycle batteries. Some batteries and other consumer products contain cadmium, which has been linked to early-onset puberty, a risk factor for breast cancer.

10. Eat clean fish. Some fish can be contaminated with PCBs and dioxins, both breast cancer risk factors. Learn how to choose safe, nontoxic fish.

11. Be wary of dry cleaning chemicals. PERC, a chemical used by many dry cleaners, and in some carpet cleaners and spot removers, may be a breast cancer risk factor.

12. Use natural cosmetics. Some beauty products contain toxic and endocrine disrupting chemicals that may be breast cancer risk factors.

13. Avoid bleach and chlorine. Bleached products, including some tampons and household disinfectant bleaches, may be harmful.

14. Use natural pesticides. Some chemical pesticides contain endocrine disrupting chemicals that can harm human health, as well as kill insects and rodents.

15. Avoid weed killers. Herbicides do more than kill weeds. Some may mimic hormones, a breast cancer risk factor.

16. Use nontoxic cleaning supplies. Warning labels on cleaning products are there for a reason: Some contain breast cancer risk factors. Use alternative green cleansers or do-it-yourself cleansers instead.

17. Avoid canned food. The lining in canned food can leach chemicals. Choosing farmers' market-fresh vegetables is a better choice.

18. Choose truly “microwave safe” containers. Even so-called "microwave safe" plastic can leach chemicals into your food. Choose glass or ceramic bowls instead.

19. Drink safe water. Bottled water may contain Bisphenol A or other contaminants, while filtered public tap water is closely monitored for safety.

20. Choose BPA-free baby and water bottles. Bisphenol A has been linked to a variety of health problems, and may be a risk factor for breast cancer. Start early – for your daughter’s sake.

See the article for details on each risk factor.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Do chemicals and radiation cause breast cancer?

 

Growing up on apple farms after World War II where pesticides were sprayed liberally on everything, I began to wonder at an early age about the dangers of the wide use of chemicals.

As a consumer journalist, I’ve interviewed Devra Lee Davis, Ph.D.,M.P.H., director of the Center for Environmental Oncology and professor at the University of Pittsburgh, several times about the link between chemicals and breast cancer.

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

When I was doing research for yesterday’s post on the Obama administration’s plans to revamp the nation’s chemical management program, I found information on the Breast Cancer Fund. It works to identify – and advocate for elimination of – the environmental and other preventable causes of breast cancer.

The group’s latest report on breast cancer and chemicals, the 2008 edition of the "State of Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment," is must reading for every woman.

The report states that a woman’s lifetime risk of getting breast cancer in the United States has increased rapidly since the 1900s. More specifically:

Between 1973 and 1998, breast cancer incidence rates in the United States increased by more than 40 percent. Today, a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer is one in eight.

Information is offered in the report on the latest research on the breast cancer-chemicals link:

A recent survey conducted at the Massachusetts-based Silent Spring Institute indicated that 216 chemicals and radiation sources have been recognized by national and international regulatory agencies as being implicated in breast cancer causation.

Many other chemicals, especially those classified as endocrine-disrupting compounds or EDCs, are not listed by the regulatory agencies, the researchers said; yet the scientific evidence linking EDCs to breast cancer risk is substantial and growing.

An important body of scientific evidence demonstrates that exposure to common chemicals and radiation may contribute to the staggering incidence of breast cancer. In our daily lives, we are rarely exposed to these substances in isolation; the pervasiveness of many of these substances means we likely have multiple, low-level exposures over the course of weeks, months, even years.

The 2008 "State of Evidence" describes how different kinds of exposures may increase cancer risk:

There are several examples in recent scientific literature demonstrating that mixtures of environmental chemicals, chemicals and radiation, or complex combinations of chemicals and particular genetic or hormonal profiles may alter biological processes and possibly lead to increases in breast cancer risk.

These new data show that we need to begin to think of breast cancer causation as a complex web of often interconnected factors, each exerting direct and interactive effects on cellular processes in mammary tissue.

The report calls for action:

Together, we must move forward to identify and eliminate the environmental causes of breast cancer. The Moving Forward section [of the report] provides a call to action for advocates and policy makers. It offers a menu of different ways, from crafting state and federal policy to research initiatives, that supporters can be active in breast cancer prevention.

The evidence is clear and growing. There are actions we can take today to reduce the public’s exposures to toxic chemicals and radiation.

Be sure to take a look at this important report.

Tomorrow’s post will be on 20 ways women can prevent breast cancer.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Federal agency’s effort to revamp the nation’s chemical management program laudable, but doesn’t go far enough

 

With cancer rates skyrocketing and continual questions about how chemicals affect the health of consumers, the Obama Administration has announced its goals for reforming of this country’s chemical management law, the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act or TSCA.

In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency also made known its plans for a major effort to strengthen the agency’s current chemical management program and increase the pace of the agency’s efforts to address chemicals that pose a risk to the public.

  
 
U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a recent talk at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:

As more and more chemicals are found in our bodies and the environment, the public is understandably anxious and confused. Many are turning to government for assurance that chemicals have been assessed using the best available science, and that unacceptable risks haven’t been ignored.

Our oversight of the 21st century chemical industry is based on the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act....over the years, not only has TSCA fallen behind the industry it’s supposed to regulate – it’s been proven an inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects.

Today I’m announcing clear administration principles to guide Congress in writing a new chemical risk management law that will fix the weaknesses in TSCA.

Legislation strengthening TSCA is expected to be introduced shortly. The Obama administration’s goals for the revision are:

• Chemicals should be reviewed against risk-based safety standards based on sound science and protective of human health and the environment.

• Manufacturers should provide EPA with the necessary information to conclude that new and existing chemicals are safe and don’t endanger public health or the environment.

• EPA should have clear authority to take risk management actions when chemicals don’t meet the safety standard, with flexibility to take into account sensitive subpopulations, costs, social benefits, equity, and other relevant considerations.

• Manufacturers and EPA should assess and act on priority chemicals, both existing and new, in a timely manner.

• Green chemistry should be encouraged and provisions assuring transparency and public access to Information should be strengthened.

• EPA should be given a sustained source of funding for implementation.

EPA will strengthen the performance of its current chemical management program while Congress considers new legislation.

However, representatives of the Environmental Working Group, Earthjustice, and the Breast Cancer Action Fund question how the new regulatory program might work, reports the article "EPA Announced Plan to Review Six Controversial Chemicals" on the Web site Scientific American.

Many experts say the United States has fallen far behind in regulating toxic substances, according to the article. In 2007, the European Union began implementing the world's most restrictive chemicals law. It requires manufacturers to provide basic data on the properties of thousands of chemical substances. The European Chemicals Agency then will review the chemicals, and require substitution of the most dangerous ones.

The EPA will begin its chemical reforms by analyzing and regulating six high-profile chemicals that have raised health concerns: bisphenol A, or BPA, found in hard, clear polycarbonate bottles; phthalates, used in vinyl and cosmetics; brominated flame retardants, added to electronics and other goods; perfluorinated compounds, used in manufacturing nonstick coatings and food packaging; some parafins used in lubricants, and benzidine dyes and pigments.

Many scientists say these chemicals can mimic hormones and obstruct development of fetuses and children, as well as possibly cause reproductive problems, cancer, or other health effects, reports the article.

To strengthen EPA’s chemical management program, chemical action plans will be developed, which will outline the agency’s risk management efforts on the chemicals of greatest concern.

EPA plans to post an initial set of four action plans in December and additional action plans every four month after that.

Efforts also will be accelerated to gather the critical information from industry that the agency needs to make chemical risk determinations. EPA is also reviewing ways to increase consumers’ access to information about chemicals.

Information on EPA’s chemical management program can be found at: www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/index.html.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist