<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Trade Group on EPA Chemical Regs: &#8216;If Everything is a Priority, Then Nothing is a Priority&#8217;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/11/19/trade-group-on-epa-chemical-regs-if-everything-is-a-priority-then-nothing-is-a-priority/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/11/19/trade-group-on-epa-chemical-regs-if-everything-is-a-priority-then-nothing-is-a-priority/</link>
	<description>Environmental Leader</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:25:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charli</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/11/19/trade-group-on-epa-chemical-regs-if-everything-is-a-priority-then-nothing-is-a-priority/comment-page-1/#comment-164736</link>
		<dc:creator>Charli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:03:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=27528#comment-164736</guid>
		<description>Thanks Environmental Leader, for posting something about keeping us safe. I think making industrial chemicals safe is something we can all get behind. 

Many people and scientists agree that current legislation which regulates chemicals must be reformed. However, we should also be sure to reform the science that underlies these regulations—namely, the way in which toxicity testing is conducted.

Currently, toxicity testing is largely based on experiments in animals and uses methods that were developed as long ago as the 1930’s and 40’s; they and are slow, inaccurate, open to uncertainty and manipulation, and do not adequately protect human health.  These tests take anywhere from months to years, and tens of thousands to millions of dollars to perform. More importantly, the current testing paradigm has a poor record in predicting effects in humans and an even poorer record in leading to actual regulation of dangerous chemicals.

Fortunately, many scientists have worked, and are working, on addressing these problems -- and alternatives to animal testing exist in a powerful way. Chemical reform should not only modernize policy, but modernize the science that supports that policy. Let&#039;s ensure Kids-Safe uses all the necessary tools to truly make our children, our environment, and animals safe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Environmental Leader, for posting something about keeping us safe. I think making industrial chemicals safe is something we can all get behind. </p>
<p>Many people and scientists agree that current legislation which regulates chemicals must be reformed. However, we should also be sure to reform the science that underlies these regulations—namely, the way in which toxicity testing is conducted.</p>
<p>Currently, toxicity testing is largely based on experiments in animals and uses methods that were developed as long ago as the 1930’s and 40’s; they and are slow, inaccurate, open to uncertainty and manipulation, and do not adequately protect human health.  These tests take anywhere from months to years, and tens of thousands to millions of dollars to perform. More importantly, the current testing paradigm has a poor record in predicting effects in humans and an even poorer record in leading to actual regulation of dangerous chemicals.</p>
<p>Fortunately, many scientists have worked, and are working, on addressing these problems &#8212; and alternatives to animal testing exist in a powerful way. Chemical reform should not only modernize policy, but modernize the science that supports that policy. Let&#8217;s ensure Kids-Safe uses all the necessary tools to truly make our children, our environment, and animals safe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trade Association</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/11/19/trade-group-on-epa-chemical-regs-if-everything-is-a-priority-then-nothing-is-a-priority/comment-page-1/#comment-163730</link>
		<dc:creator>Trade Association</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:27:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=27528#comment-163730</guid>
		<description>Seriously... that sounds like quite the oxymoron &quot;everything is a priority&quot;. Glad you are pointing this out to people.
-Jack</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seriously&#8230; that sounds like quite the oxymoron &#8220;everything is a priority&#8221;. Glad you are pointing this out to people.<br />
-Jack</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Iain</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/11/19/trade-group-on-epa-chemical-regs-if-everything-is-a-priority-then-nothing-is-a-priority/comment-page-1/#comment-163334</link>
		<dc:creator>Iain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:14:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=27528#comment-163334</guid>
		<description>Attention should be focused on not so much the chemicals independently but when they are mixed...the ammonia/chlorine risk for example.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Attention should be focused on not so much the chemicals independently but when they are mixed&#8230;the ammonia/chlorine risk for example.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

