Our Health, Our Environment Reports

Search • RSS Feed

Executive Summary

As the new home of MASSPIRG's environmental work, Environment Massachusetts can be contacted regarding this report.

Toxic chemical use is putting the health of Massachusetts’ citizens at risk. Everyday activities such as picking up the dry cleaning, handling computer equipment, and spraying a lawn for weeds and pests can expose Bay Staters to chemicals known to be hazardous to human health. There is growing evidence that chemicals such as lead, formaldehyde, dry cleaning fluids, and pesticides contribute to the development of cancers, asthma, brain damage, miscarriages and even death. In many cases, children face the brunt of these toxic hazards. Unfortunately, because these chemicals are ubiquitous in our homes, yards and workplaces, no citizen of Massachusetts is safe from the exposure and the potentially harmful effects of toxic chemicals.

Findings: Safer Alternatives are Readily Available

However, safer alternatives are currently available that can help protect our health. A few examples of alternatives include the following:

• Lead has been known for years to cause serious brain and nervous system damage. Lead used in plastics has been replaced in many instances by mixed metal stabilizers of calcium and zinc (Ca-Zn), and many companies have found alternatives to lead in consumer products, such as jewelry, ceramics, and computers.

• Formaldehyde has been linked to asthma attacks, respiratory inflammation as well as brain and nervous system damage. Formaldehyde used in furniture, insulation and building materials can be in many cases substituted by using formaldehyde-free, natural materials, such as stone and brick or by substituting water, oil or vegetable-based insulation, sealants or paints for their toxic counterparts. A number of companies have developed building and furniture materials that do not contain or emit formaldehyde.

This report presents ten toxic chemicals and highlights some of their known health effects, identifies some of their most common uses, provides examples of safer alternatives for each of them and highlights companies leading the way with alternatives. The ten chemicals of concern in this report are: Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dioxins and furans, formaldehyde, hexavalent chromium, lead, organophosphate pesticides, perchloroethylene, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), trichloroethylene, and 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic (2,4-D). These ten chemicals were chosen because there is credible evidence that they pose a threat to human health or the environment, they are widely used in Massachusetts and safer alternatives already exist for many of their uses.

Recommendations for Policy Makers: Reform Chemicals policy

Because dangerous chemicals are often the default choice for many businesses, it will require effort to phase them out and replace them with safer alternatives. This effort requires a shift in chemicals policy. Currently, chemicals are considered safe until proven otherwise with action rarely taken until after harmful effects are verified and widespread. The Massachusetts government must instead prioritize the health and safety of the Commonwealth’s citizens and adopt a preventive approach to toxic chemicals.

Phase Out Toxic Chemicals. The Massachusetts government must act on the growing evidence that some chemicals pose serious dangers to human health and work to replace these toxics with safer alternatives, starting with the “toxic ten” outlined in this report.

Promote Research for Alternatives. Where safer alternatives are not available, the government should focus on researching alternatives for the future substitution of other toxic chemicals. Government should support innovation and promote solutions that create a healthier environment and protect public health and safety.

Ensure Accountability. The Commonwealth must reform state chemicals policy to require greater accountability of manufacturers and users thus ensuring their safe use. The Commonwealth should ensure that federal authorities pressure chemical producers to provide sufficient hazard and health impact information to adequately protect the public. Additionally, we must shift the burden to manufacturers and producers to provide a reasonable assurance of safety of the chemicals they are using.