<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>SafeChemicalPolicy.org</title>
	<atom:link href="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://safechemicalpolicy.org</link>
	<description>Safer Living with Chemicals</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 18:33:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>EWG Is Wrong Again</title>
		<link>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/ewg-is-wrong-again/</link>
		<comments>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/ewg-is-wrong-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 18:31:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alogomasini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[3rd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N&V]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organic Farming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pesticides]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://safechemicalpolicy.org/?p=3448</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How Wrong Is The Latest &#8220;Dirty Dozen&#8221; List? By Steve Savage. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) says that it &#8220;helps protect your family from pesticides.&#8221; The purpose of this Applied Mythology post is to &#8220;help protect your family from dangerously misleading information from the EWG.&#8221; Each year since 1991, the USDA has been publishing the [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/news_views_icon.jpg"><img style=' float: left; padding: 4px; margin: 0 7px 2px 0;'  src="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/news_views_icon.jpg" alt="news_views_icon" width="100" height="87" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1575" /></a><strong>How Wrong Is The Latest &#8220;Dirty Dozen&#8221; List? By Steve Savage.</strong><br />
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) says that it &#8220;helps protect your family from pesticides.&#8221; The purpose of this Applied Mythology post is to &#8220;help protect your family from dangerously misleading information from the EWG.&#8221; Each year since 1991, the USDA has been publishing the results from a large-scale pesticide residue monitoring program called the PDP.  Each year, a different set of crops is chosen and samples are purchased from regular stores and tested. Year after year, the results of those studies confirm the safety of the food supply. Year after year the EWG misrepresents the data to say otherwise. Read the full article on <a href="http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/how_wrong_latest_dirty_dozen_list-112342">Science 2.0</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/ewg-is-wrong-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anti-Pesticide Activists and Honeybees</title>
		<link>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/anti-pesticide-activists-and-honeybees/</link>
		<comments>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/anti-pesticide-activists-and-honeybees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 18:24:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alogomasini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Honeybee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N&V]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pesticides]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://safechemicalpolicy.org/?p=3440</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Chemophobic Anti-Pesticide Groups Are At It Again,&#8221; By Paul Driessen. Modern environmentalism rose to ascendancy on opposition to pesticides, specifically DDT. “If the environmentalists win on DDT,” Environmental Defense Fund scientist Charles Wurster told the Seattle Times in 1969, “they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.” Using Rachel Carson’s often [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/news_views_icon.jpg"><img style=' float: left; padding: 4px; margin: 0 7px 2px 0;'  src="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/news_views_icon.jpg" alt="news_views_icon" width="100" height="87" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1575" /></a><strong>&#8220;Chemophobic Anti-Pesticide Groups Are At It Again,&#8221; By Paul Driessen.</strong><br />
Modern environmentalism rose to ascendancy on opposition to pesticides, specifically DDT. “If the environmentalists win on DDT,” Environmental Defense Fund scientist Charles Wurster told the Seattle Times in 1969, “they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.” Using Rachel Carson’s often inaccurate book Silent Spring to drive a nasty campaign, they succeeded in getting the Environmental Protection Agency to ban US production and use of DDT in 1972, leading to a de facto global ban even to combat malaria.  Read the full article on<a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2013/05/18/a-bee-in-their-bonnet-n1599835"> Townhall.com</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/anti-pesticide-activists-and-honeybees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bees and Pesticide Regulation</title>
		<link>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/bees-and-pesticide-regulation/</link>
		<comments>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/bees-and-pesticide-regulation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 20:38:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alogomasini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Heartland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N&V]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pesticides]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://safechemicalpolicy.org/?p=3429</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Will We ‘Bee’ Smart about Pesticide Regulation? by Henry Miller On April 29, the European Commission failed for the second time to get the votes necessary to pass a proposed two-year ban on several innovative agricultural pesticides known as neonicotinoids (“neonics”). But immediately after reporting that a “qualified majority” of member states had not been [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/news_views_icon.jpg"><img style=' float: left; padding: 4px; margin: 0 7px 2px 0;'  src="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/news_views_icon.jpg" alt="news_views_icon" width="100" height="87" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1575" /></a><strong>&#8220;Will We ‘Bee’ Smart about Pesticide Regulation? by Henry Miller</strong><br />
On April 29, the European Commission failed for the second time to get the votes necessary to pass a proposed two-year ban on several innovative agricultural pesticides known as neonicotinoids (“neonics”). But immediately after reporting that a “qualified majority” of member states had not been reached, the Commission’s health and consumer affairs commissioner, Tonio Borg, announced that he would institute the ban administratively.  Read the full article on the <em><a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/13/will-we-bee-smart-about-pesticide-regulation/#ixzz2TU9pBKGB">Daily Caller</a>.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/bees-and-pesticide-regulation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Junk Science, EWG, and FOX News</title>
		<link>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/junk-science-ewg-and-fox-news/</link>
		<comments>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/junk-science-ewg-and-fox-news/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 20:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alogomasini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CEI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organic Farming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pesticides]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://safechemicalpolicy.org/?p=3420</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Surprising Junk Science on FOX News,&#8221; by Angela Logomasini. News stories trumping junk science are common, but I expect better from FOX News, which claims to be “fair and balanced” and hosts great shows like STOSSEL. And they’ve run some of my commentaries, which I appreciate. That’s why I am perplexed by some FOX reports [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CEI_logo70by601.jpg"><img style=' float: left; padding: 4px; margin: 0 7px 2px 0;'  src="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CEI_logo70by601.jpg" alt="CEI_logo70by60" width="79" height="62" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-910" /></a><strong>&#8220;Surprising Junk Science on FOX News,&#8221; by Angela Logomasini.</strong><br />
News stories trumping junk science are common, but I expect better from FOX News, which claims to be “fair and balanced” and hosts great shows like STOSSEL.  And they’ve run some of my commentaries, which I appreciate.  That’s why I am perplexed by some FOX reports on environmental issues, many of which seem to peddle junk science pushed by activists at the Environmental Working Group (EWG).  Read the full article on <a href="http://www.openmarket.org/2013/05/16/surprising-junk-science-on-fox-news/">OpenMarket.org</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/junk-science-ewg-and-fox-news/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bee Colony Collapse &amp; Anti-Pesticide Activists</title>
		<link>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/bee-colony-collapse-anti-pesticide-activists/</link>
		<comments>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/bee-colony-collapse-anti-pesticide-activists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 15:59:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alogomasini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Honeybee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N&V]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pesticides]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://safechemicalpolicy.org/?p=3412</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Collapse Of Bee Colonies Is Latest Target For Anti-Pesticide Groups,&#8221; By Paul Driessen. Beekeeping is big business, and everyone loves honey and foods made possible by pollination. But &#8220;colony collapse disorder&#8221; threatens bees and crop pollination in many areas. CCD and other bee die-offs are nothing new. What we now call colony collapse was first [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/news_views_icon.jpg"><img style=' float: left; padding: 4px; margin: 0 7px 2px 0;'  class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1575" alt="news_views_icon" src="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/news_views_icon.jpg" width="100" height="87" /></a><strong>&#8220;Collapse Of Bee Colonies Is Latest Target For Anti-Pesticide Groups,&#8221; By Paul Driessen.</strong><br />
Beekeeping is big business, and everyone loves honey and foods made possible by pollination. But &#8220;colony collapse disorder&#8221; threatens bees and crop pollination in many areas. CCD and other bee die-offs are nothing new. What we now call colony collapse was first reported in 1869, and many outbreaks since then have sent scientists scurrying for explanations and solutions. Fungi, varroa mites and other possible suspects have been implicated, but no definitive answer has yet been found. Read the full article in <em><a href="http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/051313-655865-green-groups-go-after-pesticides-to-save-bees.htm">Investors Business Daily</a></em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/bee-colony-collapse-anti-pesticide-activists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chemophobic Mom Blogs</title>
		<link>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/chemophobic-mom-blogs/</link>
		<comments>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/chemophobic-mom-blogs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 18:14:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alogomasini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Chemophobia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IWF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://safechemicalpolicy.org/?p=3408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Mommy Blogs Feed Chemophobia,&#8221; by Julie Gunlock. When I started writing about chemicals a few years ago, I was driven by my own interest in the subject. As a new mom, I was suddenly hearing a lot more about the seemingly innocuous things that could harm my baby. I’m not talking about obvious things—like unfriendly [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/IWF_Logo2.jpg"><img style=' float: left; padding: 4px; margin: 0 7px 2px 0;'  src="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/IWF_Logo2.jpg" alt="IWF_Logo2" width="85" height="92" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-2958" /></a><strong>&#8220;Mommy Blogs Feed Chemophobia,&#8221; by Julie Gunlock.</strong><br />
When I started writing about chemicals a few years ago, I was driven by my own interest in the subject. As a new mom, I was suddenly hearing a lot more about the seemingly innocuous things that could harm my baby. I’m not talking about obvious things—like unfriendly dogs, child predators, broken playground equipment, and asteroids hurtling toward earth.  No, no.  I was being told that I needed to worry about plastic sippy-cups, non-organic cotton clothing, genetically modified corn in baby snacks, and…innocent-looking rubber duckies.  Read the full article in <a href="http://www.iwf.org/blog/2791289/Mommy-Blogs-Feed-Chemophobia">IWF&#8217;s Inkwell blog</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/chemophobic-mom-blogs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Triclosan, NRDC and FDA Review</title>
		<link>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/triclosan-nrdc-and-fda-review/</link>
		<comments>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/triclosan-nrdc-and-fda-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 18:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alogomasini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[triclosan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://safechemicalpolicy.org/?p=3395</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;&#8216;Shocking&#8217; Truth about Government and Soap,&#8221; by Angela Logomasini. Is your hand wash slowly killing you as government regulators sit idly by? Sounds silly, but that’s what environmentalists seem to think about an antibacterial agent called triclosan, which is used in soap and other consumer products.  According to the NRDC: “In laboratory studies, they [antibacterial [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/CEI_logo_sm_.jpg"><img style=' float: left; padding: 4px; margin: 0 7px 2px 0;'  src="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/CEI_logo_sm_.jpg" alt="CEI_logo_sm_" width="75" height="59" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-392" /></a><strong>&#8220;&#8216;Shocking&#8217; Truth about Government and Soap,&#8221; by Angela Logomasini.</strong><br />
Is your hand wash slowly killing you as government regulators sit idly by? Sounds silly, but that’s what environmentalists seem to think about an antibacterial agent called triclosan, which is used in soap and other consumer products.  <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/living/chemicalindex/triclosan.asp">According to the NRDC</a>: “In laboratory studies, they [antibacterial chemicals] have been shown to disrupt hormones and can encourage the growth of drug-resistant bacteria or ‘superbugs.’” The group wants consumers to urge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “to pull products containing triclosan and triclocarban from store shelves.” The NRDC is also suing FDA for not completing its scientific review of triclosan, which has dragged on for more than 40 years.  Read the full story on OpenMarket.org.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/triclosan-nrdc-and-fda-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EWG Dirty Science</title>
		<link>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/ewg-dirty-science/</link>
		<comments>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/ewg-dirty-science/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 21:16:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alogomasini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[N&V]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pesticides]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://safechemicalpolicy.org/?p=3385</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Dirty Dozen List Loses its Punch,&#8221; by Richard Cornett.&#8221; This year’s release of the Dirty Dozen List produced by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) is beginning to shed its sizzle because of a full-court press by agricultural interests to focus on science-based information. Each year the EWG comes out with a list that ranks fruits [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/news_views_icon.jpg"><img style="float:left;margin-right:10px;  float: left; padding: 4px; margin: 0 7px 2px 0;"  src="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/news_views_icon.jpg" alt="news_views_icon" width="100" height="87" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1575" /></a>&#8220;Dirty Dozen List <a href="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/apples-e1328913151861.jpg"><img style="float:right;margin-left:10px;  float: right; padding: 4px; margin: 0 0 2px 7px;" src="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/apples-e1328913151861-150x150.jpg" alt="apples" width="150" height="150" class="alignright size-thumbnail wp-image-534" /></a>Loses its Punch,&#8221; by Richard Cornett.&#8221;<br />
This year’s release of the Dirty Dozen List produced by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) is beginning to shed its sizzle because of a full-court press by agricultural interests to focus on science-based information. Each year the EWG comes out with a list that ranks fruits and vegetables according to pesticide residue levels. For years the list has been a constant irritant to agriculture because it gives the impression that conventional fruits and veggies are replete with globs of unsafe pesticides and suggests consumers buy their produce from organic sources. These unfounded claims were usually reinforced by widespread media coverage each year. Read the full story in the <a href="http://westernfarmpress.com/management/dirty-dozen-list-loses-its-punch">Farm Press</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/ewg-dirty-science/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Green Chemistry Nightmare</title>
		<link>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/green-chemistry-nightmare/</link>
		<comments>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/green-chemistry-nightmare/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 19:47:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alogomasini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Green Chemistry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N&V]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://safechemicalpolicy.org/?p=3376</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Coming To A Theater Near You: California’s “Green Chemistry” Nightmare,&#8221; by Hugh Hewitt. I should be the last guy complaining. My law partner Liz McNulty and I will spend many a billable hour over the next decade or two advising companies on what to do with the avalanche of regulations about to descend on them [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/news_views_icon.jpg"><img style="float:left;margin-right:10px;  float: left; padding: 4px; margin: 0 7px 2px 0;" src="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/news_views_icon.jpg" alt="news_views_icon" width="100" height="87" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1575" /></a><strong>&#8220;Coming To A Theater Near You: California’s “Green Chemistry” Nightmare,&#8221; by Hugh Hewitt.</strong><br />
I should be the last guy complaining.  My law partner Liz McNulty and I will spend many a billable hour over the next decade or two advising companies on what to do with the avalanche of regulations about to descend on them courtesy of California’s Department of Toxic Substances. Their “green revolution” nightmare is about to begin, and the only folks who will benefit from it are employed by the government, environmental activists, or lawyers advising the private sector on what to do.  Read the full article on <a href="http://www.hughhewitt.com/coming-to-a-theater-near-you-californias-green-chemistry-nightmare/">HughHewitt.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/green-chemistry-nightmare/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Regulatory Inertia &amp; Triclosan</title>
		<link>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/regulatory-inertia-triclosan/</link>
		<comments>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/regulatory-inertia-triclosan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 15:15:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alogomasini</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[N&V]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[triclosan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://safechemicalpolicy.org/?p=3370</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;The EPA Opens a New Review of Handsoap, But Government Study Goes on for Decades,&#8221; by Paul Alexander. In Washington, the Wheels of Government Grind Slowly &#8212; When they Grind at All. One area of government habitually plagued by bureaucracy is the regulatory agencies, among them the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/news_views_icon.jpg"><img style="float:left;margin-right:10px;  float: left; padding: 4px; margin: 0 7px 2px 0;" src="http://safechemicalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/news_views_icon.jpg" alt="news_views_icon" width="100" height="87" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1575" /></a><strong>&#8220;The EPA Opens a New Review of Handsoap, But Government Study Goes on for Decades,&#8221; by Paul Alexander.</strong><br />
In Washington, the Wheels of Government Grind Slowly &#8212; When they Grind at All.  One area of government habitually plagued by bureaucracy is the regulatory agencies, among them the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. Reviews of substances regulated by these agencies can take years, sometimes many years. Few reviews have lasted longer than the one afforded a chemical compound called triclosan, a widely used substance contained in products in the vast majority of American homes today. Read the full article at <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-alexander/the-epa-opens-a-new-revie_b_3210109.html">Huffington Post</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://safechemicalpolicy.org/regulatory-inertia-triclosan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
