Are we concentrating too much on one area? It seems like hunger is a major issue as the world becomes even more over-populated!
Are we concentrating too much on one area? It seems like hunger is a major issue as the world becomes even more over-populated!
Aspartame, Aspartame milk, Dairy, Deadly, diseases, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, FDA, FDA-approved, Food and Drug Administration, Milk, milk supply, Monsanto, National Milk Producers Federation, Sweetener, Toxic, United States
The FDA is requesting comments on this petition. You have until May 21st, 2013 to submit your comments. Click here for instructions.
Monday, February 25, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
(NaturalNews) You probably already know that the FDA has declared war on raw milk and even helped fund and coordinate armed government raids against raw milk farmers and distributors. Yes, it’s insane. This brand of tyranny is unique to the USA and isn’t even conducted in China, North Kora or Cuba. Only in the USA are raw milk farmers treated like terrorists.
But now the situation is getting even more insane than you could have imagined: the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have filed a petition with the FDA asking the FDA to alter the definition of “milk” to secretly include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose.
Importantly, none of these additives need to be listed on the label. They will simply be swept under the definition of “milk,” so that when a company lists “milk” on the label, it automatically includes aspartame or sucralose. And if you’re trying to avoid aspartame, you’ll have no way of doing so because it won’t be listed on the label.
This isn’t only for milk, either: It’s also for yogurt, cream, sour cream, eggnog, whipping cream and a total of 17 products, all of which are listed in the petition at FDA.gov.
As the petition states:
IDFA and NMPF request their proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity to allow optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk (e.g., chocolate flavoring added to milk) to be sweetened with any safe and suitable sweetener — including non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame.
This is all being done to “save the children,” we’re told, because the use of aspartame in milk products would reduce calories.
Astonishingly, the dairy industry is engaged in extreme doublespeak logic and actually arguing that aspartame should be hidden from consumers by not listing it on the label. Here’s what the petition says:
IDFA and NMPF argue that nutrient content claims such as “reduced calorie” are not attractive to children, and maintain that consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such claims. Further, the petitioners assert that consumers do not recognize milk — including flavored milk — as necessarily containing sugar. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can “more easily identify its overall nutritional value.”
In other words, hiding aspartame from consumers by not including it on the label actually helps consumers, according to the IDFA and NMPF!
Yep, consumers are best served by keeping them ignorant. If this logic smacks of the same kind of twisted deception practiced by Monsanto, that’s because it’s identical: the less consumers know, the more they are helped, according to industry. And it’s for the children, too, because children are also best served by keeping them poisoned with aspartame.
Consumers have always been kept in the dark about pink slime, meat glue, rBGH and GMOs in their food. And now, if the IDFA gets its way, you’ll be able to drink hormone-contaminated milk from an antibiotics-inundated cow fed genetically modified crops and producing milk containing hidden aspartame. And you won’t have the right to know about any of this!
The FDA confirms this “secret” status of aspartame, stating, “If the standard of identity for milk is amended as requested by petitioners, milk manufacturers could use non-nutritive sweeteners in flavored milk without a nutrient content claim in its labeling.”
The FDA is requesting comments on this petition. You have until May 21st, 2013 to submit your comments. Click here for instructions.
There’s a bigger story here than just the industry hoping to get FDA approval to secretly put aspartame in milk products while not listing aspartame on the label.
The bigger question is this: If an industry is pushing to hide aspartame in its products, what else is it already hiding?
How about the pus content of its dairy products? How about its inhumane treatment of animals who are subjected to torture conditions and pumped full of genetically engineered hormones? How about the fact that homogenization and pasteurization turn a whole food into a dietary nightmare that promotes obesity, autoimmune disorders and cardiovascular disease?
There are lots of dirty little secrets in the dairy industry of course, and that doesn’t even get into the secret closed-door conversations to encourage the FDA to destroy the competition of raw milk.
The only rational answer to all this is to stop buying and consuming processed dairy products, period!
I gave up ALL milk products many years ago and have never looked back. I drink almond milk, not pus-filled pasteurized cow’s milk. (Click here for a recipe to make your own almond milk at home.) I don’t eat yogurt. If I want probiotics, I get them from tasty chewable probiotics supplements such as Sunbiotics. I parted ways with processed dairy products many years ago, and as a result, my cardiovascular health, skin health, digestive health and stamina have all remained in outstanding shape.
There’s also a philosophical issue here: Don’t buy products from an industry that habitually LIES about everything. The dairy industry is like a mafia. They actively seek to destroy the competition, keep consumers ignorant and monopolize the market. They run highly deceptive ads with ridiculous claims like, “drinking milk helps you lose weight” and other nonsense.
The U.S. dairy industry is steeped in deception at every level, and now they want you and your children to unknowingly drink aspartame that’s secretly blended into the product.
The dairy industry is to food as Lance Armstrong is to sports. It’s all a big lie, laced with secret chemicals and false claims.
Stop drinking milk. Stop financially supporting the food mafia.
Raw Milk Rover (hilarious animation)
Got a PUStache? (satire)
Jonathan Emord raw milk freedom speech:
Farmageddon interview with Kristin Canty
Sources for this article:
This petition was originally brought to our attention by a reader who says it was covered on Activist Post. I haven’t yet read that article but may update this article with a link to that article once I identify the URL.
FDA petition page:
Americans drink more soda than anyone else on the planet — well over 700 eight-ounce servings each year, on average, and an increasing amount of it is diet soda.
They might be more reluctant to do so if they knew about the safety questions still surrounding aspartame. A number of scientists responding expressed major concerns about aspartame’s safety at the time of its approval, and even more indicated areas where they believed more research is needed on aspartame to resolve their concerns — research on areas such as neurological functions, brain tumors, seizures, headaches, and adverse effects on children and pregnant women.
“In a 1996 survey, Ralph G. Walton … looked at 166 peer-reviewed studies on aspartame undertaken between 1980 and 1985. He found that all 74 of the studies funded by the industry found no adverse effects from aspartame, while 84 of the 92 independently funded articles did find bad effects.”
Aspartame is the ingredient found in NutraSweet, It is also found in Equal, Spoonful, Equal Measure, AminoSweet, Benevia, NutraTaste, Canderel, and many popular “diet” sodas. This chemical is currently on the ingredient list of nearly 6,000 products worldwide. But since it was approved for use as a food additive in 1981, it has been dogged by complaints about its safety.
Was aspartame ever proven safe for human consumption before it gained FDA approval as a food additive?
Not according to Dr. John Olney, a researcher at Washington University in Saint Louis who first began studying aspartame in 1970. Dr. Olhney believes aspartame should not be on the market today “because it hasn’t been demonstrated to be safe.” Also in agreement with Dr. Olney are the FDA’s own investigations into the chemical from 1975 to 1980.
When the FDA was presented with Dr. Olney’s research, they assigned an outside public board of inquiry the task of deciding if aspartame should be allowed for human consumption. In 1980, the doctors on that board unanimously ruled that aspartame should not go on the market. An internal FDA panel concluded the same thing in 1980.
According to the FDA Chairman at that time, Dr. Gere Goyan, his next recommendation was to set up another FDA committee to study aspartame, composed people who played no previous part in the former studies of aspartame. Dr. Gere Goyan never saw the results of that 1980 FDA internal study, because he was forced to step down as FDA Chairman the day Ronald Reagan took office on January 21, 1981.
His replacement? Dr. Arthur Hill Hayes.
Dr. Hayes is notable for two reasons. First, he had no previous history of dealing with the science of food additives. Second, he was apparently hand picked to head the FDA by a prominent member of Ronald Reagan’s political transition team, Donald Rumsfeld. Yes, the same Donald Rumsfeld who led the United States into the multi trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as Secretary of Defense during the Bush presidency. But in 1981, Rumsfeld had a different title: CEO of the G.D Searle company, the company that owned the patent on aspartame.
One of Dr. Arthur Hill Hayes first acts as FDA Chairman was granting aspartame approval for use in dry goods. Incidentally, one of Hayes’ last acts in office as FDA Chairman was to approve aspartame for use in beverages.
So was aspartame approved because studies ever showed it was safe for human consumption? Or was it approved thanks to the political influence of Donald Rumsfeld?
According to former Sentator Howard Metzenbaum, who reviewed the FDA’s approval process of aspartame in the Senate in 1987, “I think there were a lot of politics involved in its being approved.” Research scientist Dr. Olney is even more blunt, “the issue (aspartame) is really not an issue of science, it’s an issue of politics.”
Dr. Mercola’s Comments:
So much has been written and said about the FDA approval process in the case of aspartame, as well as subsequent widespread reports of adverse reactions, related degenerative diseases and neurological afflictions associated with aspartame, it’s a wonder anyone still uses ANY product containing this potent neurological poison.
But guess what?
Aspartame is the most utilized artificial sweetener in the United States, with aspartame controlling over 50 percent of the market and sales of alternative sweeteners at $1.1 billion in 2010, according to a May report from market research firm Freedonia Group. And, shockingly, demand for artificial sweeteners is projected to grow 3.4 percent annually through 2013, according to the report.
Americans consume close to 50 billion liters of soda per year, which equates to roughly 216 liters, or about 57 gallons per person, much of this in the form of diet soda loaded with aspartame. People are no doubt still opting for this toxic synthetic chemical because of the mistaken belief that drinking diet soda will help fight weight gain.
The truth is that it doesn’t.
It never has and never will, despite the billions of dollars spent annually by the soda industry on public relations and advertising.
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why Coca-Cola has to spend $3 billion a year on marketing? Could it be because they want you “feel good” about their products and not think about the actual ingredients?
I’ve gone on record saying that aspartame is a bigger public health threat than high fructose corn syrup and can lead to birth defects, cancer and weight gain.
Now let’s take a closer look at the politics behind the FDA’s approval of aspartame, and the reason the FDA and politicians have a very real financial incentive to keep aspartame available for human consumption. Along with what the scientific studies not funded by the aspartame or the diet soda industry actually reveal about this toxic neurological poison.
Dr. Adrian Gross, the FDA’s toxicologist who examined the aspartame research initially presented to the FDA by G.D. Searle, was “absolutely shocked” at the evidence according to Dr. Russell Blaylock, a retired neurosurgeon, showing “an enormous increase in tumors, particularly brain tumors.”
“And of course that’s exactly what we’re seeing now is this tremendous increase in brain tumors in this country. Which is completely unexplained by the neurological profession,” continues Dr. Blaylock.
Dr. Blaylock has written three books about the health dangers of excitotoxins (aspartame and MSG are excitotoxins), but has never been sued by the artificial sweetener industry over the facts he’s brought to light about the dangers of using these synthetic man-made toxic chemical sweeteners. Why hasn’t the aspartame industry gone after him legally? Or after me for that matter, for my expose on artificial sweeteners called “Sweet Deception”?
“They all realized that they couldn’t answer my arguments. So they left me alone. They’re afraid that if it comes to a big standoff between me and them, they’re going to lose. What they’re doing is the old ploy of just ignoring and hoping it will go away. Of course, they put pressure on magazines, journals and newspapers not to interview me. They are trying to keep me in the shadows where they hope most people don’t hear anything I have to say. It only works for so long.”
The truth of the matter is the FDA rejected aspartame not once but multiple times. The scientific data just did not support it as a safe product. But the FDA is a federal agency subject to the political winds, and the people in charge of the agency have repeatedly and notoriously been accused of many conflicts of interest, both economically and ethically.
In 1975 the FDA came to the conclusion that aspartame should not be allowed on the market. They requested that further studies be conducted. The FDA’s next move was to set up a public board of inquiry composed of outside experts to investigate the safety of aspartame, and in 1980 that board unanimously rejected aspartame’s request for approval. According to a 60-Minutes story on aspartame, another internal FDA panel convened in 1980 also rejected aspartame for approval.The Dangers of Aspartame
So it was three strikes against aspartame at this point, four strikes if you count the Bressler Report. This report was compiled in 1977 after FDA scientists looked into the field studies conducted on aspartame. The Bressler Report uncovered fraud and manipulation of data so serious that the FDA forwarded their files to the Chicago US Attorney’s office for prosecution.
How bad were the alleged crimes committed by G. D. Searle in an attempt to manipulate the safety studies on aspartame? Here is just one example contained in the Bressler Report:
“6) Observation records indicated that animal A23LM was alive at week 88, dead from week 92 through week 104, alive at week 108, and dead at week 112.”
In the 1996 60-Minutes story on aspartame, former Senator Howard Metzenbaum states:
“According to the FDA themselves, Searle, when making their presentation to the FDA, had willfully misrepresented the facts, and withheld some of the facts that they knew would possibly jeopardize the approval.”
Metzenbaum’s staff investigated the aspartame approval process in 1987. He goes on to explain that:
“FDA officials were so upset they sent the file to the US Attorney’s office in Chicago for the purposes of presenting it to the grand jury as to whether or not there should be indictments. But it wasn’t presented. It was delayed.”
Samuel Skinner, the U.S. attorney who led the grand jury probe ended up withdrawing from the case when he entered into job discussions with Searle’s Chicago law firm, Sidley & Austin – a job he later accepted. Subsequently, the investigation stalled until the statute of limitation ran out, at which point the investigation against Searle was dropped.
For more details on the story of how aspartame made it through the FDA approval process despite warning signs of potential health hazards and alleged scientific fraud, please watch the 60-Minutes report, as Wallace does a nice job of summarizing an otherwise long story.
So the results of the scientific data were fairly clear up until 1980: Aspartame was a dangerous, brain tumor causing man-made poison and the company trying to get it into the food supply was recommended for prosecution by the FDA. You would think that would be the end of aspartame, right?
Not by a long shot.
So it was four strikes against aspartame, but Searle had a blockbuster product on its hands that was sure to lead to millions of dollars in profits. So what did the CEO of the company do?
Perhaps he called in some political favors.
It is no coincidence that the FDA Chairman who stood in the way of aspartame’s approval was removed from office the day Ronald Reagan took office. His replacement was in part orchestrated by Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G.D. Searle, in order to allegedly get a friendly rubber stamp on the approval of what some doctors have called “an addictive excitoneurotoxic carcinogenic drug that interacts with drugs and vaccines.”
But even with a friendly new FDA Chairman in place, the agency still rejected aspartame for approval by a 3-2 margin. What reprehensible, bordering on criminal action did Chairman Hayes do next? He added a sixth member to the approval board, who voted in favor of aspartame. Then, with a 3-3 tie on the issue, Chairman Hayes himself broke the deadlock with his own vote of approval for aspartame.
So he packed the board and then used his own vote as a tie-breaker. All apparently perfectly legal… And one of Hayes’ last acts in office before he left the FDA in1983 amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors, was to approve aspartame for use in beverages. Does this sound to you like a man-made synthetic chemical that should have ever been allowed into the world’s food supply?
Once allowed on the market, the aspartame industry quickly became very profitable, creating a new multi-million dollar source of funds to influence the politicians in charge of overseeing and regulating food safety.
According to the video above, Searle and later Monsanto (who purchased the rights to aspartame), have spent thousands of dollars influencing the politicians who have been influential to keeping aspartame on the market, despite this toxic chemical being the number one source of side-effect complaints to the FDA, with over 10,000 complaints filed and over 91 symptoms documented that are related to its consumption.
This video will familiarize you with some of the terrifying side-effects and health problems you could encounter if you consume products containing this chemical. Unfortunately, aspartame toxicity is not well-known by doctors, despite its frequency. Diagnosis is also hampered by the fact that it mimics several other common health conditions, such as:
|Multiple sclerosis||Parkinson’s disease|
|Arthritis||Multiple chemical sensitivity|
|Chronic fatigue syndrome||Attention deficit disorder|
|Panic disorder||Depression and other psychological disorders|
|Lupus||Diabetes and diabetic complications|
So why is aspartame still on the market? In all likelihood, it was allowed on the market and remains on the market for political and economic reasons. According to Former Senator Metzembaum,
“I think the Chairman of the FDA (Hayes) wound up having some sort of economic relationship, beneficial to himself, with Searle Manufacturing, who at that time owned the rights to aspartame.”
And what about Donald Rumsfeld? Did he benefit financially from the approval of aspartame? He reportedly received a $12 million bonus when he left G.D. Searle, no doubt related to his ability to gain regulatory approval for what until 1981 had been a toxic poison that caused brain tumors in laboratory rats.
The answer unfortunately is yes, if you consume any of the more than 6,000 products that contain aspartame. And aspartame is not just in the food supply, it’s also added to pharmaceutical drugs to sweeten them. We are now beginning to see an explosion of unexplained brain tumors worldwide. Is it related to aspartame? This is certainly a possibility, as according to Dr. John Olney, “aspartame hasn’t been demonstrated to be safe.”
This issue isn’t a merely a theoretical debate about food safety versus politics, or about an industry poisoning the world for the sake of profits. This issue is about real people in the real world ingesting a potent neurotoxin on a daily basis, and the damage aspartame is causing to real people.
“I was horrified, I was panic stricken, I was scared to death,” says Edith Johnson in the video above. “Within a matter of moments I went completely blind.”
Edith is talking about the experience she had while drinking a cup of low-calorie hot chocolate. “All of a sudden I couldn’t see. My eyes went out of focus. I think it’s very deliberately because of aspartame.” Continues Edith, “they had no right to market it (aspartame). My message to people is to drink water. You don’t need aspartame in your life.”
Kate Randall, also featured in the video above, drank nine Diet Cokes a day for five years and developed a twitch in her eye that several doctors could not explain, although the doctors did apparently rule aspartame out as a cause of the afflictions.
“I started popping in my hands and twitching in my feet. My legs, my knees, my upper legs and shoulders and arms and everywhere. My chin, neck and temples started to twitch.”
All of the tests the doctors ran came back negative, so she decided to do her own research into her strange symptoms.Continues Kate, “I absolutely believe that it (aspartame) was (responsible for) the breakdown of my health for two years.”
What would Kate like to tell people about aspartame?
Aspartame is a synthetic chemical composed of three ingredients – two amino acids and a methyl ester bond. The amino acids are phenylalanine and aspartic acid, two common components of many foods that are usually completely safe for consumption. But not in the case of aspartame.
Forgetting for a moment that aspartame is metabolized inside your body into both wood alcohol (a poison) and formaldehyde (which embalms tissue and is not eliminated from your body through the normal waste filtering done by your liver and kidneys), the trouble with the component parts of aspartame is one of volume.
In a normal protein like meat, fish or eggs, phenylalanine and aspartic acid comprise 4-5 percent each of the total amino acid profile. This is how nature intends the human body to encounter these two amino acids and there is nothing wrong with these substances if they occur naturally in a proper balance with other amino acids.
But in aspartame the ratio of these two amino acids is 50 percent phenylalanine and 40 percent aspartic acid (with 10 percent methyl ester bond, aka wood alcohol, a known poison). In other words, on a percentage basis this is a massive quantity of two unnaturally isolated amino acids that are simply not found in this ratio in nature, bonded together by a known poison.
The result of this chemical cocktail is a sweet tasting neurotoxin. As a result of its unnatural structure, your body processes the amino acids found in aspartame very differently from a steak or a piece of fish. The amino acids in aspartame literally attack your cells, even crossing the blood-brain barrier to attack your brain cells, creating a toxic cellular overstimulation, called excitotoxicity. MSG is also an excitotoxin, and works synergistically with aspartame to create even more damage to your brain cells.
This is how aspartame causes brain tumors. Adding to the problem, according to Dr. Blaylock:
“Excitotoxins have been found to dramatically promote cancer growth and metastasis. In fact, one aspartame researcher noticed that, when cancer cells were exposed to aspartame, they became more mobile, and you see the same effect withMSG. It also causes a cancer cell to become more mobile, and that enhances metastasis, or spread. These MSG-exposed cancer cells developed all of these pseudopodians and started moving through tissues.“
As rates of learning disabilities, autism and related neurological disorders like lupus and MS skyrocket in the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to release a roster of the pollutants likely to contribute to these or other neurological disorders. Aspartame has been included on this list.
In an ongoing, three-year effort, an EPA team has determined which developmental neurotoxicants — chemicals that damage a fetal and infant brain — may pose the biggest risk to the American public.
A partial listing of chemicals that will be included on the EPA’s dangerous chemicals list:
- Aspartame, an artificial sweetener found in sodas, and in other foods and drinks;
- Bisphenol A, a chemical widely used in consumer goods, including the resin lining of most food and beverage cans; products made from polycarbonate plastics, which include water bottles and baby bottles, and some dental sealants;
- Cadmium, a heavy metal that is used in batteries, coatings and pigments, and is plentiful in tobacco smoke.
- PBDEs a class of chemical flame retardants.
- Pesticides and insect repellents, including aldicarb, DEET, lindane, (used for lice and scabies), maneb, and paraquat.
- Trichloroethylene, formerly used in dry cleaning but still available as a cleaning and degreasing agent and a contaminant in drinking water.
You may think you’re making a healthy choice by swapping out sugar for artificial sweeteners but the truth is that you’re not
Your body, when given artificial sweeteners, begins craving sweets because you are not giving it the proper fuel it needs. Finding out your nutritional type will tell you exactly which foods you need to eat to feel full and satisfied. It may sound hard to believe right now, but once you start eating right for your nutritional type, your sweet cravings will significantly lessen and may even disappear.
Meanwhile, be sure you address the emotional component to your food cravings using a tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). More than any traditional or alternative method I have used or researched, EFT works to overcome food cravings and helps you reach dietary success. And, if diet soda is the culprit for you, be sure to check out Turbo Tapping, which is an extremely effective and simple tool to get rid of your soda addiction in a short amount of time.
For those times when you just want a taste of something sweet, there is a healthier alternative called Stevia that you can use in moderation. Stevia is a natural plant and, unlike aspartame and other artificial sweeteners that have been cited for dangerous toxicities, it is a safe, natural alternative that’s has been around for over 1500 years and is ideal if you’re watching your weight, or if you’re maintaining your health by avoiding sugar.It is hundreds of times sweeter than sugar and truly has virtually no calories.
Stevia is my sweetener of choice. However, like most choices, especially sweeteners, I recommend using it in moderation, just like sugar. I prefer to use it in its liquid flavored form and my favorite flavors are English Toffee and French Vanilla. I want to emphasize, however, that if you have insulin issues, I suggest that you avoid sweeteners altogether, including Stevia, as they all can decrease your sensitivity to insulin.
So if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would benefit from avoiding ALL sweeteners.
But for everyone else, if you are going to sweeten your foods and beverages anyway, I strongly encourage you to consider using regular Stevia, and toss out all artificial sweeteners and any products that contain them immediately.
For more information on the dangers of aspartame, visit http://aspartame.mercola.com.
By all means, also please forward this article to your friends and loved ones who are still drinking diet sodas and poisoning themselves. You can make a difference on this issue by helping to spread the word. You may help save the life of someone you love, if you can get them off this toxic neurological poison before they too experience strange symptoms that their doctor or doctors simply cannot explain or mistake for something else.
And if you experience an adverse reaction to any aspartame product, I urge you to call the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator in your area.
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
CHEMICALS USED IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
PREPARED BY COMMITTEE STAFF FOR:
Henry A. Waxman – Ranking Member Committee on Energy and Commerce
Edward J. Markey – Ranking Member Committee on Natural Resources
Diana DeGette – Ranking Member Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………….1
IV. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUIDS AND THEIR CONTENTS…..5
A. Commonly Used Chemical Components…………………………………………..6
B. Toxic Chemicals………………………………………………………………………..8
V. USE OF PROPRIETARY AND “TRADE SECRET” CHEMICALS…..11
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hydraulic fracturing has helped to expand natural gas production in the United States,
unlocking large natural gas supplies in shale and other unconventional formations across the
country. As a result of hydraulic fracturing and advances in horizontal drilling technology,
natural gas production in 2010 reached the highest level in decades. According to new estimates by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United States possesses natural gas resources sufficient to supply the United States for approximately 110 years.
As the use of hydraulic fracturing has grown, so have concerns about its environmental
and public health impacts. One concern is that hydraulic fracturing fluids used to fracture rock
formations contain numerous chemicals that could harm human health and the environment,
especially if they enter drinking water supplies. The opposition of many oil and gas companies
to public disclosure of the chemicals they use has compounded this concern.
Last Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce launched an investigation to
examine the practice of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. As part of that inquiry, the
Committee asked the 14 leading oil and gas service companies to disclose the types and volumes of the hydraulic fracturing products they used in their fluids between 2005 and 2009 and the chemical contents of those products. This report summarizes the information provided to the Committee.
Between 2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500
hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components. Overall, these
companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products – not including water added
at the well site – between 2005 and 2009.
Some of the components used in the hydraulic fracturing products were common and
generally harmless, such as salt and citric acid. Some were unexpected, such as instant coffee
and walnut hulls. And some were extremely toxic, such as benzene and lead. Appendix A lists
each of the 750 chemicals and other components used in hydraulic fracturing products between
2005 and 2009.
The most widely used chemical in hydraulic fracturing during this time period, as
measured by the number of compounds containing the chemical, was methanol. Methanol,
which was used in 342 hydraulic fracturing products, is a hazardous air pollutant and is on the
candidate list for potential regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Some of the other
most widely used chemicals were isopropyl alcohol (used in 274 products), 2-butoxyethanol
(used in 126 products), and ethylene glycol (used in 119 products).
Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing
products containing 29 chemicals that are (1) known or possible human carcinogens, (2)
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or (3) listed as
hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. These 29 chemicals were components of more
than 650 different products used in hydraulic fracturing.
The BTEX compounds – benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene – appeared in 60 of
the hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009. Each BTEX compound is a
regulated contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act and a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Benzene also is a known human carcinogen. The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 11.4 million gallons of products containing at least one BTEX chemical over the five year period.
In many instances, the oil and gas service companies were unable to provide the
Committee with a complete chemical makeup of the hydraulic fracturing fluids they used.
Between 2005 and 2009, the companies used 94 million gallons of 279 products that contained at least one chemical or component that the manufacturers deemed proprietary or a trade secret. Committee staff requested that these companies disclose this proprietary information. Although some companies did provide information about these proprietary fluids, in most cases the companies stated that they did not have access to proprietary information about products they purchased “off the shelf” from chemical suppliers. In these cases, the companies are injecting fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot identify.
Hydraulic fracturing – a method by which oil and gas service companies provide access
to domestic energy trapped in hard-to-reach geologic formations — has been the subject of both enthusiasm and increasing environmental and health concerns in recent years. Hydraulic
fracturing, used in combination with horizontal drilling, has allowed industry to access natural
gas reserves previously considered uneconomical, particularly in shale formations. As a result of
the growing use of hydraulic fracturing, natural gas production in the United States reached
21,577 billion cubic feet in 2010, a level not achieved since a period of high natural gas
production between 1970 and 1974.1 Overall, the Energy Information Administration now
projects that the United States possesses 2,552 trillion cubic feet of potential natural gas
resources, enough to supply the United States for approximately 110 years. Natural gas from
shale resources accounts for 827 trillion cubic feet of this total, which is more than double what
the EIA estimated just a year ago.
Hydraulic fracturing creates access to more natural gas supplies, but the process requires
the use of large quantities of water and fracturing fluids, which are injected underground at high
volumes and pressure. Oil and gas service companies design fracturing fluids to create fractures and transport sand or other granular substances to prop open the fractures. The composition of these fluids varies by formation, ranging from a simple mixture of water and sand to more complex mixtures with a multitude of chemical additives. The companies may use these
[1 Energy Information Administration (EIA), Natural Gas Monthly (Mar. 2011), Table 1, U.S. Natural Gas Monthly Supply and Disposition Balance (online at www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9070us1A.htm) (accessed Mar. 30, 2011).
2 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2011 Early Release (Dec. 16, 2010); EIA, What is shale
gas and why is it important? (online at http://www.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/about_shale_gas.cfm)
(accessed Mar. 30, 2011).]
chemical additives to thicken or thin the fluids, improve the flow of the fluid, or kill bacteria that can reduce fracturing performance. Some of these chemicals, if not disposed of safely or allowed to leach into the drinking water supply, could damage the environment or pose a risk to human health. During hydraulic fracturing, fluids containing chemicals are injected deep underground, where their migration is not entirely predictable. Well failures, such as the use of insufficient well casing, could lead to their release at shallower depths, closer to drinking water supplies. Although some fracturing fluids are removed from the well at the end of the fracturing process, a substantial amount remains underground.
While most underground injections of chemicals are subject to the protections of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Congress in 2005 modified the law to exclude “the underground
injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing
operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities” from the Act’s protections.6
Unless oil and gas service companies use diesel in the hydraulic fracturing process, the
permanent underground injection of chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing is not regulated by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Concerns also have been raised about the ultimate outcome of chemicals that are
recovered and disposed of as wastewater. This wastewater is stored in tanks or pits at the well
site, where spills are possible. For final disposal, well operators must either recycle the fluids
for use in future fracturing jobs, inject it into underground storage wells (which, unlike the
fracturing process itself, are subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act), discharge it to nearby
surface water, or transport it to wastewater treatment facilities. A recent report in the New York
[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources
of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs (June 2004) (EPA
816-R-04-003) at 4-1 and 4-2.
For instance, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection has cited Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation for contamination of drinking water wells with seepage caused by weak casing or improper cementing of a natural gas well. See Officials in Three States Pin Water Woes on Gas Drilling, ProPublica (Apr. 26, 2009) (online at www.propublica.org/article/officials-in-three-states-pin-water-woes-on-gas-drilling-426) (accessed Mar. 24, 2011).
John A. Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, Water Management Technologies Used by
Marcellus Shale Gas Producers, prepared for the Department of Energy (July 2010), at 13
(hereinafter “Water Management Technologies”).
42 U.S.C. § 300h(d). Many dubbed this provision the “Halliburton loophole” because
of Halliburton’s ties to then-Vice President Cheney and its role as one of the largest providers of
hydraulic fracturing services. See The Halliburton Loophole, New York Times (Nov. 9. 2009).
See EPA, Draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan (Feb. 7, 2011), at 37; Regulation Lax
as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers, New York Times (Feb. 26, 2011).
Water Management Technologies, at 13.]
Times raised questions about the safety of surface water discharge and the ability of water
treatment facilities to process wastewater from natural gas drilling operations.
Any risk to the environment and human health posed by fracturing fluids depends in large
part on their contents. Federal law, however, contains no public disclosure requirements for oil
and gas producers or service companies involved in hydraulic fracturing, and state disclosure
requirements vary greatly. While the industry has recently announced that it soon will create a
public database of fluid components, reporting to this database is strictly voluntary, disclosure
will not include the chemical identity of products labeled as proprietary, and there is no way to
determine if companies are accurately reporting information for all wells.
The absence of a minimum national baseline for disclosure of fluids injected during the
hydraulic fracturing process and the exemption of most hydraulic fracturing injections from
regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act has left an informational void concerning the
contents, chemical concentrations, and volumes of fluids that go into the ground during
fracturing operations and return to the surface in the form of wastewater. As a result, regulators
and the public are unable effectively to assess any impact the use of these fluids may have on the environment or public health.
On February 18, 2010, the Committee commenced an investigation into the practice of hydraulic fracturing and its potential impact on water quality across the United States. This investigation built on work begun by Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman in 2007 as Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Committee initially sent letters to eight oil and gas service companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing in the United States. In May 2010, the Committee sent letters to six additional oil and gas service companies to assess a
[Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers, New York Times (Feb. 26, 2011).
Wyoming, for example, recently enacted relatively strong disclosure regulations,
requiring disclosure on a well-by-well basis and “for each stage of the well stimulation
program,” “the chemical additives, compounds and concentrations or rates proposed to be mixed and injected.” See WCWR 055-000-003 Sec. 45. Similar regulations became effective in
Arkansas this year. See Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission Rule B-19. In Wyoming, much of
this information is, after an initial period of review, available to the public. See WCWR 055-
000-003 Sec. 21. Other states, however, do not insist on such robust disclosure. For instance,
West Virginia has no disclosure requirements for hydraulic fracturing and expressly exempts
fluids used during hydraulic fracturing from the disclosure requirements applicable to
underground injection of fluids for purposes of waste storage. See W. Va. Code St. R. § 34-5-7.
See Ground Water Protection Council Calls for Disclosure of Chemicals Used in Shale
Gas Exploration, Ground Water Protection Council (Oct. 5, 2010) (online at
Shale-Gas-Exploration-newsPiece21700) (accessed Mar. 24, 2011).]
broader range of industry practices. The February and May letters requested information on
the type and volume of chemicals present in the hydraulic fracturing products that each company used in their fluids between 2005 and 2009.
The 14 oil and gas service companies that received the letter voluntarily provided
substantial information to the Committee. As requested, the companies reported the names and
volumes of the products they used during the five-year period. For each hydraulic fracturing
product reported, the companies also provided a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) detailing
the product’s chemical components. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) requires chemical manufacturers to create a MSDS for every product they sell as a
means to communicate potential health and safety hazards to employees and employers. The
MSDS must list all hazardous ingredients if they comprise at least 1% of the product; for
carcinogens, the reporting threshold is 0.1%.
Under OSHA regulations, manufacturers may withhold the identity of chemical
components that constitute “trade secrets.” If the MSDS for a particular product used by a
company subject to the Committee’s investigation reported that the identity of any chemical
component was a trade secret, the Committee asked the company that used that product to
provide the proprietary information, if available.
IV. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUIDS AND THEIR CONTENTS
Between 2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500
hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components. Overall, these
companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products in their fluids between 2005
and 2009. This volume does not include water that the companies added to the fluids at the well
site before injection. The products are comprised of a wide range of chemicals. Some are
seemingly harmless like sodium chloride (salt), gelatin, and citric acid. Others could pose a
severe risk to human health or the environment.
[The Committee sent letters to Basic Energy Services, BJ Services, Calfrac Well
Services, Complete Production Services, Frac Tech Services, Halliburton, Key Energy Services,
RPC, Sanjel Corporation, Schlumberger, Superior Well Services, Trican Well Service, Universal
Well Services, and Weatherford.
BJ Services, Halliburton, and Schlumberger already had provided the Oversight
Committee with data for 2005 through 2007. For BJ Services, the 2005-2007 data is limited to
natural gas wells. For Schlumberger, the 2005-2007 data is limited to coalbed methane wells.
29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(2)(i)(C)(1).
29 CFR 1910.1200.
Each hydraulic fracturing “product” is a mixture of chemicals or other components
designed to achieve a certain performance goal, such as increasing the viscosity of water. Some
oil and gas service companies create their own products; most purchase these products from
chemical vendors. The service companies then mix these products together at the well site to
formulate the hydraulic fracturing fluids that they pump underground.]
Some of the components were surprising. One company told the Committee that it used
instant coffee as one of the components in a fluid designed to inhibit acid corrosion. Two
companies reported using walnut hulls as part of a breaker—a product used to degrade the
fracturing fluid viscosity, which helps to enhance post-fracturing fluid recovery. Another
company reported using carbohydrates as a breaker. One company used tallow soap—soap
made from beef, sheep, or other animals—to reduce loss of fracturing fluid into the exposed
Appendix A lists each of the 750 chemicals and other components used in the hydraulic
fracturing products injected underground between 2005 and 2009.
A. Commonly Used Chemical Components
The most widely used chemical in hydraulic fracturing during this time period, as
measured by the number of products containing the chemical, was methanol. Methanol is a
hazardous air pollutant and a candidate for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It was
a component in 342 hydraulic fracturing products. Some of the other most widely used
chemicals include isopropyl alcohol, which was used in 274 products, and ethylene glycol, which
was used in 119 products. Crystalline silica (silicon dioxide) appeared in 207 products, generally
proppants used to hold open fractures. Table 1 has a list of the most commonly used compounds in hydraulic fracturing fluids.
Table 1. Chemical Components Appearing Most Often in Hydraulic Fracturing Products Used Between 2005 and 2009:
Chemical Component & No. of Products Containing Chemical
Methanol (Methyl alcohol) = 342
Isopropanol (Isopropyl alcohol, Propan-2-ol) = 274
Crystalline silica – quartz (SiO2) = 207
Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (2-butoxyethanol) = 126
Ethylene glycol (1,2-ethanediol) = 119
Hydrotreated light petroleum distillates = 89
Sodium hydroxide (Caustic soda) = 80
Hydraulic fracturing companies used 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE) as a foaming agent or
surfactant in 126 products. According to EPA scientists, 2-BE is easily absorbed and rapidly
distributed in humans following inhalation, ingestion, or dermal exposure. Studies have shown
that exposure to 2-BE can cause hemolysis (destruction of red blood cells) and damage to the
spleen, liver, and bone marrow. The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 21.9 million
gallons of products containing 2-BE between 2005 and 2009. They used the highest volume of
products containing 2-BE in Texas, which accounted for more than half of the volume used.
EPA recently found this chemical in drinking water wells tested in Pavillion, Wyoming. Table
2 shows the use of 2-BE by state.
Table 2. States with the Highest Volume of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids Containing
State & Fluid Volume (gallons)
Texas = 12,031,734
Oklahoma = 2,186,613
New Mexico = 1,871,501
Colorado = 1,147,614
Louisiana = 890,068
Pennsylvania = 747,416
West Virginia = 464,231
Utah = 382,874
Montana = 362,497
Arkansas = 348,959
[EPA, Toxicological Review of Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (Mar. 2010) at 4.
EPA, Fact Sheet: January 2010 Sampling Results and Site Update, Pavillion,
Wyoming Groundwater Investigation (Aug. 2010) (online at
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/PavillionWyomingFactSheet.pdf) (accessed Mar.
B. Toxic Chemicals
The oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29
chemicals that are (1) known or possible human carcinogens, (2) regulated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or (3) listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. These 29 chemicals were components of 652 different products used in hydraulic fracturing. Table 3 lists these toxic chemicals and their frequency of use.
Table 3. Chemicals Components of Concern: Carcinogens, SDWA-Regulated
Chemicals, and Hazardous Air Pollutants
Chemical Component, Chemical Category & No. of Products
Methanol (Methyl alcohol) – HAP = 342
Ethylene glycol (1,2-ethanediol) – HAP = 119
Diesel19 – Carcinogen,SDWA,HAP = 51
Naphthalene – Carcinogen,HAP = 44
Xylene – SDWA,HAP = 44
Hydrogen chloride (Hydrochloric acid) – HAP = 42
Toluene – SDWA,HAP = 29
Ethylbenzene – SDWA,HAP = 28
Diethanolamine (2,2-iminodiethanol) – HAP = 14
Formaldehyde – Carcinogen,HAP = 12
Sulfuric acid – Carcinogen = 9
Thiourea – Carcinogen = 9
Benzyl chloride – Carcinogen,HAP = 8
Cumene – HAP = 6
Nitrilotriacetic acid – Carcinogen = 6
Dimethyl formamide – HAP = 5
Phenol – HAP = 5
Benzene – Carcinogen,SDWA,HAP = 3
Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate -Carcinogen,SDWA,HAP = 3
Acrylamide – Carcinogen,SDWA,HAP = 2
Hydrogen fluoride (Hydrofluoric acid) – HAP = 2
Phthalic anhydride – HAP = 2
Acetaldehyde – Carcinogen,HAP = 1
Acetophenone – HAP = 1
Copper – SDWA = 1
Ethylene oxide – Carcinogen,HAP = 1
Lead – Carcinogen,SDWA,HAP = 1
Propylene oxide – Carcinogen,HAP = 1
p-Xylene – HAP = 1
*Number of Products Containing a Component of Concern = 652
According to EPA, diesel contains benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. See
EPA, Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic
Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs (June 2004) (EPA 816-R-04-003) at 4-11.
Between 2005 and 2009, the hydraulic fracturing companies used 95 products containing
13 different carcinogens. These included naphthalene (a possible human carcinogen), benzene (a known human carcinogen), and acrylamide (a probable human carcinogen). Overall, these companies injected 10.2 million gallons of fracturing products containing at least one carcinogen. The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing one or more
carcinogens in Texas, Colorado, and Oklahoma. Table 4 shows the use of these chemicals by
Table 4. States with at Least 100,000 Gallons of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids Containing a Carcinogen (2005-2009)
State & Fluid Volume (gallons)
North Dakota 557,519
New Mexico 511,186
2. Safe Drinking Water Act Chemicals
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA regulates 53 chemicals that may have an
adverse effect on human health and are known to or likely to occur in public drinking water
systems at levels of public health concern. Between 2005 and 2009, the hydraulic fracturing
companies used 67 products containing at least one of eight SDWA-regulated chemicals.
Overall, they injected 11.7 million gallons of fracturing products containing at least one chemical
regulated under SDWA. Most of these chemicals were injected in Texas. Table 5 shows the use
of these chemicals by state.
For purposes of this report, a chemical is considered a “carcinogen” if it is on one of
two lists: (1) substances identified by the National Toxicology Program as “known to be human
carcinogens” or as “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens”; and (2) substances
identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health
Organization, as “carcinogenic” or “probably carcinogenic” to humans. See U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, Report on
Carcinogens, Eleventh Edition (Jan. 31, 2005) and World Health Organization, International
Agency for Research on Cancer, Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs (online at
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php) (accessed Feb. 28, 2011).
The vast majority of these SDWA-regulated chemicals were the BTEX compounds –
benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene. The BTEX compounds appeared in 60 hydraulic
fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009 and were used in 11.4 million gallons of
hydraulic fracturing fluids. The Department of Health and Human Services, the International
Agency for Research on Cancer, and EPA have determined that benzene is a human
carcinogen. Chronic exposure to toluene, ethylbenzene, or xylenes also can damage the central nervous system, liver, and kidneys.
Table 5. States with at Least 100,000 Gallons of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids Containing a SDWA-Regulated Chemical (2005-2009)
State & Fluid Volume (gallons)
New Mexico 1,157,721
North Dakota 100,479
In addition, the hydraulic fracturing companies injected more than 30 million gallons of
diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel in wells in 19 states. In a 2004
report, EPA stated that the “use of diesel fuel in fracturing fluids poses the greatest threat” to
underground sources of drinking water. Diesel fuel contains toxic constituents, including
BTEX compounds. EPA also has created a Candidate Contaminant List (CCL), which is a list of
contaminants that are currently not subject to national primary drinking water regulations but are
known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the future. Nine chemicals on that list—1-butanol, acetaldehyde, benzyl
[U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, Public Health Statement for Benzene (Aug. 2007).
EPA, Basic Information about Toluene in Drinking Water, Basic Information about
Ethylbenzene in Drinking Water, and Basic Information about Xylenes in Drinking Water (online
at http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/index.cfm) (accessed Oct. 14,
Letter from Reps. Henry A. Waxman, Edward J. Markey, and Diana DeGette to the
Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Jan. 31, 2011).
EPA, Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic
Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs (June 2004) (EPA 816-R-04-003) at 4-11.
EPA, Contaminant Candidate List 3 (online at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/dws/ccl/ccl3.cfm) (accessed Mar. 31, 2011).
chloride, ethylene glycol, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, methanol, n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, and
propylene oxide—were used in hydraulic fracturing products between 2005 and 2009.
3. Hazardous Air Pollutants
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to control the emission of 187 hazardous air pollutants,
which are pollutants that cause or may cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as
reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental and ecological effects. Between
2005 and 2009, the hydraulic fracturing companies used 595 products containing 24 different
hazardous air pollutants.
Hydrogen fluoride is a hazardous air pollutant that is a highly corrosive and systemic
poison that causes severe and sometimes delayed health effects due to deep tissue penetration. Absorption of substantial amounts of hydrogen fluoride by any route may be fatal. One of the hydraulic fracturing companies used 67,222 gallons of two products containing hydrogen fluoride in 2008 and 2009.
Lead is a hazardous air pollutant that is a heavy metal that is particularly harmful to
children’s neurological development. It also can cause health problems in adults, including
reproductive problems, high blood pressure, and nerve disorders. One of the hydraulic
fracturing companies used 780 gallons of a product containing lead in this five-year period.
Methanol is the hazardous air pollutant that appeared most often in hydraulic fracturing
products. Other hazardous air pollutants used in hydraulic fracturing fluids included
formaldehyde, hydrogen chloride, and ethylene glycol.
V. USE OF PROPRIETARY AND “TRADE SECRET” CHEMICALS
Many chemical components of hydraulic fracturing fluids used by the companies were
listed on the MSDSs as “proprietary” or “trade secret.” The hydraulic fracturing companies used
93.6 million gallons of 279 products containing at least one proprietary component between 2005 and 2009.
[Clean Air Act Section 112(b), 42 U.S.C. § 7412.
HHS, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Medical Management
Guidelines for Hydrogen Fluoride (online at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg11.pdf) (accessed
Mar. 24, 2011).
EPA, Basic Information about Lead (online at http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/leadinfo.htm)
(accessed Mar. 30, 2011).
This is likely a conservative estimate. We included only those products for which the
MSDS says “proprietary” or “trade secret” instead of listing a component by name or providing
the CAS number. If the MSDS listed a component’s CAS as N.A. or left it blank, we did not
count that as a trade secret claim, unless the company specified as such in follow-up
The Committee requested that these companies disclose this proprietary information.
Although a few companies were able to provide additional information to the Committee about
some of the fracturing products, in most cases the companies stated that they did not have access to proprietary information about products they purchased “off the shelf” from chemical
suppliers. The proprietary information belongs to the suppliers, not the users of the chemicals.
Universal Well Services, for example, told the Committee that it “obtains hydraulic
fracturing products from third-party manufacturers, and to the extent not publicly disclosed,
product composition is proprietary to the respective vendor and not to the Company.
Complete Production Services noted that the company always uses fluids from third-party
suppliers who provide an MSDS for each product. Complete confirmed that it is “not aware of
any circumstances in which the vendors who provided the products have disclosed this
proprietary information” to the company, further noting that “such information is highly
proprietary for these vendors, and would not generally be disclosed to service providers” like
Complete. Key Energy Services similarly stated that it “generally does not have access to the
trade secret information as a purchaser of the chemical(s). Trican also told the Committee that
it has limited knowledge of “off the shelf” products purchased from a chemical distributor or
manufacturer, noting that “Trican does not have any information in its possession about the
components of such products beyond what the distributor of each product provided Trican in the
In these cases, it appears that the companies are injecting fluids containing unknown
chemicals about which they may have limited understanding of the potential risks posed to
human health and the environment.
Hydraulic fracturing has opened access to vast domestic reserves of natural gas that could
provide an important stepping stone to a clean energy future. Yet questions about the safety of
hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals
used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. This analysis is the most comprehensive national assessment
to date of the types and volumes of chemical used in the hydraulic fracturing process. It shows
that between 2005 and 2009, the 14 leading hydraulic fracturing companies in the United States
used over 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 compounds. More than 650 of
these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants.
[Letter from Reginald J. Brown to Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Commerce, and Edward J. Markey, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
(Apr. 16, 2010).
Letter from Philip Perry to Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, Committee Energy and
Commerce, and Edward J. Markey, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment (Aug.
E-mail from Peter Spivack to Committee Staff (Aug. 5, 2010).
E-mail from Lee Blalack to Committee Staff (July 29, 2010).
Appendix A. Chemical Components of Hydraulic Fracturing Products, 2005-2009
Chemical Component, Chemical Abstract Service Number & No. of Products Containing
1-(1-naphthylmethyl)quinolinium chloride 65322-65-8 1
1,2,3-propanetricarboxylic acid, 2-hydroxy-, trisodium salt, dihydrate 6132-04-3 1
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene 526-73-8 1
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 21
1,2-benzisothiazol-3 2634-33-5 1
1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane 35691-65-7 1
1,2-ethanediaminium, N, N’-bis[2-[bis(2-hydroxyethyl)methylammonio]ethyl]-N,N’-
bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-N,N’-dimethyl-,tetrachloride 138879-94-4 2
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 3
1,6-hexanediamine dihydrochloride 6055-52-3 1
1,8-diamino-3,6-dioxaoctane 929-59-9 1
1-hexanol 111-27-3 1
1-methoxy-2-propanol 107-98-2 3
2,2`-azobis (2-amidopropane) dihydrochloride 2997-92-4 1
2,2-dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide 10222-01-2 27
2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulphonic acid sodium salt polymer * 1
2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol 52-51-7 4
2-butanone oxime 96-29-7 1
2-hydroxypropionic acid 79-33-4 2
2-mercaptoethanol (Thioglycol) 60-24-2 13
2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one 2682-20-4 4
2-monobromo-3-nitrilopropionamide 1113-55-9 1
2-phosphonobutane-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid 37971-36-1 2
2-phosphonobutane-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid, potassium salt 93858-78-7 1
2-substituted aromatic amine salt * 1
4,4′-diaminodiphenyl sulfone 80-08-0 3
5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one 26172-55-4 5
Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 1
Acetic acid 64-19-7 56
Acetic anhydride 108-24-7 7
Acetone 67-64-1 3
Acetophenone 98-86-2 1
Acetylenic alcohol * 1
Acetyltriethyl citrate 77-89-4 1
Acrylamide 79-06-1 2
Acrylamide copolymer * 1
Acrylamide copolymer 38193-60-1 1
To compile this list of chemicals, Committee staff reviewed each Material Safety Data
Sheet provided to the Committee for hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009. Committee staff transcribed the names and CAS numbers as written in the MSDSs; as such, any inaccuracies on this list reflect inaccuracies on the MSDSs themselves.
Acrylate copolymer * 1
Acrylic acid, 2-hydroxyethyl ester 818-61-1 1
Acrylic acid/2-acrylamido-methylpropylsulfonic acid copolymer 37350-42-8 1
Acrylic copolymer 403730-32-5 1
Acrylic polymers * 1
Acrylic polymers 26006-22-4 2
Acyclic hydrocarbon blend * 1
Adipic acid 124-04-9 6
Alcohol alkoxylate * 5
Alcohol ethoxylates * 2
Alcohols * 9
Alcohols, C11-15-secondary, ethoxylated 68131-40-8 1
Alcohols, C12-14-secondary 126950-60-5 4
Alcohols, C12-14-secondary, ethoxylated 84133-50-6 19
Alcohols, C12-15, ethoxylated 68131-39-5 2
Alcohols, C12-16, ethoxylated 103331-86-8 1
Alcohols, C12-16, ethoxylated 68551-12-2 3
Alcohols, C14-15, ethoxylated 68951-67-7 5
Alcohols, C9-11-iso-, C10-rich, ethoxylated 78330-20-8 4
Alcohols, C9-C22 * 1
Aldehyde * 4
Aldol 107-89-1 1
Alfa-Alumina * 5
Aliphatic acid * 1
Aliphatic alcohol polyglycol ether 68015-67-8 1
Aliphatic amine derivative 120086-58-0 2
Alkaline bromide salts * 2
Alkanes, C10-14 93924-07-3 2
Alkanes, C13-16-iso 68551-20-2 2
Alkanolamine 150-25-4 3
Alkanolamine chelate of zirconium alkoxide (Zirconium complex) 197980-53-3 4
Alkanolamine/aldehyde condensate * 1
Alkenes * 1
Alkenes, C>10 alpha- 64743-02-8 3
Alkenes, C>8 68411-00-7 2
Alkoxylated alcohols * 1
Alkoxylated amines * 6
Alkoxylated phenol formaldehyde resin 63428-92-2 1
Alkyaryl sulfonate * 1
Alkyl (C12-16) dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride 68424-85-1 7
Alkyl (C6-C12) alcohol, ethoxylated 68439-45-2 2
Alkyl (C9-11) alcohol, ethoxylated 68439-46-3 1
Alkyl alkoxylate * 9
Alkyl amine * 2
Alkyl amine blend in a metal salt solution * 1
Alkyl aryl amine sulfonate 255043-08-04 1
Alkyl benzenesulfonic acid 68584-22-5 2
Alkyl esters * 2
Alkyl hexanol * 1
Alkyl ortho phosphate ester * 1
Alkyl phosphate ester * 3
Alkyl quaternary ammonium chlorides * 4
Alkylaryl sulfonate * 1
Alkylaryl sulphonic acid 27176-93-9 1
Alkylated quaternary chloride * 5
Alkylbenzenesulfonic acid * 1
Alkylethoammonium sulfates * 1
Alkylphenol ethoxylates * 1
Almandite and pyrope garnet 1302-62-1 1
Aluminium isopropoxide 555-31-7 1
Aluminum 7429-90-5 2
Aluminum chloride * 3
Aluminum chloride 1327-41-9 2
Aluminum oxide (alpha-Alumina) 1344-28-1 24
Aluminum oxide silicate 12068-56-3 1
Aluminum silicate (mullite) 1302-76-7 38
Aluminum sulfate hydrate 10043-01-3 1
Amides, tallow, n-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl],n-oxides 68647-77-8 4
Amidoamine * 1
Amine * 7
Amine bisulfite 13427-63-9 1
Amine oxides * 1
Amine phosphonate * 3
Amine salt * 2
Amines, C14-18; C16-18-unsaturated, alkyl, ethoxylated 68155-39-5 1
Amines, coco alkyl, acetate 61790-57-6 3
Amines, polyethylenepoly-, ethoxylated, phosphonomethylated 68966-36-9 1
Amines, tallow alkyl, ethoxylated 61791-26-2 2
Amino compounds * 1
Amino methylene phosphonic acid salt * 1
Amino trimethylene phosphonic acid 6419-19-8 2
Ammonia 7664-41-7 7
Ammonium acetate 631-61-8 4
Ammonium alcohol ether sulfate 68037-05-8 1
Ammonium bicarbonate 1066-33-7 1
Ammonium bifluoride (Ammonium hydrogen difluoride) 1341-49-7 10
Ammonium bisulfate 7783-20-2 3
Ammonium bisulfite 10192-30-0 15
Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7 4
Ammonium C8-C10 alkyl ether sulfate 68891-29-2 4
Ammonium chloride 12125-02-9 29
Ammonium fluoride 12125-01-8 9
Ammonium hydroxide 1336-21-6 4
Ammonium nitrate 6484-52-2 2
Ammonium persulfate (Diammonium peroxidisulfate) 7727-54-0 37
Ammonium salt * 1
Ammonium salt of ethoxylated alcohol sulfate * 1
Amorphous silica 99439-28-8 1
Amphoteric alkyl amine 61789-39-7 1
Anionic copolymer * 3
Anionic polyacrylamide * 1
Anionic polyacrylamide 25085-02-3 6
Anionic polyacrylamide copolymer * 3
Anionic polymer * 2
Anionic polymer in solution * 1
Anionic polymer, sodium salt 9003-04-7 1
Anionic water-soluble polymer * 2
Antifoulant * 1
Antimonate salt * 1
Antimony pentoxide 1314-60-9 2
Antimony potassium oxide 29638-69-5 4
Antimony trichloride 10025-91-9 2
a-organic surfactants 61790-29-8 1
Aromatic alcohol glycol ether * 2
Aromatic aldehyde * 2
Aromatic ketones 224635-63-6 2
Aromatic polyglycol ether * 1
Barium sulfate 7727-43-7 3
Bauxite 1318-16-7 16
Bentonite 1302-78-9 2
Benzene 71-43-2 3
Benzene, C10-16, alkyl derivatives 68648-87-3 1
Benzenecarboperoxoic acid, 1,1-dimethylethyl ester 614-45-9 1
Benzenemethanaminium 3844-45-9 1
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl derivs., potassium salts 68584-27-0 1
Benzoic acid 65-85-0 11
Benzyl chloride 100-44-7 8
Biocide component * 3
Bis(1-methylethyl)naphthalenesulfonic acid, cyclohexylamine salt 68425-61-6 1
Bishexamethylenetriamine penta methylene phosphonic acid 35657-77-3 1
Bisphenol A/Epichlorohydrin resin 25068-38-6 5
Bisphenol A/Novolac epoxy resin 28906-96-9 1
Borate 12280-03-4 2
Borate salts * 5
Boric acid 10043-35-3 18
Boric acid, potassium salt 20786-60-1 1
Boric acid, sodium salt 1333-73-9 2
Boric oxide 1303-86-2 1
b-tricalcium phosphate 7758-87-4 1
Butanedioic acid 2373-38-8 4
Butanol 71-36-3 3
Butyl glycidyl ether 2426-08-6 5
Butyl lactate 138-22-7 4
C10-C16 ethoxylated alcohol 68002-97-1 4
C-11 to C-14 n-alkanes, mixed * 1
C12-C14 alcohol, ethoxylated 68439-50-9 3
Calcium carbonate 471-34-1 1
Calcium carbonate (Limestone) 1317-65-3 9
Calcium chloride 10043-52-4 17
Calcium chloride, dihydrate 10035-04-8 1
Calcium fluoride 7789-75-5 2
Calcium hydroxide 1305-62-0 9
Calcium hypochlorite 7778-54-3 1
Calcium oxide 1305-78-8 6
Calcium peroxide 1305-79-9 5
Carbohydrates * 3
Carbon dioxide 124-38-9 4
Carboxymethyl guar gum, sodium salt 39346-76-4 7
Carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar 68130-15-4 11
Cellophane 9005-81-6 2
Cellulase 9012-54-8 7
Cellulase enzyme * 1
Cellulose 9004-34-6 1
Cellulose derivative * 2
Chloromethylnaphthalene quinoline quaternary amine 15619-48-4 3
Chlorous ion solution * 2
Choline chloride 67-48-1 3
Chromates * 1
Chromium (iii) acetate 1066-30-4 1
Cinnamaldehyde (3-phenyl-2-propenal) 104-55-2 5
Citric acid (2-hydroxy-1,2,3 propanetricarboxylic acid) 77-92-9 29
Citrus terpenes 94266-47-4 11
Coal, granular 50815-10-6 1
Cobalt acetate 71-48-7 1
Cocaidopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 2
Cocamidopropylamine oxide 68155-09-9 1
Coco bis-(2-hydroxyethyl) amine oxide 61791-47-7 1
Cocoamidopropyl betaine 70851-07-9 1
Cocomidopropyl dimethylamine 68140-01-2 1
Coconut fatty acid diethanolamide 68603-42-9 1
Collagen (Gelatin) 9000-70-8 6
Complex alkylaryl polyo-ester * 1
Complex aluminum salt * 2
Complex organometallic salt * 2
Complex substituted keto-amine 143106-84-7 1
Complex substituted keto-amine hydrochloride * 1
Copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate 25987-30-8 1
Copper 7440-50-8 1
Copper iodide 7681-65-4 1
Copper sulfate 7758-98-7 3
Corundum (Aluminum oxide) 1302-74-5 48
Crotonaldehyde 123-73-9 1
Crystalline silica – cristobalite 14464-46-1 44
Crystalline silica – quartz (SiO2) 14808-60-7 207
Crystalline silica, tridymite 15468-32-3 2
Cumene 98-82-8 6
Cupric chloride 7447-39-4 10
Cupric chloride dihydrate 10125-13-0 7
Cuprous chloride 7758-89-6 1
Cured acrylic resin * 7
Cured resin * 4
Cured silicone rubber-polydimethylsiloxane 63148-62-9 1
Cured urethane resin * 3
Cyclic alkanes * 1
Cyclohexane 110-82-7 1
Cyclohexanone 108-94-1 1
Decanol 112-30-1 2
Decyl-dimethyl amine oxide 2605-79-0 4
Dextrose monohydrate 50-99-7 1
D-Glucitol 50-70-4 1
Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7 3
Di (ethylene glycol) ethyl ether acetate 112-15-2 4
Diatomaceous earth 61790-53-2 3
Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 7
Dibromoacetonitrile 3252-43-5 1
Dibutylaminoethanol (2-dibutylaminoethanol) 102-81-8 4
Di-calcium silicate 10034-77-2 1
Dicarboxylic acid * 1
Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 7173-51-5 1
Diesel * 1
Diesel 68334-30-5 3
Diesel 68476-30-2 4
Diesel 68476-34-6 43
Diethanolamine (2,2-iminodiethanol) 111-42-2 14
Diethylbenzene 25340-17-4 1
Diethylene glycol 111-46-6 8
Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether 111-77-3 4
Diethylene triaminepenta (methylene phosphonic acid) 15827-60-8 1
Diethylenetriamine 111-40-0 2
Diethylenetriamine, tall oil fatty acids reaction product 61790-69-0 1
Diisopropylnaphthalenesulfonic acid 28757-00-8 2
Dimethyl formamide 68-12-2 5
Dimethyl glutarate 1119-40-0 1
Dimethyl silicone * 2
Dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate 577-11-7 1
Dipropylene glycol 25265-71-8 1
Dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether (2-methoxymethylethoxy propanol) 34590-94-8 12
Di-secondary-butylphenol 53964-94-6 3
Disodium EDTA 139-33-3 1
Disodium ethylenediaminediacetate 38011-25-5 1
Disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate dihydrate 6381-92-6 1
Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate 12008-41-2 1
Dispersing agent * 1
d-Limonene 5989-27-5 11
Dodecyl alcohol ammonium sulfate 32612-48-9 2
Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid 27176-87-0 14
Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid salts 42615-29-2 2
Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid salts 68648-81-7 7
Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid salts 90218-35-2 1
Dodecylbenzenesulfonate isopropanolamine 42504-46-1 1
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, monoethanolamine salt 26836-07-7 1
Dodecylbenzenesulphonic acid, morpholine salt 12068-08-5 1
EDTA/Copper chelate * 2
EO-C7-9-iso-, C8-rich alcohols 78330-19-5 5
Epichlorohydrin 25085-99-8 5
Epoxy resin * 5
Erucic amidopropyl dimethyl betaine 149879-98-1 3
Erythorbic acid 89-65-6 2
Essential oils * 6
Ethanaminium, n,n,n-trimethyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]-,chloride, polymer with
2-propenamide 69418-26-4 4
Ethanol (Ethyl alcohol) 64-17-5 36
Ethanol, 2-(hydroxymethylamino)- 34375-28-5 1
Ethanol, 2, 2′-(Octadecylamino) bis- 10213-78-2 1
Ethanoldiglycine disodium salt 135-37-5 1
Ether salt 25446-78-0 2
Ethoxylated 4-nonylphenol (Nonyl phenol ethoxylate) 26027-38-3 9
Ethoxylated alcohol 104780-82-7 1
Ethoxylated alcohol 78330-21-9 2
Ethoxylated alcohols * 3
Ethoxylated alkyl amines * 1
Ethoxylated amine * 1
Ethoxylated amines 61791-44-4 1
Ethoxylated fatty acid ester * 1
Ethoxylated nonionic surfactant * 1
Ethoxylated nonyl phenol * 8
Ethoxylated nonyl phenol 68412-54-4 10
Ethoxylated nonyl phenol 9016-45-9 38
Ethoxylated octyl phenol 68987-90-6 1
Ethoxylated octyl phenol 9002-93-1 1
Ethoxylated octyl phenol 9036-19-5 3
Ethoxylated oleyl amine 13127-82-7 2
Ethoxylated oleyl amine 26635-93-8 1
Ethoxylated sorbitol esters * 1
Ethoxylated tridecyl alcohol phosphate 9046-01-9 2
Ethoxylated undecyl alcohol 127036-24-2 2
Ethyl acetate 141-78-6 4
Ethyl acetoacetate 141-97-9 1
Ethyl octynol (1-octyn-3-ol,4-ethyl-) 5877-42-9 5
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 28
Ethylene glycol (1,2-ethanediol) 107-21-1 119
Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (2-butoxyethanol) 111-76-2 126
Ethylene oxide 75-21-8 1
Ethylene oxide-nonylphenol polymer * 1
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid 60-00-4 1
Ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer 24937-78-8 1
Ethylhexanol (2-ethylhexanol) 104-76-7 18
Fatty acid ester * 1
Fatty acid, tall oil, hexa esters with sorbitol, ethoxylated 61790-90-7 1
Fatty acids * 1
Fatty alcohol alkoxylate * 1
Fatty alkyl amine salt * 1
Fatty amine carboxylates * 1
Fatty quaternary ammonium chloride 61789-68-2 1
Ferric chloride 7705-08-0 3
Ferric sulfate 10028-22-5 7
Ferrous sulfate, heptahydrate 7782-63-0 4
Fluoroaliphatic polymeric esters * 1
Formaldehyde 50-00-0 12
Formaldehyde polymer * 2
Formaldehyde, polymer with 4-(1,1-dimethyl)phenol, methyloxirane and oxirane 30704-64-4 3
Formaldehyde, polymer with 4-nonylphenol and oxirane 30846-35-6 1
Formaldehyde, polymer with ammonia and phenol 35297-54-2 2
Formamide 75-12-7 5
Formic acid 64-18-6 24
Fumaric acid 110-17-8 8
Furfural 98-01-1 1
Furfuryl alcohol 98-00-0 3
Glass fiber 65997-17-3 3
Gluconic acid 526-95-4 1
Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 20
Glycerol (1,2,3-Propanetriol, Glycerine) 56-81-5 16
Glycol ethers * 9
Glycol ethers 9004-77-7 4
Glyoxal 107-22-2 3
Glyoxylic acid 298-12-4 1
Guar gum 9000-30-0 41
Guar gum derivative * 12
Haloalkyl heteropolycycle salt * 6
Heavy aromatic distillate 68132-00-3 1
Heavy aromatic petroleum naphtha 64742-94-5 45
Heavy catalytic reformed petroleum naphtha 64741-68-0 10
Hematite * 5
Hemicellulase 9025-56-3 2
Hexahydro-1,3,5-tris(2-hydroxyethyl)-s-triazine (Triazine) 4719-04-4 4
Hexamethylenetetramine 100-97-0 37
Hexanediamine 124-09-4 1
Hexanes * 1
Hexylene glycol 107-41-5 5
Hydrated aluminum silicate 1332-58-7 4
Hydrocarbon mixtures 8002-05-9 1
Hydrocarbons * 3
Hydrodesulfurized kerosine (petroleum) 64742-81-0 3
Hydrodesulfurized light catalytic cracked distillate (petroleum) 68333-25-5 1
Hydrodesulfurized middle distillate (petroleum) 64742-80-9 1
Hydrogen chloride (Hydrochloric acid) 7647-01-0 42
Hydrogen fluoride (Hydrofluoric acid) 7664-39-3 2
Hydrogen peroxide 7722-84-1 4
Hydrogen sulfide 7783-06-4 1
Hydrotreated and hydrocracked base oil * 2
Hydrotreated heavy naphthenic distillate 64742-52-5 3
Hydrotreated heavy paraffinic petroleum distillates 64742-54-7 1
Hydrotreated heavy petroleum naphtha 64742-48-9 7
Hydrotreated light petroleum distillates 64742-47-8 89
Hydrotreated middle petroleum distillates 64742-46-7 3
Hydroxyacetic acid (Glycolic acid) 79-14-1 6
Hydroxyethylcellulose 9004-62-0 1
Hydroxyethylethylenediaminetriacetic acid, trisodium salt 139-89-9 1
Hydroxylamine hydrochloride 5470-11-1 1
Hydroxypropyl guar gum 39421-75-5 2
Hydroxysultaine * 1
Inner salt of alkyl amines * 2
Inorganic borate * 3
Inorganic particulate * 1
Inorganic salt * 1
Inorganic salt 533-96-0 1
Inorganic salt 7446-70-0 1
Instant coffee purchased off the shelf * 1
Inulin, carboxymethyl ether, sodium salt 430439-54-6 1
Iron oxide 1332-37-2 2
Iron oxide (Ferric oxide) 1309-37-1 18
Iso amyl alcohol 123-51-3 1
Iso-alkanes/n-alkanes * 10
Isobutanol (Isobutyl alcohol) 78-83-1 4
Isomeric aromatic ammonium salt * 1
Isooctanol 26952-21-6 1
Isooctyl alcohol 68526-88-0 1
Isooctyl alcohol bottoms 68526-88-5 1
Isopropanol (Isopropyl alcohol, Propan-2-ol) 67-63-0 274
Isopropylamine 75-31-0 1
Isotridecanol, ethoxylated 9043-30-5 1
Kerosene 8008-20-6 13
Lactic acid 10326-41-7 1
Lactic acid 50-21-5 1
L-Dilactide 4511-42-6 1
Lead 7439-92-1 1
Light aromatic solvent naphtha 64742-95-6 11
Light catalytic cracked petroleum distillates 64741-59-9 1
Light naphtha distillate, hydrotreated 64742-53-6 1
Low toxicity base oils * 1
Maghemite * 2
Magnesium carbonate 546-93-0 1
Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 4
Magnesium hydroxide 1309-42-8 4
Magnesium iron silicate 1317-71-1 3
Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3 5
Magnesium oxide 1309-48-4 18
Magnesium peroxide 1335-26-8 2
Magnesium peroxide 14452-57-4 4
Magnesium phosphide 12057-74-8 1
Magnesium silicate 1343-88-0 3
Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 2
Magnetite * 3
Medium aliphatic solvent petroleum naphtha 64742-88-7 10
Metal salt * 2
Metal salt solution * 1
Methanol (Methyl alcohol) 67-56-1 342
Methyl isobutyl carbinol (Methyl amyl alcohol) 108-11-2 3
Methyl salicylate 119-36-8 6
Methyl vinyl ketone 78-94-4 2
Methylcyclohexane 108-87-2 1
Mica 12001-26-2 3
Microcrystalline silica 1317-95-9 1
Mineral * 1
Mineral Filler * 1
Mineral spirits (stoddard solvent) 8052-41-3 2
Mixed titanium ortho ester complexes * 1
Modified alkane * 1
Modified cycloaliphatic amine adduct * 3
Modified lignosulfonate * 1
Monoethanolamine (Ethanolamine) 141-43-5 17
Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 1
Morpholine 110-91-8 2
Mullite 1302-93-8 55
n,n-dibutylthiourea 109-46-6 1
N,N-dimethyl-1-octadecanamine-HCl * 1
N,N-dimethyloctadecylamine 124-28-7 3
N,N-dimethyloctadecylamine hydrochloride 1613-17-8 2
n,n’-Methylenebisacrylamide 110-26-9 1
n-alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride 139-08-2 1
Naphthalene 91-20-3 44
Naphthalene derivatives * 1
Naphthalenesulphonic acid, bis (1-methylethyl)-methyl derivatives 99811-86-6 1
Natural asphalt 12002-43-6 1
n-cocoamidopropyl-n,n-dimethyl-n-2-hydroxypropylsulfobetaine 68139-30-0 1
n-dodecyl-2-pyrrolidone 2687-96-9 1
N-heptane 142-82-5 1
Nickel sulfate hexahydrate 10101-97-0 2
Nitrilotriacetamide 4862-18-4 4
Nitrilotriacetic acid 139-13-9 6
Nitrilotriacetonitrile 7327-60-8 3
Nitrogen 7727-37-9 9
n-Methylpyrrolidone 872-50-4 1
Nonane, all isomers * 1
Non-hazardous salt * 1
Nonionic surfactant * 1
Nonyl phenol ethoxylate * 2
Nonyl phenol ethoxylate 9016-45-6 2
Nonyl phenol ethoxylate 9018-45-9 1
Nonylphenol 25154-52-3 1
Nonylphenol, ethoxylated and sulfated 9081-17-8 1
N-propyl zirconate * 1
N-tallowalkyltrimethylenediamines * 1
Nuisance particulates * 2
Nylon fibers 25038-54-4 2
Octanol 111-87-5 2
Octyltrimethylammonium bromide 57-09-0 1
Olefinic sulfonate * 1
Olefins * 1
Organic acid salt * 3
Organic acids * 1
Organic phosphonate * 1
Organic phosphonate salts * 1
Organic phosphonic acid salts * 6
Organic salt * 1
Organic sulfur compound * 2
Organic titanate * 2
Organiophilic clay * 2
Organo-metallic ammonium complex * 1
Other inorganic compounds * 1
Oxirane, methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono-C10-16-alkyl ethers, phosphates 68649-29-6 1
Oxyalkylated alcohol * 6
Oxyalkylated alcohols 228414-35-5 1
Oxyalkylated alkyl alcohol * 1
Oxyalkylated alkylphenol * 1
Oxyalkylated fatty acid * 2
Oxyalkylated phenol * 1
Oxyalkylated polyamine * 1
Oxylated alcohol * 1
Paraffin wax 8002-74-2 1
Paraffinic naphthenic solvent * 1
Paraffinic solvent * 5
Paraffins * 1
Perlite 93763-70-3 1
Petroleum distillates * 26
Petroleum distillates 64742-65-0 1
Petroleum distillates 64742-97-5 1
Petroleum distillates 68477-31-6 3
Petroleum gas oils * 1
Petroleum gas oils 64741-43-1 1
Phenol 108-95-2 5
Phenol-formaldehyde resin 9003-35-4 32
Phosphate ester * 6
Phosphate esters of alkyl phenyl ethoxylate 68412-53-3 1
Phosphine * 1
Phosphonic acid * 1
Phosphonic acid 129828-36-0 1
Phosphonic acid 13598-36-2 3
Phosphonic acid (dimethlamino(methylene)) 29712-30-9 1
Phosphonic acid, [nitrilotris(methylene)]tris-, pentasodium salt 2235-43-0 1
Phosphoric acid 7664-38-2 7
Phosphoric acid ammonium salt * 1
Phosphoric acid, mixed decyl, octyl and ethyl esters 68412-60-2 3
Phosphorous acid 10294-56-1 1
Phthalic anhydride 85-44-9 2
Pine oil 8002-09-3 5
Plasticizer * 1
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) 24938-91-8 1
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-(4-nonylphenyl)-omega-hydroxy-, branched
(Nonylphenol ethoxylate) 127087-87-0 3
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-hydro-omega-hydroxy 65545-80-4 1
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-sulfo-omega-(hexyloxy)-, ammonium salt 63428-86-4 3
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl),a-(nonylphenyl)-w-hydroxy-, phosphate 51811-79-1 1
Poly-(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)-alpha-undecyl-omega-hydroxy 34398-01-1 6
Poly(sodium-p-styrenesulfonate) 25704-18-1 1
Poly(vinyl alcohol) 25213-24-5 2
Polyacrylamides 9003-05-8 2
Polyacrylamides * 1
Polyacrylate * 1
Polyamine * 2
Polyanionic cellulose * 2
Polyepichlorohydrin, trimethylamine quaternized 51838-31-4 1
Polyetheramine 9046-10-0 3
Polyether-modified trisiloxane 27306-78-1 1
Polyethylene glycol 25322-68-3 20
Polyethylene glycol ester with tall oil fatty acid 9005-02-1 1
Polyethylene polyammonium salt 68603-67-8 2
Polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 9003-11-6 5
Polylactide resin * 3
Polyoxyalkylenes * 1
Polyoxyethylene castor oil 61791-12-6 1
Polyphosphoric acid, esters with triethanolamine, sodium salts 68131-72-6 1
Polypropylene glycol 25322-69-4 1
Polysaccharide * 20
Polyvinyl alcohol * 1
Polyvinyl alcohol 9002-89-5 2
Polyvinyl alcohol/polyvinylacetate copolymer * 1
Potassium acetate 127-08-2 1
Potassium carbonate 584-08-7 12
Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 29
Potassium formate 590-29-4 3
Potassium hydroxide 1310-58-3 25
Potassium iodide 7681-11-0 6
Potassium metaborate 13709-94-9 3
Potassium metaborate 16481-66-6 3
Potassium oxide 12136-45-7 1
Potassium pentaborate * 1
Potassium persulfate 7727-21-1 9
Propanol (Propyl alcohol) 71-23-8 18
Propanol, [2(2-methoxy-methylethoxy) methylethoxyl] 20324-33-8 1
Propargyl alcohol (2-propyn-1-ol) 107-19-7 46
Propylene carbonate (1,3-dioxolan-2-one, methyl-) 108-32-7 2
Propylene glycol (1,2-propanediol) 57-55-6 18
Propylene oxide 75-56-9 1
Propylene pentamer 15220-87-8 1
p-Xylene 106-42-3 1
Pyridinium, 1-(phenylmethyl)-, ethyl methyl derivatives, chlorides 68909-18-2 9
Pyrogenic silica 112945-52-5 3
Quaternary amine compounds * 3
Quaternary amine compounds 61789-18-2 1
Quaternary ammonium compounds * 9
Quaternary ammonium compounds 19277-88-4 1
Quaternary ammonium compounds 68989-00-4 1
Quaternary ammonium compounds 8030-78-2 1
Quaternary ammonium compounds, dicoco alkyldimethyl, chlorides 61789-77-3 2
Quaternary ammonium salts * 2
Quaternary compound * 1
Quaternary salt * 2
Quaternized alkyl nitrogenated compound 68391-11-7 2
Rafinnates (petroleum), sorption process 64741-85-1 2
Residues (petroleum), catalytic reformer fractionator 64741-67-9 10
Resin 8050-09-7 2
Rutile 1317-80-2 2
Salt of phosphate ester * 3
Salt of phosphono-methylated diamine * 1
Salts of oxyalkylated fatty amines 68551-33-7 1
Secondary alcohol * 7
Silica (Silicon dioxide) 7631-86-9 47
Silica, amorphous * 3
Silica, amorphous precipitated 67762-90-7 1
Silicon carboxylate 681-84-5 1
Silicon dioxide (Fused silica) 60676-86-0 7
Silicone emulsion * 1
Sodium (C14-16) olefin sulfonate 68439-57-6 4
Sodium 2-ethylhexyl sulfate 126-92-1 1
Sodium acetate 127-09-3 6
Sodium acid pyrophosphate 7758-16-9 5
Sodium alkyl diphenyl oxide sulfonate 28519-02-0 1
Sodium aluminate 1302-42-7 1
Sodium aluminum phosphate 7785-88-8 1
Sodium bicarbonate (Sodium hydrogen carbonate) 144-55-8 10
Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5 6
Sodium bromate 7789-38-0 10
Sodium bromide 7647-15-6 1
Sodium carbonate 497-19-8 14
Sodium chlorate 7775-09-9 1
Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 48
Sodium chlorite 7758-19-2 8
Sodium cocaminopropionate 68608-68-4 2
Sodium diacetate 126-96-5 2
Sodium erythorbate 6381-77-7 4
Sodium glycolate 2836-32-0 2
Sodium hydroxide (Caustic soda) 1310-73-2 80
Sodium hypochlorite 7681-52-9 14
Sodium lauryl-ether sulfate 68891-38-3 3
Sodium metabisulfite 7681-57-4 1
Sodium metaborate 7775-19-1 2
Sodium metaborate tetrahydrate 35585-58-1 6
Sodium metasilicate, anhydrous 6834-92-0 2
Sodium nitrite 7632-00-0 1
Sodium oxide (Na2O) 1313-59-3 1
Sodium perborate 1113-47-9 1
Sodium perborate 7632-04-4 1
Sodium perborate tetrahydrate 10486-00-7 4
Sodium persulfate 7775-27-1 6
Sodium phosphate * 2
Sodium polyphosphate 68915-31-1 1
Sodium salicylate 54-21-7 1
Sodium silicate 1344-09-8 2
Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 7
Sodium tetraborate 1330-43-4 7
Sodium tetraborate decahydrate 1303-96-4 10
Sodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 10
Sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate 10102-17-7 3
Sodium trichloroacetate 650-51-1 1
Sodium tripolyphosphate 7758-29-4 2
Sodium xylene sulfonate 1300-72-7 3
Sodium zirconium lactate 174206-15-6 1
Solvent refined heavy naphthenic petroleum distillates 64741-96-4 1
Sorbitan monooleate 1338-43-8 1
Stabilized aqueous chlorine dioxide 10049-04-4 1
Stannous chloride 7772-99-8 1
Stannous chloride dihydrate 10025-69-1 6
Starch 9005-25-8 5
Steam cracked distillate, cyclodiene dimer, dicyclopentadiene polymer 68131-87-3 1
Steam-cracked petroleum distillates 64742-91-2 6
Straight run middle petroleum distillates 64741-44-2 5
Substituted alcohol * 2
Substituted alkene * 1
Substituted alkylamine * 2
Sucrose 57-50-1 1
Sulfamic acid 5329-14-6 6
Sulfate * 1
Sulfonate acids * 1
Sulfonate surfactants * 1
Sulfonic acid salts * 1
Sulfonic acids, petroleum 61789-85-3 1
Sulfur compound * 1
Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 9
Sulfuric acid, monodecyl ester, sodium salt 142-87-0 2
Sulfuric acid, monooctyl ester, sodium salt 142-31-4 2
Surfactants * 13
Sweetened middle distillate 64741-86-2 1
Synthetic organic polymer 9051-89-2 2
Tall oil (Fatty acids) 61790-12-3 4
Tall oil, compound with diethanolamine 68092-28-4 1
Tallow soap * 2
Tar bases, quinoline derivatives, benzyl chloride-quaternized 72480-70-7 5
Tergitol 68439-51-0 1
Terpene hydrocarbon byproducts 68956-56-9 3
Terpenes * 1
Terpenes and terpenoids, sweet orange-oil 68647-72-3 2
Terpineol 8000-41-7 1
Tert-butyl hydroperoxide 75-91-2 6
Tetra-calcium-alumino-ferrite 12068-35-8 1
Tetraethylene glycol 112-60-7 1
Tetraethylenepentamine 112-57-2 2
Tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-2H-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione (Dazomet) 533-74-4 13
Tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulfate 55566-30-8 12
Tetramethyl ammonium chloride 75-57-0 14
Tetrasodium 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid 3794-83-0 1
Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate 64-02-8 10
Thiocyanate sodium 540-72-7 1
Thioglycolic acid 68-11-1 6
Thiourea 62-56-6 9
Thiourea polymer 68527-49-1 3
Titanium complex * 1
Titanium oxide 13463-67-7 19
Titanium, isopropoxy (triethanolaminate) 74665-17-1 2
Toluene 108-88-3 29
Treated ammonium chloride (with anti-caking agent a or b) 12125-02-9 1
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 5
Tri-calcium silicate 12168-85-3 1
Tridecyl alcohol 112-70-9 1
Triethanolamine (2,2,2-nitrilotriethanol) 102-71-6 21
Triethanolamine polyphosphate ester 68131-71-5 3
Triethanolamine titanate 36673-16-2 1
Triethanolamine zirconate 101033-44-7 6
Triethanolamine zirconium chelate * 1
Triethyl citrate 77-93-0 1
Triethyl phosphate 78-40-0 1
Triethylene glycol 112-27-6 3
Triisopropanolamine 122-20-3 5
Trimethylammonium chloride 593-81-7 1
Trimethylbenzene 25551-13-7 5
Trimethyloctadecylammonium (1-octadecanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-, chloride) 112-03-8 6
Tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane 77-86-1 1
Trisodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate 150-38-9 1
Trisodium ethylenediaminetriacetate 19019-43-3 1
Trisodium nitrilotriacetate 18662-53-8 8
Trisodium nitrilotriacetate (Nitrilotriacetic acid, trisodium salt monohydrate) 5064-31-3 9
Trisodium ortho phosphate 7601-54-9 1
Trisodium phosphate dodecahydrate 10101-89-0 1
Ulexite 1319-33-1 1
Urea 57-13-6 3
Wall material * 1
Walnut hulls * 2
White mineral oil 8042-47-5 8
Xanthan gum 11138-66-2 6
Xylene 1330-20-7 44
Zinc chloride 7646-85-7 1
Zinc oxide 1314-13-2 2
Zirconium complex * 10
Zirconium dichloride oxide 7699-43-6 1
Zirconium oxide sulfate 62010-10-0 2
Zirconium sodium hydroxy lactate complex (Sodium zirconium lactate) 113184-20-6 2
* Components marked with an asterisk appeared on at least one MSDS without an identifying
CAS number. The MSDSs in these cases marked the CAS as proprietary, noted that the CAS was not available, or left the CAS field blank. Components marked with an asterisk may be
duplicative of other components on this list, but Committee staff have no way of identifying such
duplicates without the identifying CAS number.
Source: Report –
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
*Permanently Removed From Internet Search Engines
The beginning of the year has traditionally been a time of optimism when we all look forward to the exciting things that are going to happen over the next 12 months. Unfortunately, there are a whole bunch of things about 2013 that we already know are going to stink. Taxes are going to go up, good paying jobs will continue to leave the country, small businesses will continue to be destroyed, the number of Americans living in poverty will continue to soar, our infrastructure will continue to decay, global food supplies will likely continue to dwindle and the U.S.national debt will continue to explode. Our politicians continue to pursue the same policies that got us into this mess, and yet they continue to expect things to magically turn around. But that is not the way that things work in the real world. Bad decisions lead to bad outcomes. Instead of realizing that what we are doing is not working, our “leaders” continue to give us more of the same. As a result, there are going to be a lot of things about 2013 that will not be great. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that everything will be “okay” somehow is not going to help anyone. We’ve got to make people understand exactly what is happening and why it is happening if we ever hope to see real changes.
The following are 16 things about 2013 that are really going to stink…
#1 Taxes Are Going To Go Up
Even if a fiscal cliff deal is reached, some taxes will still go up next year. And if no deal is reached, there will be a whole bunch of different tax increases in 2013.
According to CBS News, these tax increases would be very painful for the middle class…
If lawmakers fail to work out any sort of deal, there will be severe long-term consequences for the economy: According to the Tax Policy Center, going off the “cliff” would affect 88 percent of U.S. taxpayers, with their taxes rising by an average of $3,500 a year; taxes would jump $2,400 on average for families with incomes of $50,000 to $75,000. Because consumers would get less of their paychecks to spend, businesses and jobs would suffer.
#2 The Middle Class Is About To Be Scorched By The Alternative Minimum Tax
Of more immediate concern for the middle class is the Alternative Minimum Tax. Many Americans have never heard of the AMT, but it is truly one of the worst things about our tax code.
If Congress does not act, and right now it does not look promising, millions of middle class households will see a massive increase in their tax bills for 2012.
According to one analysis, households that are forced to pay the AMT will end up paying an extra $3,700 in taxes…
Unless Congress acts by the end of the year, more than 26 million households will for the first time face the AMT, which threatens to tack $3,700, on average, onto taxpayers’ bills for the current tax year. Because those people have never paid the AMT, they have no idea they are in its crosshairs — put there by a broader stalemate over tax policy that has kept Congress from limiting the AMT’s reach.
Do you have an extra $3,700 sitting around to send to Uncle Sam?
If not, you had better contact your representatives in Congress and scream like crazy about passing a fix for the AMT. They have always gotten it done before, but this year there is so much animosity between the Republicans and the Democrats that nothing may end up getting done.
#3 The Economy Will Continue To Get Worse
Despite all of the talk in the mainstream media and from our politicians that our economy is getting better, the truth is that the U.S. economy continued to decline in 2012. If you doubt this, just read the 75 statisticsin this article.
And there are a whole host of signs that the economy is starting to slow down even more as we enter 2013. For example, consumer confidence in the United States has experienced its largest two-month drop in over a year, and retail sales during the holiday season turned out to bequite disappointing.
#4 Good Paying Jobs Will Continue To Be Shipped Out Of The United States
Thanks to decades of “free trade agreements”, workers in the United States must directly compete for jobs with hundreds of millions of workers on the other side of the globe that live in countries where it is legal to pay slave labor wages.
We continue to see millions of jobs being shipped out of the country and our politicians stand by and do nothing.
Most Americans have no idea how this emerging one world economic system works. The beautiful product that you buy at the big retail store may have been made by someone working in some of the most horrific conditions imaginable.
A 42-year-old woman named Julie Keith recently found this letterinside a box of Halloween decorations that had been made in China…
“If you occasionally buy this product, please kindly resend this letter to the World Human Right Organization. Thousands people here who are under the persecution of the Chinese Communist Party Government will thank and remember you forever.
People who work here have to work 15 hours a day without Saturday, Sunday break and any holidays. Otherwise, they will suffer torturement, beat and rude remark. Nearly no payment (10 yuan/1 month).
People who work here, suffer punishment 1-3 years averagely, but without Court Sentence (unlaw punishment). Many of them are Falun Gong practitioners, who are totally innocent people only because they have different believe to CCPG. They often suffer more punishment than others.”
But both political parties continue to tell us how wonderful it is that we are trading with communist China. They see no problem with the fact that good paying jobs that used to be performed in America are now being performed by slave laborers on the other side of the planet. And most Americans continue to support this system by filling their shopping carts with lots of stuff that has “made in China” stamped on it.
#5 Small Businesses Will Continue To Be Destroyed
At the same time, small businesses all over America are being strangled to death by taxes and regulations. Just consider the following numbers from a previous article…
We are told that the economy is supposed to be “recovering”, but the number of “startup jobs” at new businesses has fallen for five years in a row. According to an analysis of U.S. Department of Labor data performed by economist Tim Kane, there were almost 12 startup jobs per 1000 Americans back in the year 2006. By 2011, that figure had fallen to less than 8 startup jobs per 1000 Americans.
How is our economy ever going to thrive if we keep killing off our small businesses?
#6 Hunger And Poverty Will Continue To Explode To Unprecedented Levels
As the U.S. economy bleeds jobs and loses small businesses, the number of Americans living in poverty continues to explode.
Here are some numbers to show to people who still don’t understand how desperate the situation is…
-Families that have a head of household under the age of 30 have a poverty rate of 37 percent.
-According to U.S. Census data, 57 percent of all American children live in a home that is either considered to be “poor” or “low income”.
#7 The Number Of Americans On Food Stamps Will Continue To Increase
If the economy is recovering, then why does the number of Americans on food stamps continue to soar?
As I wrote about yesterday, about 17 million Americans were on food stamps back in the year 2000.
Today, more than 47 million Americans are on food stamps.
Does anyone want to explain to me how that is a sign that things are getting better?
Back in the 1970s, about one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps. Today, about one out of every 6.5 Americans is on food stamps.
How much worse do things have to get before people realize that what we are doing is not working?
#8 Millions Of Americans Are About To Lose Their Unemployment Benefits
During this economic crisis, an unprecedented number of American families have been relying on unemployment benefits in order to stay afloat.
Well, if no agreement is reached in Washington D.C., millions of Americans will shortly lose those benefits…
Three million Americans may become unwitting casualties of the political war in Washington over the fiscal cliff.
Since 2008, the federal government has funded extensions of the unemployment insurance offered by states, more than tripling the amount of aid available to the unemployed in some areas. But the program is expensive, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating it would cost $30 billion to extend it through 2013. President Barack Obama wants to extend the benefits for another year, but Congress has already pared back the program, and Republicans insist it represents the kind of largesse Washington can no longer afford.
#9 Our Infrastructure Will Continue To Rot And Decay
The United States once had the most beautiful infrastructure in the entire world. Our highways, bridges, airports, railroads, sewer systems and electrical grids were the envy of the entire planet.
Well, now we don’t even have enough money to repair what we already have, so our infrastructure will continue to rot and decay in 2013…
Highways and bridges will need $2.5 trillion in upgrades if they are to survive for another 50 years — a must-do to keep commerce thriving. And that figure doesn’t even take into account the airports, railroads, subways, sewage-treatment plants, waterworks, levees, electric grids, pipelines, and all of those other expensive systems that people ignore until they break down.
#10 Many Of Our Major Cities Will Continue To Be Transformed Into Festering Hellholes
A lot of our major cities are also rapidly degenerating. Detroit is one of my favorite examples, but the same kinds of things could be said about dozens of other major cities all over the country. The following is a brief excerpt from one of my recent articles…
If you can believe it, more than 50 percent of all children in Detroit are living in poverty, and close to 50 percent of all adults living in the city are functionally illiterate. The high school graduation rate in Detroit is down to about 25 percent, and the city has become a breeding ground for gangs and violence. The number of murders in Detroit is already higher than last year, and recently groups of young men toting AK-47s have been running around robbing gas stations. How much worse can things possibly get for Detroit?
#11 State And Local Governments Will Find Ways To Squeeze Even More Money Out Of Us
In case you haven’t noticed, state and local governments all over the country are bleeding cash and are desperate for money. In 2013 you can expect them to continue to find more ways to squeeze even more money out of all of us. Here is one example…
Over the course of 2013, the District government will add 134 traffic cameras to its network, more than doubling the size of a system that generated $85 million in revenues for the city in its last fiscal year.
Police spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump told The Washington Examiner that the city will intensify its camera-based efforts to cite motorists for speeding and stoplight violations while also adding cameras to detect other moving violations.
#12 Drug Cartels Will Continue To Easily Cross Our Borders And Terrorize Our Citizens
The federal government continues to refuse to protect our borders, and that means that drug runners and gang members will continue to pour into the United States.
Down in the Southwest, many ranchers are being absolutely terrorized by these criminals. The following is from a recent NBC News article…
Just before nightfall, 73-year-old rancher Jim Chilton hikes quickly up and down the hills on his rugged cattle-grazing land south of Tucson, escorting two U.S. Border Patrol agents.
He wants to show them the disturbing discovery he made earlier in the day: a drug-smugglers’ camp on his private property. Stacked together under a stand of trees are blankets, jackets, food, water, binoculars and bales of marijuana from Mexico wrapped in burlap. The smugglers, themselves, are nowhere in sight and are believed to have fled the area, which is about 10 miles north of the Mexican border.
Chilton has had his house burglarized a couple of times and his family regularly encounters groups of armed drug smugglers coming across from Mexico…
Their cattle fences are frequently cut and paths heading north from Mexico cross their property. Beckham says a smuggler even fired shots at him while he walked his land with a U.S. Border Patrol agent. Several illegal border crossers have also approached his house at night–one even reaching his hand into their bathroom window.
“Several years ago, one of my children was taking a shower and had a gentleman reach into the shower while he was in there, and he came out screaming, absolutely refusing to take a shower for the next couple months.”
But even if you don’t live along the border, all of this still affects you. According to government figures, Mexican drug cartels are actively operating in more than 1,200 U.S. cities right now. They are probably hard at work in the community where you live.
So what is the Obama administration doing to fix the problem?
In fact, the Obama administration is actually encouraging people to come to the U.S. and become dependent on the system. If you can believe it, there is actually a website run by the Department of Homeland Security that teaches immigrants how to apply for welfare benefits once they get into the United States.
#13 Social Decay Will Continue To Accelerate
All over America we are seeing signs of social breakdown. Here is yetanother example…
A woman sleeping on a street bench outside a drug store was doused with an accelerant and set on fire early Thursday morning in Van Nuys.
Witnesses told police that a man poured liquid — possibly a beverage containing alcohol — on the sleeping woman at about 1 a.m. outside a Walgreens store near Van Nuys Boulevard and Sherman Way. He lit a match and ran from the location, witnesses told police.
Who would just run up and set a woman on fire?
Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. For many more examples like this, please see this article: “20 Shocking Examples Of How Sadistic And Cruel People Have Become“.
We need to admit that we have a major problem on our hands. Violent crime in the United States increased by 18 percent in 2011, and another huge increase is expected when the numbers for 2012 come out.
America is changing, and not for the better.
#14 Global Food Supplies Will Continue To Dwindle
Did you know that for six of the last eleven years the world has consumed more food than it has produced?
As a result, global food reserves have reached their lowest level in almost 40 years.
So what is going to happen if the world continues to eat more food than it makes?
Let us hope that there is not another major drought in 2013. If there is, we could be looking at a very serious food crunch.
#15 Wall Street Will Continue To Resemble A Giant Casino
Our financial system seems to have not learned any lessons from the financial crash of 2008.
Instead of admitting their mistakes, they just continue to engage in even more reckless behavior.
Today, there are four major U.S. banks that each have more than 40 trillion dollars of exposure to derivatives.
At some point that house of cards is going to collapse and we will be facing a derivatives crisis of unprecedented magnitude.
Will it be in 2013?
#16 The U.S. National Debt Will Cross The 17 Trillion Dollar Mark
In 2013, our national debt will blow past the 17 trillion dollar mark and start heading toward 18 trillion dollars.
How stupid can we possibly be?
During the first four years of the Obama administration, the U.S. national debt has grown by about as much as it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that George W. Bush took office.
It really takes something to match more than 200 years of debt accumulation in less than four years.
But our politicians don’t seem to care about all of this debt. They will continue to steal more than 100 million dollars from our children and our grandchildren every single hour of every single day. That is beyond criminal, and yet the American people don’t seem to care.
What in the world has happened to this country?
Of course not everything about 2013 will be bad. Personally, I am looking forward to an exciting year. I have a new book that will be coming out, and my family is blessed and healthy. I would like to wish all of you a very blessed 2013. Things may be falling apart all around us, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t have a great year even in the midst of all the chaos.
When are we finally going to admit that we have a very serious problem with this generation of young men in America? We have failed them so dramatically that it is hard to put it into words. We have raised an entire generation of young males that don’t know how to be men, and many of them feel completely lost. Sometimes they feel so lost that they “snap” in very destructive ways. Adam Lanza and James Holmes are two names that come to mind. Why is it that mass murderers are almost always young men? Why don’t young women behave the same way? Sadly, Adam Lanza and James Holmes are just the tip of the iceberg of a much larger problem in our society. Our young women vastly outperform our young men in almost every important statistical category. Young men are much more likely to perform poorly in school, they are much more likely to have disciplinary problems and they are much more likely to commit suicide. In the old days, our young men would gather in the streets or in the parks to play with one another after school, but today most of them are content to spend countless hours feeding their addictions to video games, movies and other forms of entertainment. When our young men grow up, many of them are extremely averse to taking on responsibility. They want to have lots of sex, but they aren’t interested in marriage. They enjoy the comforts of living at home, but they don’t want to go out and pursue career goals so that they can provide those things for themselves. Our young men are supposed to be “the leaders of tomorrow”, but instead many of them are a major burden on society. When are we finally going to admit that something has gone horribly wrong?
There is even a name for this generation of young men that does not want to grow up. It is called the “Peter Pan generation”. They want to enjoy the benefits of being grown up without ever taking on the responsibilities. A member of this “Peter Pan generation” recent wrote an article for the Daily Mail in which he discussed what he and his friends are going through…
I haven’t yet had to grow up so, well, I haven’t.
Reckless, irresponsible and immature? Yes. But at least I can take comfort in the fact I am not alone.
Last week, I read that there is even a name for people such as me. We are the ‘Peter Pan generation’; a sizeable group of 25 to 40-year-olds who exist in a state of extended adolescence, avoiding the trappings of responsibility — marriage, mortgage, children — for as long as possible.
‘Our society is full of lost boys and girls hanging out at the edge of adulthood,’ says Professor Frank Furedi, a sociologist who has been studying this phenomenon, at the University of Kent.
‘Another word sometimes used to describe these people is “adultescent” — generally defined as someone who refuses to settle down and make commitments, and who would rather go on partying into middle age.’
Young men in America didn’t always behave this way. Several decades ago, men in America moved away from home, got married and had children much earlier than they do now. But the young men of today seem to want to put off the “markers of adulthood” for as long as possible. The following is from an outstanding article by Sandy Hingston…
Sociologists cite five “markers” or “milestones” that have traditionally defined our notion of adulthood: finishing school, moving away from the parental home, becoming financially independent, getting married, and having a child. In 1960, 65 percent of men had ticked off all five by age 30; by 2000, only a third had. The experts have plenty of explanations for what’s come to be called “extended adolescence” or “emerging adulthood”—or what New York Times columnist David Brooks calls the “Odyssey Years.” They blame helicopter parents, the burden of student loan debt, much higher poverty rates among young people (nearly half of all Americans ages 25 to 34 live below the national level), and a dearth of vo-tech training and manufacturing jobs. Almost 60 percent of parents are now giving money to their grown kids—an average of $38,340 per child in the years between ages 18 and 34. Whatever happened to the son looking after his mom?
So why is all of this happening?
Well, there are a whole host of reasons. But certainly parents and our education system have to bear much of the blame. In the old days, young men were taught what it means to “be a man”, and morality was taught to young men both by their parents and in the schools. But today, most young men have very little understanding of what “manhood” is, and our society has taught them that morality doesn’t really matter. Instead, television and movies constantly portray young men as sex-obsessed slackers that just want to party all the time, so that is what many of our young men have become.
How much better off would our society be if we had trained this generation of young men to love, honor, protect and take care of others?
How much better off would our society be if we had nurtured the manhood of our young men instead of teaching them to be ashamed of it?
How much better off would our society be if we had disciplined our young men and taught them morality when they were getting off track instead of just letting them do whatever they wanted?
The following are 22 stats that prove that there is something seriously wrong with young men in America today…
#1 Males account for approximately 70 percent of all Ds and Fs in U.S. public schools.
#2 About two-thirds of all students in “special education programs” are boys.
#4 The average young American will spend 10,000 hours playing video games before the age of 21.
#5 One study discovered that 88 percent of all Americans between the ages of 8 and 18 play video games, and that video game addiction is approximately four times as common among boys as it is among girls.
#6 At this point, 15-year-olds that attend U.S. public schools do not even rank in the top half of all industrialized nations when it comes to math or science literacy.
#7 In 2011, SAT scores for young men were the worst that they had been in 40 years.
#8 According to a survey conducted by the National Geographic Society, only 37 percent of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 can find the nation of Iraq on a map.
#9 According to the New York Times, approximately 57 percent of all young people enrolled at U.S. colleges are women.
#10 It is being projected that women will earn 60 percent of all Bachelor’s degrees from U.S. universities by the year 2016.
#11 Even if they do graduate from college, most of our young men still can’t find a decent job. An astounding 53 percent of all Americans with a bachelor’s degree under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed during 2011.
#12 Pornography addiction is a major problem among our young men. An astounding 30 percent of all Internet traffic now goes to pornography websites, and one survey found that 25 percent of all employees that have Internet access in the United States even visit sex websites while they are at work.
#13 In the United States today, 47 percent of all high school students have had sex.
#14 The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate on the entire planet. If our young men behaved differently this would not be happening.
#15 In the United States today, one out of every four teen girls has at least one sexually transmitted disease. If our young men were not sex-obsessed idiots running around constantly looking to “score” these diseases would not be spreading like this.
#16 Right now, approximately 53 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 24 year old age bracket are living at home with their parents.
#18 Young men are nearly twice as likely to live with their parents as young women the same age are.
#19 Overall, approximately 25 million American adults are living with their parents in the United States right now according to Time Magazine.
#20 Today, an all-time low 44.2% of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 are married.
#22 Young men are about four times more likely to commit suicide as young women are.
So what do you think about this generation of young men in America? Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below…