A public comment and consultation period is open now, but risk assessment and management reports have already been published and the Government of Canada plans to update The Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist accordingly.
“Based on the latest science and the final screening assessment completed in 2021, the Government of Canada concludes that talc may be harmful to lungs when inhaling certain loose talc powder products, and it may cause ovarian cancer when using certain self-care products containing talc in the female genital area.” This, according to a media release issued just last week from Health Canada, the country’s governmental department responsible for national health policy.
about how the public views this white house? it says the public is alarmed, very alarmed, and concerned about whether the president is monetizing the presidency. well, to that point, schaub says his office has traditionally taken a risk management approach, but it became very clear to him that this presidency has a higher tolerance for risk. let s listen to what he told chris hayes on friday. we have people divest things. but the consistent approach that i m running into in dealing with this counsel s office has been if it s not illegal, we ll do it. and if there is an argument that it s probably not illegal, we ll do it. so that has undermined the program that has existed for four decades. categorize this for me this new approach to ethics by the
financial interests and not run afoul of that law if you were will to put your feet up on that zpeks read your newspaper all day and do your job. that s unworkable. we take a risk management approach. we set up other mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interest and we are two steps back from the line. the consistent approach that i m running into has been, if it is not illegal, we re going to do it. if there s an argument, we re going to do it. that has undermined the program that has existed for four decades. what i m hearing is they have taken an aggressive posture in terms of where they can set up with respect to the line on conflicts, particularly. this is a really important question. your job is to certify that there s no conflicts. i want to talk about, i want to you give me this. can you definitively say that everyone in the white house including the president, free of conflicts of interest? well no. we ve received very little
those traditions. an example is that with presidential nominees, the primary criminal conflict of interest statute says you can t participate in something where you have a conflict of interest. so you can come into government and keep all of your could not financial interests and not run afoul of that law if you were will to put your feet up on that zpeks read your newspaper all day and do your job. that s unworkable. we take a risk management approach. we set up other mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interest and we are two steps back from the line. the consistent approach that i m running into has been, if it is not illegal, we re going to do it. if there s an argument, we re going to do it. that has undermined the program that has existed for four decades. what i m hearing is they have taken an aggressive posture in terms of where they can set up with respect to the line on
and is on its way to the president. mike emanuel explains while the bill received a lot of votes, it doesn t have a lot of fans. the ayes are 68. the nays are 32, and the conference report is agreed to. the senate passed a bipartisan compromise of a five-year, $956 million farm bill which took three years of negotiation. it s expected to reduce the deficit by $23 billion in the next decade, including cutting $8 billion in food stamp funding by correcting a program misuse. we think we have tightened it up so it will not affect the payments to those who are truly eligible and those who need the help, and yet it will make sure the taxpayers are treated fairly as well. the chair of the senate agriculture committee says this deal ends indefensible spending after many years of trying. we have finally ended direct payment subsidies which are given to farmers even in good times. instead, we move to a responsible risk management