We found that many household products like shampoos, body lotions, cleaners and mothballs release toxic volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, into indoor air. In addition, we identified toxic VOCs that are prevalent in products heavily used by workers on the job, such as cleaning fluids, adhesives, paint removers and nail polish. However, gaps in laws that govern ingredient disclosure mean that neither consumers nor workers generally know what is in the products they use.

For this study we analyzed data from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which tracks VOCs released from consumer products in an effort to reduce smog. The agency periodically surveys companies that sell products in California, collecting information on concentrations of VOCs used in everything from hair spray to windshield wiper fluid.

We cross-referenced the most recent data with a list of chemicals identified as carcinogens or reproductive/developmental toxicants under Californias right-to-know law, Proposition 65. This measure, enacted in 1986, requires businesses to notify Californians about significant exposure to chemicals that are known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harms.

We found 33 toxic VOCs present in consumer products. Over 100 consumer products covered by the CARB contain VOCs listed under Prop 65.

Of these, we identified 30 product types and 11 chemicals that we see as high priorities for either reformulation with safer alternatives or regulatory action because of the chemicals high toxicity and widespread use.

Why it matters

Our study identifies consumer products containing carcinogens and reproductive and developmental toxicants that are widely used at home and in the workplace. Consumers have limited information about these products ingredients.

We also found that people are likely co-exposed to many hazardous chemicals together as mixtures through use of many different products, which often contain many chemicals of health concern. For example, janitors might use a combination of general cleaners, degreasers, detergents and other maintenance products. This could expose them to more than 20 different Prop 65-listed VOCs.

Similarly, people experience aggregate exposures to the same chemical from multiple sources. Methanol, which is listed under Prop 65 for developmental toxicity, was found in 58 product categories. Diethanolamine, a chemical frequently used in products like shampoos that are creamy or foamy, appeared in 40 different product categories. Canada and the European Union prohibit its use in cosmetics because it can react with other ingredients to form chemicals that may cause cancer.

Some chemicals, such as N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and ethylene gylcol, are listed under Prop 65 because they are reproductive or developmental toxicants. Yet they appeared widely in goods such as personal care products, cleansers and art supplies that are routinely used by children or people who are pregnant.

Our findings could help state and federal agencies strengthen chemical regulations. We identified five chemicals cumene, 1,3-dichloropropene, diethanolamine, ethylene oxide and styrene as high-priority targets for risk evaluation and management under the Toxic Substances Control Act by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

What still isnt known

Our analysis of the CARB data on volatile toxicants does not paint a complete picture. Many toxic chemicals, such as lead, PFAS and bisphenol A (BPA), dont have to be reported to the Air Resources Board because they are not volatile, meaning that they dont readily turn from liquid to gas at room temperature.

In addition, we were not able to identify specific products of concern because the agency aggregates data over whole categories of products.

What other research is being done

Studies have shown that women generally use more cosmetic, personal care and cleaning products than men, so they are likely to be more highly exposed to harmful chemicals in these categories. Further, women working in settings like nail salons may be exposed from products used both personally and professionally.

Research by members of our team has also shown that product use varies by race and ethnicity, partly due to racialized beauty standards. Policy interventions could be tailored to prioritize these potentially more-highly exposed groups.

Ultimately, a right-to-know law like Prop 65 can only go so far in addressing toxics in products. Weve found in other research that some manufacturers do choose to reformulate their products to avoid Prop 65 chemicals, rather than having to warn customers about toxic ingredients.

But Prop 65 does not ban or restrict any chemicals, and there is no requirement for manufacturers to choose safer substitutes. We believe our new analysis points to the need for national action that ensures consumers and workers alike have safer products.

Dr. Kristin Knox at the Silent Spring Institute contributed to this article.

Robin Dodson, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Environmental Health, Boston University; Megan R. Schwarzman, Associate Project Scientist and Continuing Lecturer in Environmental Health Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, and Ruthann Rudel, Visiting Scholar, Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, Northeastern University, Northeastern University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

On Saturday, he will join rabbis across Britain in reading a prayer in English and Hebrew that gives thanks for the new king in the name of the one God who created us all.

Liss, the rabbi of Highgate Synagogue in north London, said British Jews appreciated Charles pledge to promote the co-existence of all faiths and his record of supporting a multifaith society during his long apprenticeship as heir to the throne.

When he says he wants to be a defender of faiths, that means the world because our history hasnt always been so simple and we havent always lived freely; we havent been able to practice our religion, Liss told The Associated Press. But knowing that King Charles acts this way and speaks this way is tremendously comforting.

At a time when religion is fueling tensions around the world from Hindu nationalists in India to Jewish settlers in the West Bank and fundamentalist Christians in the United States Charles is trying to bridge the differences between the faith groups that make up Britains increasingly diverse society.

Achieving that goal is critical to the new kings efforts to show that the monarchy, a 1,000-year-old institution with Christian roots, can still represent the people of modern, multicultural Britain.

But Charles, the supreme governor of the Church of England, faces a very different country than the one that adoringly celebrated his mothers coronation in 1953.

Seventy years ago, more than 80% of the people of England were Christian, and the mass migration that would change the face of the nation was just beginning. That figure has now dropped below half, with 37% saying they have no religion, 6.5% calling themselves Muslim and 1.7% Hindu, according to the latest census figures. The change is even more pronounced in London, where more than a quarter of the population have a non-Christian faith.

Charles recognized that change long before he became king last September.

As far back as the 1990s, Charles suggested that he would like to be known as the defender of faith, a small but hugely symbolic change from the monarchs traditional title of defender of the faith, meaning Christianity. Its an important distinction for a man who believes in the healing power of yoga and once called Islam one of the greatest treasuries of accumulated wisdom and spiritual knowledge available to humanity.

The kings commitment to diversity will be on display at his coronation, when religious leaders representing the Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh traditions will for the first time play an active role in the ceremonies.

I have always thought of Britain as a community of communities, Charles told faith leaders in September.

That has led me to understand that the Sovereign has an additional duty less formally recognized but to be no less diligently discharged. It is the duty to protect the diversity of our country, including by protecting the space for faith itself and its practice through the religions, cultures, traditions and beliefs to which our hearts and minds direct us as individuals.

Thats not an easy task in a country where religious and cultural differences sometimes boil over.

Just last summer, Muslim and Hindu youths clashed in the city of Leicester. The main opposition Labour Party has struggled to rid itself of antisemitism, and the governments counterterrorism strategy has been criticized for focusing on Muslims. Then there are the sectarian differences that still separate Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

Such tensions underscore the crucial need for Britain to have a head of state who personally works to promote inclusivity, said Farhan Nizami, director of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies.

Charles has been the centers patron for 30 years, lending his stature to Nizamis effort to build an academic hub for studying all facets of the Islamic world, including history, science and literature, as well as religion. During those years, the center moved from a nondescript wooden structure to a complex that has its own library, conference facilities and a mosque complete with dome and minaret.

It is very important that we have a king who has been consistently committed to (inclusivity), Nizami said. It is so relevant in the modern age, with all the mobility, with the difference and diversity that exists, that the head of this state should bring people together, both by example and action.

Those actions are sometimes small. But they resonate with people like Balwinder Shukra, who saw the king a few months ago when he officially opened the Guru Nanak Gurdwara, a Sikh house of worship, in Luton, an ethnically diverse city of almost 300,000 north of London.

Shukra, 65, paused from patting out flatbreads known as chapatis for the communal meal the gurdwara serves to all comers, adjusted her floral shawl, and expressed her admiration for Charles decision to sit on the floor with other members of the congregation.

Referring to the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh holy book, Shukra said that all the people (are) equal. It doesnt matter if you are king, she added.

Some British newspapers have suggested that Charles desire to include other faiths in the coronation faced resistance from the Church of England, and one conservative religious commentator recently warned that a multifaith ceremony could weaken the kingly roots of the monarchy.

But George Gross, who studies the link between religion and monarchy, dismissed these concerns.

The crowning of monarchs is a tradition that stretches back to the ancient Egyptians and Romans, so there is nothing intrinsically Christian about it, said Gross, a visiting research fellow at Kings College London. In addition, all of the central religious elements of the service will be conducted by Church of England clergy.

Representatives of other faiths have already been present at other major public events in Britain, such as the Remembrance Day services.

These things are not unusual in more contemporary settings, he said So I think of it the other way: Were there not to be other representatives, it would seem very odd.

Charles commitment to a multifaith society is also a symbol of the progress thats been made in ending a rift in the Christian tradition that began in 1534, when Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church and declared himself head of the Church of England.

That split ushered in hundreds of years of tensions between Catholics and Anglicans that finally faded during the queens reign, said Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the most senior Catholic clergyman in England. Nichols will be in the Abbey when Charles is crowned on Saturday.

I get lots of privileges, he said cheerfully. But this will be one of the greatest, I think, to play a part in the coronation of the monarch.

The firm is going after Carl Icahn, a legendary activist investor whos been around for decades. Director Oliver Stone borrowed heavily from the real-life titan to create his fictional greed is good corporate raider, immortalized by Michael Douglas in the film Wall Street.

Hindenburg accused Icahn of luring average investors to his exchange-listed investment holding company, [hotlink]Icahn Enterprises,[/hotlink] with the highest dividend yield of any large cap stock currently trading, then using their investments to pay others.

Icahn has been using money taken in from new investors to pay out dividends to old investors, Hindenburg wrote on Tuesday.

The $2 quarterly payout is equivalent to roughly 16% of the share price at the time Hindenburg published its note. Icahn Enterprises also enjoys an absurd 218% premium to the value of its assets, according to Hindenburg. By comparison, shares trading over the counter in Bill Ackmans Pershing Square trade at a 35% discount to its reported assets.

Since the cashflows Icahns company generates are entirely insufficient to afford the generosity of a $2 quarterly payout, according to Hindenburg, it argues the business model is unsustainable, and in part explains why virtually no professional money managers invest in Icahn Enterprises.

Icahn Enterprises instead supported this dividend policy by selling $1.7 billion worth of shares over the past four years since 2019, Hindenburg claimed.

Is Carl Icahn the next big short?

He just got a taste of his own medicine from Hindenburg Research

Icahn is being called out for $IEP, his $15 billion investment fund that allegedly tricks retail investors into investing based on an artificially high dividend yield of nearly pic.twitter.com/sN6G16xvnv

Genevieve Roch-Decter, CFA (@GRDecter) May 2, 2023

Such ponzi-like economic structures are sustainable only to the extent that new money is willing to risk being the last one holding the bag, Hindenburg wrote.

Shares in Icahn Enterprises fell sharply amid the accusations, down 16% on Tuesday.

Fortune reached out repeatedly to Icahn Enterprises for comment but did not immediately receive a reply.

Icahn made a name for himself in 1985 with a campaign against management at Trans World Airline (TWA), which resulted in him acquiring the now-defunct carrier a year later in a story that mirrored Gekkos pursuit of fictional Bluestar in Wall Street.

Hindenburg developed a reputation for sniffing out misbehavior after famously pulling the curtain back on fraud committed by Nikola CEO Trevor Milton, who is presently awaiting sentencing. 

More recently Hindenburg accused Indias Gautam Adani of corporate malfeasance in January. At the time the tycoon was the worlds third richest man behind only Bernard Arnault and Elon Musk, but his empire and his own personal fortune suffered a severe blow in the process.

In a lengthy response, Adani Group called the allegations baseless and went so far as to claim it an affront to all Indians. This is not merely an unwarranted attack on any specific company but a calculated attack on India, it wrote that month.

In March, the short seller went after Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey and his new fintech company Block, alleging it was inflating its performance.

Block responded by saying it would explore legal action against Hindenburg Research for the factually inaccurate and misleading report.