Regulation to Combat Cleaning Chemicals Applauded

The New York Sun’s editorial “For the Birds” [January 6, 2004] criticizing Governor Pataki’s recent executive order mandating nontoxic cleaning products for New York State says no evidence exists that the chemicals used to clean state offices are toxic, and that the executive order reflects an unjustified fear of chemicals. In fact there is clear, scientific evidence demonstrating the health impacts of common cleaning products, and public concern is warranted.

The manufacturers of cleaning products are required by law to provide warning labels and Material Safety Data Sheets documenting that exposure to these products may result in eye, skin, or respiratory irritation, or may contain carcinogens, reproductive toxins, or other hazardous substances.

Studies published by the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, in January 2001, and in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in May 2003, found that janitorial workers experience twice the asthma rates of other workers, and that 12% of work-related asthma cases can be linked to cleaning products.

The good news is that localities across the nation are using less-toxic, cost-effective products, and that these are readily available through virtually all major manufacturers of cleaning products.

Governor Pataki should be congratulated for his decisive action.

CAMERON S. LORY
Chemical Hazards Prevention Project Coordinator
INFORM
Manhattan

Columbia University’s Response

After reading “Crisis at Columbia” [“Anti-Defamation League Director: University Fails to Protect Jewish Students,” Jacob Gershman, New York, January 6, 2005], I was taken aback by the disingenuousness of the league’s national director, Abraham Foxman. In a criticism of the university’s academic freedom committee, he said, “You don’t ask lawyers to police lawyers or doctors to police doctors.”

However, that is exactly what is done with lawyers who are subject to grievance committees, made up of other lawyers who are part of the court system and doctors who are governed by local medical societies and the American Medical Association’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.

Additionally, police departments have bureaus of internal affairs staffed by police officers who investigate the alleged wrongdoing of other police officers. The financial services industry is also subject to self-regulation by self regulatory organizations, such as the National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange. Lastly, the American military epitomizes self-regulation by not only having inspectors general but also its own legal system, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, both composed of military personnel.

Mr. Foxman’s implied contention that Columbia University is doing something exceptional by having an internal committee is wrong in light of the fact that self regulation is the norm for many institutions in our society. Self-regulation obviously works and should be given a chance to continue to do so in these circumstances.

JAMES P. VIGOTTY
East Northport, N.Y.

U.N. Opinions Misunderstood

Regarding Jill Gardiner’s article “Candidates Drawn to Upper East Side Council Seats”[New York, December 30, 2004]: I appreciate the concerns of my City Council colleagues and this editorial page about the United Nations and the egregious behavior of several member nations. I do not, however, think that a construction project should be used as a foreign-policy referendum. The U.N. is a 50-year-old international policy-making body that I am proud to have in my district. It brings with it an internationalism that is at the heart of New York City’s character and makes a $2.5 billion contribution to our city’s economy. One of the least discussed aspects of this plan is the desperately needed modernization of the U.N. to ensure its security.

Unfortunately, the article misrepresented my position on the land-use aspect of this debate: I support the U.N.’s need to address its facility needs. The waterfront esplanade is a step in the right direction of a larger, more comprehensive mitigation plan. This plan should only proceed after extensive public review has taken place, and Turtle Bay residents and their elected officials have had the opportunity to fully participate in this land-use discussion. Sadly, the vast majority of public conversations on this topic have been skewed by inflamed and unproductive foreign policy accusations that do little to improveTurtle Bay residents’ lives, the operation of the U.N., or New York City’s economy and international culture.

EVA MOSKOWITZ
City Council Member
4th District
Manhattan

---

Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.