 I get the chance, wonderful opportunity to read a little passage and then have each of them speak. And I'm going to ask David Chu to go first because David actually has to leave us. He's got other commitments this evening. So, if you may, let me read a section on states. It seems to be appropriate. States offer fertile ground for statutory initiatives and new administrative programs. And some of these states can be effective partners for federal agencies in implementing comprehensive chemical policies. States such as Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Minnesota, New York, Washington, Oregon, and of course, California. Those states with developed environmental and public health constituencies have long been leaders in environmental policies. These states have established some of the strongest public health protections and pollution prevention programs in the country. And during the past decade, these and several other states have passed laws banning or prohibiting the use of chemicals such as mercury, lead, cadmium, bisphenol A, and brominated flame retardants in consumer products. And as Mike Bellovo, the founder of the Maine Environmental Health Strategy Center says, the states have been the true leaders in environmental health policy. Between 2003 and 2011, 19 states adopted 93 chemical safety policies and the majorities of these have passed with bipartisan support. David, give us an idea of how you seek states like California promoting a shift to safer chemicals. So the answer is yes. You know, certainly states, and I would put in that category, localities like San Francisco, need to lead the way. Let me first start by thanking the organizers for inviting me and just observing that the partners that you see here on the stage, along with the public, this is how we move important measures forward. We need experts, particularly to help educate dumb politicians. We need amazing policymakers who are working from executive branches to administer programs, we need non-profit advocates, and then we need an innovating private sector that understands that you can actually do well while you're doing good. So with regards to your question around the role of states, I had my starting government working now 20 years ago in Congress in the federal government. In the part of our country that is supposed to be regulating all these things for the protection of everyone else. And I think you can anticipate what I'm going to say. But 20 years ago, I decided to move to San Francisco because at that time, Congress was truly dysfunctional. And in fact, I was working during the first Republican Congress when that first Republican Congress had threatened its first government shutdown. 20 years later, things have gotten dramatically worse. And the idea that the feds are going to come to a rescue with regards to all these issues is truly a pipe dream at this point. If we could figure out how to avoid economic calamity, we will be lucky. But when it comes to thinking about a vision of a world that lacks chemicals that harm completely, not even on the radar. So what I often say about this topic is it's important for jurisdictions like San Francisco and California to lead. And let me first speak for a moment about my experience in San Francisco City government. You know, we're a government that is known for not just merit equality, not just being in the forefront of the labor movement. But when it comes to the environment, we have been on the cutting edge. And I want to thank Debbie Raphael and the Department of the Environment for working with me during my six years here on a half a dozen first in the country environmental policies and about half of them related to this very topic we're discussing. Let me just tick through a few of them. So early in my time, I was approached by a coalition of immigrant rights advocates, labor advocates, and environmental advocates who pointed me to the challenges that face the 2,000 nail salon workers here in San Francisco. And we all know, you intuitively know when you walk into a nail salon, doesn't smell that healthy. And we also know now that there is at least a so-called toxic trio of chemicals that are typically found in nail polishes. And I asked my staff to research this. It turned out that only the feds in this area have the right to ban this product under what is known as preemption doctrine. And so we had to figure out a more creative way to get around it and what we decided to do because we couldn't use a stick approach to this area was we decided to move with a carrot approach, which is we established a program that Director Rafael now runs whereby nail salons that check the boxes with regards to having a healthy nail salon, having healthy nail polishes, having worker safety conditions that meet the standards that we all agree on, they are deemed a quote unquote healthy nail salon. And we use that as a market signal so that all of us who go to nail salons will choose the better locations. And that has now, and Debbie can talk more about it, we now have 30 nail salons really in the last few years that have stepped up to the standard. We've now seen six counties in the state of California that have done this. And again, that is an area where San Francisco has led. Let me tick through a couple of other areas that we have worked on in this. The second has to do with this little product known as plastic water bottles. We all know that over time plastic water bottles, whether you consume the water in them or allow them to rot out in the woods or in the oceans are very bad for us. And again, this was an area where it was very, very difficult to consider a ban but what we decided to do was to phase out the sale of plastic water bottles on public properties. And over the next few years, that will be the case in San Francisco. Again, we're trying to set a standard in this area. Third topic I'll mention has to do with cancer with regards to firefighters. A lot of firefighters, as you probably know, we've seen cluster cancers in part because flame retardant materials when they actually burn are really, really bad for the folks who are our heroes who have to run into buildings. And so a few years ago, I legislated what we now refer to as a cancer presumption which is when a firefighter gets cancer, we assume that they have been diagnosed with cancer because of the fumes that they've had to consume on their workplaces. And I'll just mention a fourth bill that we had moved forward which was also very controversial although I think now a few years in as far less controversial has to do with the topics of unused and expired drugs, pharmaceuticals. We all know that when you're sick, you take a couple pills and when you're better, you forget about it, you leave it in the medicine cabinet and over time, every single one of us, we have probably an entire carton worth of unused medications. Well, where do these medications go? We initially took the position as a city that we tried to get the pharmaceutical industries to pay for taking them away but they were not too excited about doing that. So we established a program in San Francisco. We became the second jurisdiction in California to do this which is a drug take back program. It's a voluntary program in partnership with police stations as well as with independent drug stores. And I say that because Walgreens and other more established drug store chains refused to take part in this and it was the mom and pop independent pharmacies that agreed to be the site where you could take back your unused and expired medications which otherwise would be flushed down the toilet consumed by kids and pets or potentially in many cases or some cases used by individuals who wanted to end their lives. And this has been a very successful program in its first year I think in San Francisco. We collected about six tons of these materials. There are really sort of two things I want to just observe about the San Francisco experience with regards to all of these issues. First of all, every single one of these policies took a coalition of folks, a collection of people who look like the folks here on this panel. And in fact, all of the ideas for these really came from citizen activists and came to me and said, hey, what are you going to do about unused pharmaceuticals? What are you going to do about plastic bottles? Can you figure out how to move forward with phasing out toxic nail polishes? And so I want to encourage all of you, if you have a great idea, please approach the likes of me, actually approach me because I will want a good idea. But it really takes a cooperation between elected officials and government policy makers, the nonprofit sector and the private sector to move things forward. Let me just close by saying a few words about the state of California. Part of why I am really bullish about Mr. Geiser's premise is we live in a state that is the seventh largest economy in the world. So we recently passed Brazil, Russia and Italy. So the purchasing power of consumers in the state of California has a real ability to impact in ways that one wouldn't have thought 20 or 30 years ago. We used to think that you could only impact markets through federal government action, but I can assure you when California makes a move, in fact, even when San Francisco makes certain decisions, large manufacturers not only take heed, but they often will make changes so that they can continue to access different markets. Now that being said, I will also observe that unlike San Francisco, where I'd like to say we have a very enlightened, progressive citizenry, in the state of California, I think it's fair to say that industry often gets its way at a much more significant level. And so it behooves all of us to continue this advocacy in intense ways. Let me just tick through a couple of topics that we've discussed this year. So we had a discussion around cleaning products and a requirement of disclosing toxic issues with cleaning products. That was a bill that stalled in the State Assembly. We had another bill that was authored by our State Senator Mark Leno that required the disclosure of toxic chemicals in children's products. Again, another bill that stalled this year in the legislature. A third issue is the toxic packaging. So a bill that would have kept toxic metals out of food or drink containers. This was a bill that I worked with my colleague Luis Alejo to move out of the assembly, but it is now stalled in the Senate. And then not to leave on a completely pessimistic note, but we did have one major victory this year, which was around microbeads. These are the beads that we all find. And I have to say, I give my colleague, the former mayor of Santa Monica and my colleague, Assemblymember Richard Bloom, who proposed this. And I remember talking to him about it and I said, I'm happy to support you, but man, this is going to be a tough fight. And he was able to get it out of both houses and the governor just signed it a few weeks ago. We have a lot of work to do. I mentioned the first three because these all were things that I think everyone in this room would find to be a no-brainer and yet it stalled in different ways. Let me just conclude by really apologizing. I have to do what is known in our industry as the talk and walk because I have to present something in another part of my district about five minutes ago. But I want to, again, just thank everyone who's involved and really thank all of you for being engaged in this topic. We need to work with our public to make this happen. We need you to be voices in the community, writing off-beds, giving us ideas and being the conscience of the issues that we work on. And all that being said to my fellow panelists, I look forward to conspiring with you to finding that vision, as Mr. Geiser said, of a world that is free of chemicals without harm. So thank you so much for having me. Thank you very much. Well, with that, let's move to the city, this wonderful city here. Debbie, the reframing of the chemicals problem lies at the heart of a chemical conversion strategy and opens opportunities for new chemical material and product solutions. A strategy like this is big and complex and it needs to organize a host of diverse parties. The challenge is to orchestrate an assortment of diverse tactics among a group of important parties who are all generally committed to transitioning towards safer and more sustainable chemicals in the economy. The first step, and certainly one of the hardest, is to get the many important forces to accept this new definition of the chemicals problem and to agree to work together to find a transformative solutions. So Debbie, it will take a broad assortment of parties to transition to safer economy. How can local government play a role? How can San Francisco, how does San Francisco play this role? I don't know where these things, is this a good distance for my face? These are really interesting. Yeah, well, thank you for that. And Ken, it is such an honor for me to be up here with you tonight and to think about what an impact you have had on my career. You have truly shaped the lives of so many of us as we try and find ways to tackle these sometimes insurmountable problems. So thank you for that inspiration and for this book. I think Assemblymember Chu really set the stage beautifully. He represents that wonderful politician who's worked at the local level and now has gone to the state level and brought with him that understanding of the importance of grassroots and the importance of bringing everyone together. Ken talked about that phrase that I use a lot, asking the right question, is not is it legal, not is it safe, but is it necessary? And I think that I've graduated to a fourth question and that question that a lot of us are asking in less of an intellectual way, but really in a gut way, and it came to me when Jen was giving the introduction about her own mother, is it worth it? Is it worth it? Do we really need to have stain-resistant genes if the chemicals that are in those genes are going to come off in the wash and pollute the oceans or come off on our bodies and give us cancer? Is it worth it? Because industry would say it is necessary. Oh yes, everybody wants that stain resistance. Everybody wants permanent press. That's necessary. That's progress. So I think we all have an opportunity and a rage inside of us right now where we're saying enough, I don't think it's worth it. And how do we express that rage? How do we express that it isn't worth it to me? And I think that's something that Assembly Member Chu talked very well about when he talks about the power of economy. And in your book, you talk about converting the chemicals' economy. That's the word you use, a conversion of an economy. And when we convert an economy, it's going to take a lot of different tactics, a lot of methods because there's a tremendous amount of inertia that we have to overcome. There's a lot of profit embedded in this current economy. And asking the right question and demanding the answer is what we all have to do. So when I step back and say, well, what are the ways that I as an individual, we as a city, we as a state can start to demand the answers to that question, there are indeed many tactics and we've experimented with many of them. And the first obviously is education, letting people know what's in their products. And I think that Assembly Member Chu talked about some of the barriers to that of getting information out. We'd like to know what's in our products, but those bills don't pass because there's tremendous resistance to transparency. But nonetheless, there's something we can all do around education. There's our buying power and whether that buying power is us as individuals and choosing what we buy and telling our manufacturer, telling the brands why we're buying their products or not. There's also the purchasing power of a city. We have 29,000 employees in this city. That's a lot of buying that we do. California is the seventh largest economy. It's a lot of purchasing. And we have people in the audience, Alicia, where are you? There you are. Alicia Culver back there with a responsible purchasing network bringing cities from around the country together to ask the question, how can we use our collective purchasing power to drive the marketplace? And then there's the voluntary, the sweet spot, those incentive programs. How do we reward our businesses for doing the right thing? And we as cities have a lot that we can do, whether it's our green business program, whether it's the way we work with dry cleaners to go to wet cleaning and give them incentives or the nail salon program that Assemblymember Chu talked about. So that's really important, but that alone doesn't work unless there's the demand, right? So we can build the supply, but all of us need to work on the demand side. And then there are the sticks. And the sticks kind of make me feel better sometimes. And Kelly Moran is a big, she's a very big proponent of the sticks. She is one to say that we cannot educate or voluntary our way out of this. We've got to set standards. And as we heard from Ken and from Assemblymember Chu, those standards aren't going to come from the feds. They can come from the state. And California has an amazing opportunity right now with the Green Chemistry Initiative. I want you to know that the spray polyurethane foam folks are fighting hard. They're not happy with being listed as a priority product. And they are doing all they can to undermine this effort. So even though we have the law passed, we have regulations in place, it's critical that we make sure that these things are implemented in the way we meant them. We've got to do our diligence and pay attention. And in the sense of what a city can do, we can pass laws. And you know, in San Francisco, we were Baghdad by the Bay. Then I've heard we're Ban Francisco now. So we have all sorts of names for us, because we're not afraid to ban things, whether it be the phthalates or the plastic bags or the BPA. But those, I think your book really points out, have a very limited and potentially dangerous tactic. They're important to raise awareness, but they almost lull us into a sense of false security. Because when we do single chemical ban bills, we think we've taken care of the problem. We've banned BPA and baby bottles. We're done. We can all have our baby bottles to our kids and feel good. And what did the companies do? Oh, good. We won't use BPA. We'll just use BPS. Oh, well, it turns out BPS is just as bad if not worse. So we haven't really solved anything. And so I think, Ken, your call for a comprehensive approach is critical if we're going to really transform and convert this economy. Well, thank you, Debbie. I can only say it would just add that my great respect for you is there as well. So you're a wonderful person to be leading this city. So thank you so much for your work as well. Janet, I'll read a passage here. Many current initiatives are seeking to shift the chemical market towards safer chemicals. Some drive the market by providing more consumer and buyer information. Some educate consumers. Some change purchasing programs. Some alter marketing and retail practices. And some organize consumers to demand change. A focus on commercial products provides important leverage in shifting to safer chemicals because products are so central to a consumer economy and so accessible to decision-making by an informed public. Consumers at the point of purchase can select products with safer chemicals. Retailers and institutional buyers when negotiating supplier contracts can specify products with safer chemicals. Product manufacturers when designing products can specify safer chemical ingredients and consumer advocacy campaigns when targeting specific chemicals can recommend products to buy or avoid. So Janet, what is your experience in developing strategies to phase out carcinogens, for instance? And how have you been able to do this through the work of an NGO? Well, that is a really fun question for me to answer. So thank you, Ken. So the Breast Cancer Fund, we're a San Francisco-based nonprofit organization, but we're a national organization. So we work here in San Francisco. We work at the state level in California, as Jen described in my introduction. And we work at the national level as well in a couple of different ways, on public policy advocacy to create laws that strengthen government regulation of toxic chemicals in products and commerce and also market-based campaigns. And because we don't have a whole lot of time, I'm going to focus on the market-based work of the Breast Cancer Fund. So I have been leading a market-based campaign called the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics for about 10 years. We just had our 10-year anniversary in February. And so I have the great pleasure of looking back over the last decade of my life. I've always said social change isn't easy. It takes a long time. You've got to be patient. And have been really excited about some of the incredible gains that we've experienced. 10 years ago, everyone believed the FDA regulated the safety of chemicals and cosmetics the same way that they do food and drugs. Now, no one believes that that is true. 10 years ago, the world's largest cosmetics companies, the big multinational giants, were making safer products for their European customers and making more toxic products here in the U.S. And because of the work of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, that isn't the case anymore. All of the big multinationals are now, they've globally reformulated their products to the EU standard, and at least they're not using those toxic chemicals in their products. They're using a lot of other toxic chemicals. But that was a gain. 10 years ago, we sent a letter to about 250 cosmetics manufacturers throughout the world and we asked them to sign a pledge to inventory their ingredient decks for chemicals of concern, remove chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, reproductive harm, replace them with safer alternatives and practice a much higher level of transparency in terms of not only the ingredients in their products, but their practices and their policies so that consumers could know, you know, were they a good company that could be trusted? And within six years, 1,500 companies signed that pledge, one of which is sitting next to me, Hillary's been a real supporter of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and one of our earliest leaders. So I wanted to just give you a sense of the shifting landscape before I tell you about the tools in our toolbox and how we've been able to make that change possible. None of that change would have been possible without consumers getting educated and engaged about the problem. And one of the biggest tasks and achievements, I think, of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has been to convince consumers that they have the power to move markets. When they vote with their pocketbooks, when they say, we're not going to buy toxic products anymore, the big companies start to listen and the retailers start to listen as well. So we have been very powerful in increasing consumer demand for safer products. And what happened after that was the growth of the safe cosmetics industry, which is now an $11 billion industry. The entire cosmetics industry is $71 billion, $11 billion of which is made up of companies that make safe products. That growth was made possible by consumers again voting with their pocketbooks. We also beat up the bad guys. We try to tarnish their brands and literally say, shame on you. And there aren't enough people that say, cancer causing chemicals in baby's bubble bath and shampoo, are you serious? Like, it has to be that simple that we literally say, shame on you. You have kids, you have grandkids, it's not okay, it has to stop. And those companies are listening. Johnson and Johnson reformulated all of their baby products in 68 countries around the world in response to the campaign for safe cosmetics. You know, another good feather in our cap. Two more things, legislative pressure. When companies feel the pressure of impending legislation, they tend to move toward voluntary reformulation of their products before laws are enacted. So our legislative advocacy is important. And then lastly, retail regulation. So in 2013, both Targan and Walmart said that they were going to adopt store-wide policies that basically govern the safety of their beauty products. And the reason that they did that was two-fold. One, consumers were demanding safer products and companies were making safer products so they knew it was not only possible but profitable. So I think I'll stop there. Great. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. And thank you for your work. So, Hillary, I'll read you a passage as well. Innovation in the chemicals market requires that safer alternatives be marketed, distributed, adopted, and valued. There needs to be an expanding market for safer chemicals and entrepreneurs eager to take green chemistry laboratory inventions. Scale them up and find the investors necessary to support new businesses or business units that can bring to market products made with safer chemicals. Safer chemical products need not compete head-to-head with dominant brands. Safer alternatives might best be built in niche and marginal markets where they can develop, learn, grow, and achieve a level of experience and maturity that provides a solid base for larger ambitions. Indeed, there are many small and medium-sized firms out there generating products intended for specific health-conscious markets. Some are starting with renewable resources and biomass feedstocks. Others are working on chemicals with greener chemical synthesis processes where others are struggling to market products with less hazardous constituents. So, Hillary, Hillary, can you tell us how true nature botanicals has been able to succeed in this market? Well, we are the classic example of a niche brand. Much like the organic food movement developed, a lot of times you have to start at the more expensive level because initially it was very expensive to grow organic foods, and actually I always love to quote Alice Waters who says, if you want to know what's in your food, get to know your farmer. And I think the same is very true for any kind of personal care product or product for your home. You really need to look for companies that are on a mission to create change. And you can tell when it's sincere. I've really learned that even amongst my peers. You know, if you do enough digging, you can really find that. So, within this niche, what's helped us by starting at the level of, I would say, if you look at department store brands. That's pretty much where we are, department store level anti-aging brands where the pricing allows for some room to innovate and also to source very high quality ingredients. What's made it possible for us to do it at a whole new level back to the idea of a niche brand is that the internet became popular at exactly the right moment for us. So we were creating more expensive products. Our margins were very squeezed and thanks to nonprofits like the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics consumers were learning that, wait a minute, it's not worth it to me to use products that are not good for my health. It's better just to use nothing than something toxic. The internet became one of the primary sources for information and where consumers went to research and at the same time, it just became clear to us we were one of the first brands in the beauty sector to become a direct brand. It allowed us to cut out the middleman and therefore to take a lot of pressure off of our margins. And so it was just that perfect confluence of a lot of different things. It's allowed us to be very sassy and loud and to say, no, actually you don't need to use that preservation system in your products. Not only do we have some incredibly thoughtful and generous scientists on our advisory board, I'm sure you know Terry Collins. He's an advisor to our brand just because he cares. Not because it's particularly beneficial to him at the moment. But has really helped us grow in the right direction and helped us to identify, for instance, the safest preservation systems. The hardest thing is to create safe products with the materials that are available to us today. If you make a water-based product, you need a preservation system. So if there are brands out there making water-based products and they're saying 100% natural, 100% of the time, they're probably not being transparent almost 100% of the time. So in a water-based product, you need a preservation system. And what we've tried to do, we've had a lot of help with this from scientists like Terry and from the Red List. What's so interesting is I think consumers assume that we're getting our scientific information as you would hope that we would from the government. So if you're going to create safe products, here's some great guidelines for you to follow. Well, those guidelines do not exist. So what you do, what we do is we read university studies. We read studies that are brought forth by nonprofits like the Breast Cancer Fund, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, the Center for Environmental Health, the Environmental Working Group. These are the organizations that are helping to move the dial and they're helping to inform our product development. And so we've learned over time which ingredients are the most cutting edge. We're just always looking for what's the safest most cutting edge way to approach something like preservation. So that's sort of where we are in our little niche and what is exciting is from that niche, it does feel that we can push for change and thanks to the internet, our voice is louder and louder. So many consumers are going to look at videos on the internet, reading all the time and definitely voting with your pocketbook makes a big difference because we're growing very rapidly and we've even had letters from L'Oreal that are watching us very carefully. We did a clinical trial against one of L'Oreal's top products and we blew it out of the water with really beautiful, safe, natural ingredients. And it was really funny because there's not really anything that they can say. The clinical trial is a clinical trial and unlike most of their trials, this was a double-blind clinical trial done at a lab that we had absolutely no influence over whatsoever. So the only thing they could tell us was you can't link those trial results to a product page and we said, oh, that's fine, we'll just change that link. So now we just have the trial results and it doesn't link to a product page. So it was fun to get their attention. I think it means that, you know, we're starting to have an impact and it's exciting to show that you don't need toxins to help people age gracefully or take care of themselves. Congratulations. Can I just say one really quick thing? I was dying to say this and that is that the chemical that Debbie mentioned that's in stain-resistant genes that basically never biodegrades ever. I mean, it like stays on the planet pretty much forever. We just discovered that the breast cancer fund is used in some L'Oreal anti-aging products. Oh, my God. So I just, when Hillary brought that up, I couldn't not make that connection. Right. Well, thank you. Thank you each for your perspectives, different perspectives, but also I think a nice coverage of the kinds of different approaches that need to be built in order to really move forward with the safer chemicals economy. So thank you very much. I think we might have some questions. Do we, Jen? Do we? Yes, please. If you do have a question, pass it to one of the people in your world. Try to, we have a little time. Oh, great. All right. Fine. All right. So thank you for your questions. This is great. It's a nice way for us to be able to respond to some of the things that might be of concern to you. First question is, my mother buys really toxic cleaning products because they are cheaper. While more benign products are seeming to be on the market, they remain on the high end. How do you address this dilemma? The question is clearly cost versus trying to move to something else. P.S., my mother is a breast cancer survivor. Someone want to try that? You know, I could speak to that. And I wanted to mention, Assemblyman Chu was talking about a bill introduced in the legislature that forces ingredient disclosure and cleaning products. That's a breast cancer fund bill. And it actually, it stalled, but it's still around. It's not dead yet. It's still around. So all of you should do what you can to support that. So we work very closely with Seventh Generation who makes really good cleaning products. Nontoxic cleaning products, they disclose everything on the label including the chemicals and fragrance. And what the formulator there told me is that their products start out cheaper than Tide and the retail outlets actually place a premium on the products because they know that people will pay more for green products. And I think that stinks myself. I was really interested to hear that. So, you know, I think I would say to your mother, you know, your health is worth paying a little bit more and also say that she should reach out to the local retailers and ask that they, you know, offer these safer products at the true cost that they're being delivered to them, to the retailer. So, you know, so that we can all buy safe products. And I would just like to say, we like to say that buying safe products shouldn't take a PhD in the sense that you shouldn't have to be able to read those labels and understand it also shouldn't require a big bank account. And this is one of the, for me, one of the real heartburn areas of this field is who gets to buy safer products. Is it just the people who can buy their way out? And so, yeah. Not a happy thing. So this points to me for the need for regulation. So this is where the stick is. I mean, this is where we've got to say as a country, it's not okay to put toxic chemicals in anybody's product. In anybody's product. So that anyone who walks into Walgreens, 99 cents store safe way wherever you buy it, doesn't have to worry that they are being dumped on so that those of us who can afford more can have the safer products. And it's a really great point. Whoever wrote that, thank you. I just wanted to add one thing also for consumers in the meantime because it's really interesting. It's sort of that push pull we need to regulate and also consumers need to vote with their pocketbooks and sometimes it's too expensive to buy some of those brands. So I often say keeping it simple can help make that happen. So for instance, in our house, because I've been trying to do it as inexpensively as possible to sort of live this new paradigm, we use seven generation soap. So you can use their dish soap or soap for pretty much everything. Vinegar, tea tree oil. That can pretty much clean your whole house. So part of it, and it's not a lot of work, I thought, oh, making clean. I do not have time. I've got three kids, full-time job. How am I going to make my own cleaning supplies now? It takes absolutely no time whatsoever. You go to the pharmacy by the spray bottle and you pour in tea tree oil, vinegar, and the seven generation soap. So the simplicity, I think, makes a big difference in terms of, you know, if you need to replace all the things you think you need to clean your home, that's one thing. But if you take a more simple approach to cleaning it and that you understand that it doesn't need to sound like it's going to wipe off every bacteria on the earth in order to be effective, or that it doesn't need to smell like a tropical rainforest, because that's the other thing, is people have this expectation that for your house to be clean, it needs to have this incredibly scented experience that goes along with your cleaning products, and that's not true. So I do have to say, I do push a fair amount of it also back to consumers, is that we need to alter our expectations. So the product that's made with Teflon for skincare products has an amazing slip and glide. It just sort of feels amazing when you put it on your skin, and so people have to not want that. They have to not want their hair to smell like a tropical rainforest when they get out of the shower. And having two teenage daughters, that's really challenging, because they're like, Mom, this natural shampoo smells terrible. You know, and so it's tricky. Consumer expectations, I think, also need to shift in terms of what is a cleaning product, and then it doesn't necessarily have to be so expensive. I have a second one here. I actually have a tool on that cost one, so I'm going to move on to another one here. If we agree that transparency about chemical use is critical, how do societies, a whole policy makers in particular, address industries' defense of trade secrets? Is this been a problem for you, Janet? Is this been a problem for the city? Yeah, you know, so I wish we had another hour. This whole issue just makes me crazy, crazy. And Hilary and I were just talking about it before we came up on this panel, because I said, like, you would never be able to, you would never in your life dream of walking into a restaurant, sitting down ordering a steak, and then asking, oh, can you tell me what's in the sauce, and having the restaurant say no. No, I won't. It's a trade secret, because you could have allergies, you could have dislikes, you could, you know, there could be a lot of reasons why you would need to know, as well as just having the right to know. And, you know, the same is true in terms of ingredient disclosure in cosmetics and personal care products. Companies don't have to disclose the ingredients in fragrance. They don't have to disclose the ingredients at all in cleaning products. The same is not true for food, drugs, medical devices, you know, pretty much everything else you can think of. And so companies, they claim trade secrets, but most of the time they're just making it up. I mean, they literally are. They're just saying, oh, that's a trade secret, when in fact there are laws that dictate the way the trade secrets have to be defined and registered. And one of which is you can't be, you can't, you can't have to be able to, or I'm not saying this right, the law basically says you shouldn't be able to reverse engineer a product to be able to figure out what the ingredients are. And the reality is that you can, any fragrance house or most any supplier in the United States can reverse engineer the ingredients in a product or a fragrance. And they do it all the time. That's how they make the knockoffs that they sell in Union Square. Yeah, there's actually a machine. There's a computerized... Is it like a mass spectrometer? Yeah, I was gonna say spectrometer. That does that, exactly. So I think so we're getting ready to launch a consumer right to know campaign around fragrance disclosure and cosmetics and also ingredient disclosure and cleaning products. And so consumers just have to say, I'm not gonna buy your product unless you tell me all the ingredients in the product period. And then that demand has to be pushed upstream so that the manufacturers themselves get the ingredient disclosure from their suppliers. And I would note along the scenes we've all spoken about seventh generation. Seventh generation is one of those few firms that claims corporate-wide to try to provide information on all the ingredients and products. Okay, all right, so we're gonna have to close up here. So, well, I have a couple more questions but you can definitely ask people on your own as we close up. But I just want to invite Jen up to close here but I want to just thank this wonderful panel for your ideas and all. I'll be up here. I'd like to echo Ken. Thank you all so much for all of your insights and for all of the amazing work you each are doing in your respective fields.