I’m excited to have Lindsay Dahl on The Filtery for this Q&A. Lindsay has spent the last two decades fighting to remove toxic chemicals from the products we use every day, helping to pass over 30 laws along the way. Her work as a lobbyist, activist, and now author has had a huge impact on protecting our health, and I’m excited to share her insights with you here.
Abbie: What first sparked your interest in environmental health, and how did that lead you to become a lobbyist?
Lindsay: I became a lobbyist by accident, it’s not the kind of career you tell the class about when you’re in high school! When I started my career, I knew I wanted to work to protect the environment, but I hated politics; I found it phony and divisive. An early job helped me see that when you pass policies that protect human health and the environment, you win on a large scale. That type of change was very interesting to me. So I figured, why not lean in and get really good at navigating politics in order to win on policies like removing toxic chemicals from consumer products. Twenty years later, I’m proud to say I’ve helped pass over 30 laws, all of which passed with bipartisan support.
Abbie: In your upcoming book Cleaning House, you talk about how the “Tobacco Playbook” has been used to downplay the harms of various toxic chemicals in the past, like lead and DDT. Are there any specific chemicals or issues where you see the Tobacco Playbook currently being used, in real time? What should people be watching for?
Lindsay: One thing I cover in my book is how complicated it has become to discern what is real science versus fearmongering. The enemy used to be clear, the chemical industry was using doubt around science as a tool for stalling progress, like in the case of flame retardants, lead, PFAS, or plasticizer chemicals like BPA and phthalates. Now, misinformation is being shared—using the same talking points the chemical industry did for decades—by social media influencers.
The reality is that not everything is toxic, and some chemicals are toxic in different doses or applications. But what hasn’t changed is that the industry, who profits from using these chemicals, will defend their safety at all costs. I tell stories about this through my book and give people actionable ways to find out what’s a real threat through direct consumer tips.
Abbie: You’re a lobbyist and activist, but you’ve also worked for for-profit companies like Ritual and Beautycounter. Regulation and the free market are often seen as being at odds. Do you think they can actually work together to protect public health, and if so, how?
Lindsay: I love this question because the reality is that with toxic chemicals, regulation actually helps most companies, whether they realize it or not. Take, for example, PFAS used in cosmetics; right now, there are no federal laws requiring suppliers to be transparent with beauty manufacturers. So a brand could easily claim (and this is common practice) they don’t use PFAS in their lipstick, but what they don’t know (and often don’t know to ask) is that the red pigment supplier actually treated the colorant with PFAS prior to the brand purchasing the material. This is a great example because with federal regulation requiring supplier transparency, brands could make better, safer products and ensure consumer confidence.
Brands like Ritual, which openly share supplier names, manufacturing details, and test results for things like heavy metals, have been rewarded by the market. Within eight short years, Ritual now has the top-selling prenatal vitamin in Target, Whole Foods, Amazon, and through our direct-to-consumer business.
Abbie: It seems like issues of environmental and human health are becoming more divided along political party lines than ever before. Why do you think this is? And do you think it’s possible for us all to come together—even working with people we might not agree with on everything—to work toward true, collective health? What do you think is the most important thing that needs to happen in order to realize the goal of actually making Americans healthier?
Lindsay: The issue of removing toxic chemicals from consumer products has always been a bipartisan issue with voters like you and I. Politicians in state and federal government have tended to be championed by Democrats who are more open to regulating business, but as we know many Republicans have voted in support of these bills over the last several decades.
Due to this increasing support of Republican voters, we have a bigger conversation happening specifically around food dyes due to RFK Jr.’s support of removing them from the food system. I always encourage people, regardless of their preferred political party, to hold ALL politicians accountable for what we want and to not fall for false promises.
As a non-partisan activist, it’s my job (and all of us as voters) to hold all political parties accountable. Our current administration has asked for a voluntary removal of food dyes while simultaneously weakening toxic air pollution and existing laws on dangerous chemicals like PFAS. Rollbacks to our already thin federal laws are unacceptable and we must call our members of Congress to let them know we will not stand for weakening of federal toxic chemical laws. We must talk openly about these nuances if we want to win long term.
Abbie: On a related note, it seems like trust in government institutions is at an all-time low. Some say we should get rid of agencies like the EPA and FDA completely, whereas others say these agencies are crucial for Americans’ health, even if they are imperfect. What’s your take on this? What do you think needs to be done to improve the systems we have in place and restore trust in them?
Lindsay: Trust on all sides needs to be restored, clearly. Two things are at play. The first is that people think our federal agencies, like the FDA and EPA, can act on their own to remove toxic chemicals. I’ve heard this for decades: ‘If the EPA is so great, why haven’t they banned PFAS outright?’ Our agencies are designed to implement laws Congress passes; this was established to make sure there were checks and balances. So the first issue is that Congress needs to pass regulations that allow the EPA to ban PFAS.
The second issue at hand is that companies have been mostly unregulated for decades and they have chosen time after time not to switch to safer chemicals. The free market has had its time to prove that federal watchdog agencies are not necessary, and it’s failed. The companies that have decided to make products safer are currently priced at a premium. So the free market approach is currently only serving those who can afford to be safe, which is a social justice issue that can’t be overlooked.
Abbie: A lot of people I talk to feel like there’s not much they can actually do as individuals to make a difference in these larger systems. What are some things the average person can do to get involved and start flexing their ‘activist’ muscle, even if it’s for the first time?
Lindsay: Individual action is the entire reason we have been able to pass so many strong state (and so-so federal) laws on toxic chemicals in the last two decades. People from all political backgrounds calling their elected officials and choosing safer brands led to transformative change. When I started working on this issue, people had no idea what BPA, toxic flame retardants, or PFAS were. These are now issues being discussed at the kitchen table. My book has a robust “Take Action” section where I give people actionable tips to shop the market, get involved in advocacy efforts, and hold ourselves to a high standard for discussing this issue with scientific rigor and integrity.
Abbie: In your experience, which creates more lasting impact: activism and policy change, or market pressure and “voting with your dollar”?
Lindsay: We need both at the same time, but I have always seen policy as the largest driver to change, especially state policy. You can check out the state bills being considered in your state at saferstates.org.
Abbie: What’s one of the biggest misconceptions you hear about “non-toxic living” or environmental chemicals more generally (either from folks ‘inside’ the movement, outside, or both)?
Lindsay: There is an increasing narrative that non-toxic living is anti-science. Peer-reviewed science is what gave us the environmental health movement, and there is a long list of scientific consensus statements from leading researchers and prominent medical organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Endocrine Society, and more. We must not let what I call “the dismissers” in my book taint the environmental health movement as fringe or anti-science, when the majority of us are following the science.
Abbie: What is something that consistently gives you hope and keeps you motivated when you get discouraged?
Lindsay: Playing the long game gives me hope. I think people can get discouraged by the setbacks or the slow nature of this work, but honestly, we’re really winning. The game has become more complicated with social media and a polarized culture, but at the end of the day, we all want to drink safe water, breathe clean air, and have safe products in our homes.
Abbie: Anything else you’d like to add?!
Lindsay: Please support this work and me as a first-time author by placing a pre-order of my book. You’ll be the first to have the book arrive on 8/5 and it is critical to ensuring broad distribution. Thank you so much for your support.
Order Lindsay’s new book, Cleaning House on:
Connect with Lindsay on Instagram and Substack!
