Selected category: Industry Influence

EDF has deep concerns over nomination of industry consultant to lead toxics program at EPA

We are deeply concerned over the nomination of Michael Dourson to head the toxics office at EPA.  Unfortunately, this nomination fits the clear pattern of the Trump Administration in appointing individuals to positions for which they have significant conflicts of interest.  Dr. Dourson has extensive, longstanding ties to the chemical industry (as well as earlier ties to the tobacco industry).  He also has a history of failing to appropriately address his conflicts of interest.  For example:   Read More »

Also posted in Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Leave a comment

Our health protections at risk: TSCA reform undone by “regulatory reform”?

Lindsay McCormick is a Project Manager. Richard Denison, Ph.D.is a Lead Senior Scientist.

On February 24th, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, calling on all government agencies to recommend regulations for “potential repeal, replacement, or modification.” As of this writing, EPA has received 46,050 comments on its regulatory reform process. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of these comments come from individuals across the country voicing their support for strengthening EPA’s regulatory protections, demonstrating that Americans stand strong in their opposition to regulatory roadblocks and rollbacks.

In compliance with this executive order, EPA held a stakeholder meeting last week to identify “regulatory reform” opportunities under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The irony – and absurdity – of this process is that not even a year ago, Congress passed, with overwhelming bipartisan support, sweeping reforms to TSCA, finally providing EPA with new tools and authority to review and manage chemicals more effectively. The need for a credible regulatory agency—one able to make timely, independent, science-based decisions about chemical safety—was seen by all parties as essential to increase public confidence in the safety of chemicals. Under-regulation, not over-regulation, has been the clear problem in this arena for decades.  Read More »

Also posted in EPA, Nanotechnology, Regulation, TSCA Reform| Tagged , | Comments are closed

Remarks at EPA stakeholder meeting on New Chemicals Review Program

Joanna Slaney is the Legislative Director for EDF Health.

Today the EPA held a public meeting on the new requirements for the New Chemicals Review Program under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act. EDF oral comments, as prepared for delivery, follow below.

Strong implementation restores public and market confidence.

EDF believes that the reforms to the New Chemicals program in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, and the robust implementation of these reforms by the EPA, are absolutely essential to the task of restoring public and market confidence in our national chemical safety system. It is this shared objective, restoring public and market confidence, that allowed disparate stakeholders and lawmakers to come together to support the Lautenberg Act in the first place. And without a strong New Chemicals program, there is no restored public confidence.

Without a strong New Chemicals program, there is no restored public confidence.

It’s a public health issue.

With between 500 and 1,000 new chemicals entering the market every year, ensuring the safety of these chemicals is clearly a public health priority. It is critical that new chemicals clear a safety bar before they are allowed in products and in our homes. For decades, chemicals have been allowed on the market simply because there wasn’t enough information to make a safety decision one way or another. In 2007 EPA reported that 85% of pre-manufacture notices contained no health data. That’s not right, and it puts the public’s health at risk, most especially the health of vulnerable populations like children, pregnant women, and workers. Any chemical entering the market should be reviewed and managed to provide a reasonable assurance of its safety. In fact, I expect that most Americans believe that their government already does so in order to protect their health and the health of their families.

It’s congressional intent.

Many in Congress worked hard to drive significant improvements to the new chemicals provisions in the new law; indeed, for some it was a central reason for their involvement in reforming TSCA. And the record is clear that even where certain Members were less inclined to see the need for change, they acknowledged that significant changes were made to the New Chemicals program as part of the compromise legislation. The changes that were made were a compromise on both sides but they were not insignificant, and the new requirements are clearly laid out in the language of the Lautenberg Act.

It’s a primary purpose of TSCA.

It has been argued that EPA’s implementation of the new chemicals program under the Lautenberg Act risks impeding innovation and is at odds with the intent of the law. In fact, the intent of the law is quite clear:

It is the policy of the United States that— authority over chemical substances and mixtures should be exercised in such a manner as not to impede unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers to technological innovation while fulfilling the primary purpose of this Act to assure that such innovation and commerce in such chemical substances and mixtures do not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

While innovation is central, it cannot come at the expense of protection for public health and the environment. Innovation without safety is not true innovation.

The changes made to the New Chemicals program are fundamental to the reform of TSCA and the promise of the new system. Given that the development and application of new chemicals are a clear source of innovation, how else is that primary purpose of TSCA – providing an assurance that innovation and commerce in chemicals do not present unreasonable risk – to be realized other than through robust scrutiny of new chemicals prior to their commercialization.

The public has a right to expect that chemicals to which they may be exposed will not be allowed into use without adequate assurance of their safety.  The lack of that basic assurance has undermined consumer confidence in our chemical safety system.  The most efficient and effective stage at which to provide assurance of safety is before commercial production and use begins, rather than waiting and then having to try to mitigate risks that arise after a new chemical is embedded in commerce.

Environmental Defense Fund supports the actions taken by EPA to date in implementing the New Chemicals Program and believes they are clearly required under the new law.  We look forward to EPA continuing to implement a robust New Chemicals program that can restore public and market confidence in our national chemical safety system, while both protecting human health and the environment and fostering safe innovation.

Also posted in EPA, Flint, Health Policy, Regulation, TSCA Reform| Tagged , , , | Comments are closed

Behind the Label: the Blueprint for Safer Chemicals in the Marketplace

Boma Brown-West is a manager on EDF’s Supply Chain Team within the Corporate Partnerships Program.

If you’re in the business of using chemicals to make consumer products – things like shampoo or baby lotions, spray cleaners or laundry soap – the last few years have likely been anything but dull. State legislatures have been passing laws restricting certain chemicals from products; consumers are demanding more transparency about product ingredients; and some of the nation’s biggest retailers, including Walmart and Target, have issued chemical policies of their own.

Read More »

Also posted in Markets and Retail| Comments are closed

EPA IRIS program requests conflict-of-interest disclosures by commenters

Richard Denison, Ph.D.is a Lead Senior Scientist.  Lindsay McCormick is a Research Analyst

EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is now requesting that persons who make oral comments at its bimonthly meetings or submit written comments on its documents disclose whether they have “financial relationships … with any organization(s) or entities having an interest in the assessments or issues under discussion,” and, if so, to identify the nature of that relationship, (e.g., consulting agreements, expert witness support, or research funding).   Read More »

Also posted in Health Policy| Tagged , | Comments are closed

EDF’s recommendations for IRIS conflicts-of-interest disclosures, and the strong precedents for them

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.  Lindsay McCormick is a Research Analyst

Our last blog post was quite lengthy and some readers may not have gotten to the recommendations we provided to EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) governing disclosures of conflicts of interest.  In that post, we also cited the numerous strong precedents for requiring such disclosures.

So we’re reposting here our recommendations and discussion of precedents.   Read More »

Also posted in Health Policy| Tagged , , | Comments are closed
  • About this blog

    Science, health, and business experts at Environmental Defense Fund comment on chemical and nanotechnology issues of the day.
    Our work: Chemicals

  • Get new posts by email

    We'll deliver new blog posts to your inbox.

    Subscribe via RSS

  • Filter posts by tags

    • aggregate exposure (10)
    • American Chemistry Council (ACC) (57)
    • bisphenol A (23)
    • carcinogen (22)
    • Carcinogenic Mutagenic or Toxic for Reproduction (CMR) (12)
    • chemical identity (32)
    • Chicago Tribune (6)
    • children's safety (24)
    • Confidential Business Information (CBI) (61)
    • conflict of interest (9)
    • consumer products (52)
    • data requirements (47)
    • endocrine disruption (31)
    • exposure and hazard (49)
    • FDA (19)
    • flame retardants (25)
    • formaldehyde (15)
    • front group (13)
    • general interest (22)
    • High Production Volume (HPV) (23)
    • industry tactics (44)
    • IUR/CDR (27)
    • Lautenberg Act (69)
    • National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (20)
    • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) (5)
    • New chemicals (9)
    • Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (16)
    • Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) (3)
    • Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) (22)
    • prioritization (38)
    • Regulatory Reform (1)
    • risk assessment (72)
    • Safe Chemicals Act (24)
    • Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (33)
    • styrene (7)
    • test rule (18)
    • toxic substances control act (1)
    • TSCA Reform (1)
    • U.S. states (17)
    • worker safety (23)
    • WV chemical spill (12)