EDF Health

Selected tag(s): Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT)

No authorization, no market: REACH identifies first six chemicals to be phased out except for explicitly authorized uses

By Richard Denison / Published: February 17, 2011

Allison Tracy is a Chemicals Policy Fellow.  Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

The European Commission today identified the first six chemicals to be made subject to authorization under the European Union’s Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals, or REACH.

The long road to today’s decision began in October 2008, when the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) identified these chemicals as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) and placed them on its Candidate List for chemicals potentially to be subject to authorization. Under REACH, a chemical qualifies as a SVHC as a result of being:  (1) carcinogenic, mutagenic, or a reproductive toxicant (CMR), (2) being persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), (3) being very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB), or (4) being found to “give rise to an equivalent level of concern.”  Clearly these are the types of chemicals we want to pay attention to!

Today’s formal addition of these chemicals to REACH’s Annex XIV serves to notify manufacturers and importers that they must apply for, and obtain, authorization for specific uses of these chemicals if they want to continue using them beyond their designated sunset dates in 2014 and 2015.  It is of note that this rule applies to the chemicals in question regardless of their production volumes.   Read More »

Posted in Health policy / Also tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

EPA seeks to improve TSCA data reporting; a real litmus test looms for the chemical industry

By Richard Denison / Published: August 20, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

While I was on vacation last week, EPA’s proposed rule to improve chemical information reporting under its so-called Inventory Update Rule (IUR) was finally published in the Federal Register.  (I say “finally” because the proposal languished for almost 6 months over at OMB, nearly double the 90 days such mandatory reviews are supposed to take.  That unfortunate delay is curious given the relatively modest changes that appear to have been made by OMB – mostly limited to compelling EPA to shift a few elements from proposals to options open to comment, and requiring EPA to expand the range of issues on which it now seeks comment.)

I won’t summarize the EPA proposals here; EPA’s factsheet does a good job of that, and Daniel Rosenberg at NRDC has also nicely recapped the proposal on his blog.  Suffice it to say that the proposed changes would go far to address the many failings of the current IUR, which amply manifested themselves in the last reporting cycle and severely hampered EPA’s ability to assess high production volume (HPV) chemicals under its ill-fated ChAMP Initiative.

So how will the chemical industry react?  Here’s why I’ll be watching intently.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation / Also tagged , , , , , , , , , | Read 1 Response

Not playing nice: The American Chemistry Council solidifies its claim to being the “industry of no”

By Richard Denison / Published: July 30, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

If you had any doubt when reading my post earlier this week that the chemical industry isn’t serious about real TSCA reform, watch American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO Cal Dooley’s hard-line performance at yesterday’s hearing before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (video link at the bottom of this page).  The legislative hearing focused on H.R. 5820, the Rush-Waxman Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 that was introduced last week.

All the themes I struck in my earlier blog post Mr. Dooley played out in spades:  more loud and long complaints aimed at every aspect of the bill; placing the worst possible interpretation on any provision subject to interpretation; playing the China and job-loss cards over and over; and last but not least, offering not a single constructive proposal of his own for reform.

A very different industry voice was also at the witness table, however – Howard Williams, V.P. & General Manager of the Pennsylvania division of Construction Specialties.  Mr. Williams deftly countered all of ACC’s theatrics, embracing all of the bill’s key provisions and making a strong business case for them.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, TSCA reform / Also tagged , , , , , , | Read 1 Response

Raising the bar for chemical safety will spur, not stifle, innovation

By Richard Denison / Published: May 9, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

An emerging chemical industry talking point in TSCA reform is the claim that imposing new requirements on new chemicals will somehow stifle innovation.  The milder manifestation of this perspective emanates from those who oppose requiring a safety determination for new chemicals unless they raise major red flags in an initial review.

But some in the industry go further, arguing that even requiring safety data for new chemicals would put the big chill on development of new chemicals.

I beg to differ with both arguments.  This post will make the opposite case, and will also argue that true innovation embraces rather than shuns safety, and demands the information needed to demonstrate it. Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation, TSCA reform / Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Read 5 Responses

A minimum data set: Who needs it?

By Richard Denison / Published: April 18, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

Sound chemicals management and control demands sound information.  The Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition believes information sufficient to determine a chemical’s safety needs to be provided for all chemicals, as a condition for them to enter (for new chemicals) or remain (for existing chemicals) on the market.

Needed chemical information is not limited to test data, and even for types of data that can be derived from testing, alternative sources and approaches may be appropriately used.  Given the large number of chemicals for which information is needed, the availability of various sources of information, and the desirability of minimizing cost and use of laboratory animals, all reasonable efforts should be made to use existing information and data derived from the use of validated alternative methods – as long as the information they provide is current and scientifically reliable.

But who needs such information? Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation, TSCA reform / Also tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

EPA deserves an “A for Effort” for its new Chemical Action Plans

By Richard Denison / Published: January 4, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

Just squeaking in under its self-imposed deadline, late on December 30 EPA issued the first batch of chemical action plans it has promised under its enhanced chemical management program.  In doing so, EPA has signaled its intention to do all it can using its existing authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – even as it also makes clear that authority is “both outdated and in need of reform.”  To my ear, that strikes just the right balance. Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation / Also tagged , , , , , , , , , | Read 1 Response