We continue to appreciate your willingness to engage in a constructive dialogue on modernizing TSCA.

This post suggests that the consumer products industry wants to see a delay in prioritizing chemicals, assessing safety and taking risk management action where needed. Let me clear up any misunderstanding.

The quick start idea is intended to provide specific criteria for hazard and exposure that EPA could use to quickly identify and be able to get moving on chemicals of the very highest concern. The criteria we are suggesting have readily available information, would identify 50 to 100 chemicals, and the process could be quickly completed. With such a quick start effort in motion, EPA can turn to prioritizing the rest of the chemicals, using new tools for timely data-call in where sufficient data are unavailable and for timely risk management action where appropriate.

Delay is not in anyone’s interest—that simply delays rebuilding confidence in the US chemical management system.

We look forward to continuing to work with you and others on modernizing TSCA to create an international gold standard for chemical regulation and management.

Bill Greggs

This is a wonderful article.

And please accept my apologies for the above comment – Donny "Brusco" is me (not my real name) – I had rushed this off thinking I was emailing your article to my sister (who is a health teacher) and we address ourselves with silly make-up monikers like that. Oooops.

Anyway, as a journalist whose previous work did not include environmental issues but who is increasingly drawn to write on themes relating to the environment, including industrial toxins, I find your writing compelling and highly relevent – and on issues which are otherwise very under-reported. Kudos, and thank you for contributing to increasing awareness.
Don Lieber
Portland, Oregon

Go forth. Your honor is an unshakeable shield.

Roger McFadden
VP, Senior Scientist
Staples, Inc.

ACC is committed to reforms that will restore confidence while ensuring that we continue to bring innovative and vital products to Americans.

Along with ensuring that the system reflects the latest advances in science and technology, Congress must grant the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the necessary tools and authority to make decisions on chemical safety and enforce them in a timely manner.

Today, the EPA cannot make a determination on whether or not a chemical is safe for its intended use. That must change. Authorizing EPA to make safety determinations on priority chemicals on a timely basis will go a long way toward building trust in the federal government and the products on our shelves.

The American Chemistry Council and its members look forward to partnering with Congress, the Administration and all stakeholders to move forward with modernizing the existing law.

Cal Dooley
President & CEO
American Chemistry Council

Again, thank you.

We do, in fact, have a great interest in recruiting individuals who are concerned about this issue because an effective reform of TSCA means their families are safer. We also are striving to recruit those who work in the industry whose jobs depend upon a balanced approach to TSCA reform. And, yes, we are very actively reaching out to businesses and trade organizations who are interested in breaking with the status quo advocating for TSCA reform.

Again, we are a new organization. To the extent that our membership is not yet as diverse as we would like is a not a result of our aims but more a result of the fact that we have yet to formally begin promoting ourselves in the public sphere. We look forward to a diverse and growing membership base and are appreciative of any interest this ongoing dialogue that you have kindly permitted will generate.

Thanks for your prompt reply, and also for confirming my suspicion that the American Chemistry Council was also involved. The reason I didn't list ACC is simple: Nowhere on the site that I can find are they identified.

It's interesting you say you are reaching out to all kinds of groups, given that the website only invites businesses to apply to be coalition members.

Let me be clear (including for Erica's sake) that I am in no way objecting to industry engaging on these issues, and I myself am frequently talking with companies and their associations and intend to continue to do so.

What I do object to is when industry pretends to be something it is not, which your website does in many ways, including those I described in my post. If the coalition stops pretending to represent families, kids, workers, etc., we can have a robust dialogue about the direction chemicals policy reform can take in the U.S.

Regards,
Richard