Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
We’ve blogged here recently about how the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is seeking to hide the truth about the major changes made to the Safe Chemicals Act. And about its efforts to suppress the truth about chemicals linked to cancer. But its tenuous relationship with the truth doesn’t end there. Read More
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
[NOTE: I am reposting this piece, given that it was first posted during the dog days of August and I don't want those interested to have missed it in digging out from time away from the office. If you have an interest in understanding just how much the Safe Chemicals Act has changed to account for earlier industry concerns, please take the time to look at the analysis I've done comparing the bill to ACC's TSCA Principles.]
You wouldn’t know it from listening to the American Chemistry Council (ACC) talk about the Safe Chemicals Act, but the new and improved version of the bill that was passed out of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on July 25 closely mirrors every detail of ACC’s 10 “Principles for Modernizing TSCA.”.
Those principles, issued in August of 2009, represent a key reference point given that they are virtually the only somewhat detailed public articulation by ACC of its substantive position on TSCA reform, one to which ACC continues to refer today. In describing its principles, ACC says they “create a roadmap to a modern chemical regulatory system that will protect public health and the environment, while preserving the ability of American chemical companies to drive innovation, grow jobs, and compete in the global marketplace.”
ACC indicated in its statement on the revised bill that it only conducted a “cursory review” of the bill language, which perhaps explains why it got even some basics wrong. One example: ACC claims “[t]he bill would also dramatically increase the time it would take for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review new chemicals.” In fact, the revised bill retains the 90-day review period for new chemicals operable under current TSCA.
So how does the bill stack up against ACC’s 10 Principles for TSCA Modernization? Read More
Sarah Vogel, Ph.D., is Managing Director of EDF's Health Program.
Information, and importantly, access to reliable and objective information, is the cornerstone of a democratic society. That is why recent efforts by the chemical industry and its allies to block Congressionally-mandated, scientific information on carcinogenic hazards by defunding the Report on Carcinogens (ROC) have many researchers and public health officials alarmed.
Today, in a letter sent to House and Senate appropriations committee leaders, 75 occupational and environmental health scientists and professionals from around the country called on Congress to maintain funding for the ROC. Their letter is in response to a legislative proposal that, if passed into law, would withhold funding for any work on the ROC until the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) completes its review of the listings of formaldehyde and styrene in the 12th ROC—a process the NAS has only just begun. If such a proposal were successful, it would effectively delay public access to critical information on chemical carcinogens for years. Read More
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
You wouldn’t know it from listening to the American Chemistry Council (ACC) talk about the Safe Chemicals Act, but the new and improved version of the bill that was passed out of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on July 25 closely mirrors every detail of ACC’s 10 “Principles for Modernizing TSCA.”.
Those principles, issued in August of 2009, represent a key reference point given that they are virtually the only somewhat detailed public articulation by ACC of its substantive position on TSCA reform, one to which ACC continues to refer today. In describing its principles, ACC says they “create a roadmap to a modern chemical regulatory system that will protect public health and the environment, while preserving the ability of American chemical companies to drive innovation, grow jobs, and compete in the global marketplace.”
ACC indicated in its statement on the revised bill that it only conducted a “cursory review” of the bill language, which perhaps explains why it got even some basics wrong. One example: ACC claims “[t]he bill would also dramatically increase the time it would take for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review new chemicals.” In fact, the revised bill retains the 90-day review period for new chemicals operable under current TSCA.
So how does the bill stack up against ACC’s 10 Principles for TSCA Modernization? Read More
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist. EDF intern Lydia Kaprelian assisted with the analysis of trade association statements reported in this post.
In response to last week’s noteworthy mark-up of the Safe Chemicals Act, six major trade associations issued statements commenting on the event (see links at the end of this post). I was struck by the broad spectrum of reaction and decided to do a little analysis. I counted up the number of positive and negative comments or items noted in each statement about the bill, and then plotted them on a graph, along with the percentage of all comments in each statement that were negative. Here’s how it looks:
The first thing that jumps out is how much of an outlier the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is, way off there on the lower right of the chart all by itself. Talk about extreme (the word ACC President and CEO Cal Dooley used to describe the Safe Chemicals Act; subscription required). Despite the fact that the bill was heavily rewritten to accommodate industry concerns, ACC couldn’t find a single positive thing to say about it, but really piled on with the negatives. Do ACC member companies really want to be in that extreme of a position in this debate? Read More
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
This post is longer than usual and starts with a rather esoteric topic, but I urge you to read it through, as it vividly shows there is no limit to the lengths to which the American Chemistry Council (ACC) will go to squirm out of a regulatory requirement, even if it means violating rules by which ACC had agreed to abide.
But that’s far from the worst of it. Going farther than even I could imagine when I blogged earlier about its tactics, ACC is sparing no effort to deny your right to know about the health impacts of chemicals, by mustering every argument it can invent – however far-fetched – to keep health and safety studies from being shared with the public.
ACC insists that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should hassle the European Union (EU) instead of its members for the health and safety data ACC promised to provide – despite the fact that the chemical industry itself has thrown up major roadblocks to such sharing. And reaching a new low in tortured logic, ACC argues that, should EPA succeed in getting its hands on the health and safety data submitted to the EU, EPA can and should deny the public access to those data – despite the fact that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) clearly prohibits EPA from withholding such information. Read More
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
Every day in my email I get the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC’s) “SmartBrief,” a digest of the day’s news related to the chemical industry. Here’s its self-description:
Designed specifically for American chemistry professionals, ACC SmartBrief is a FREE, daily e-mail news briefing. It provides the latest news and information on the American chemistry industry.
As I noted in my last blog post, all this week the Chicago Tribune has been running one of the biggest stories relating to the chemical industry published in a long, long time. Titled “Playing with Fire,” it documents in meticulous detail the campaign of deception that producers of chemical flame retardants have foisted on the American public for decades.
One might expect, therefore, that ACC’s SmartBrief this week would be directing its readers – who sign up to keep up with what they need to know that affects the chemical industry – to the Tribune’s series. One would be wrong. Nary a mention of this blockbuster story managed to find its way into SmartBrief this week.
It appears that only certain news relevant to SmartBrief’s audience of American chemistry professionals is deemed essential enough to make the cut over at ACC. SmartBrief readers might need to look elsewhere if they want to know what’s really affecting their industry.
In fact, the only response to be found anywhere on ACC’s website to this week’s major news is this highly oblique press release posted there yesterday. It makes no mention of the Tribune series, but does affirm the industry’s commitment to safety as a general matter. And it includes this tidbit:
ACC always strives to conduct its advocacy work in an open and transparent manner.
Oh really?
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
It’s hard not to get cynical in Washington, DC these days. Just this past week, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) hosted an ice cream social on Capitol Hill – I kid you not. ACC’s beckoning slogan: “Join and learn about the benefits of chlorine chemistry and enjoy a tasty treat.” I’m told hundreds of House staffers partook of this propaganda fest, at least the tasty treat part. My initial reaction? How can health and environmental advocates hope to compete? Especially if one can successfully curry favor merely by offering a scoop of a staffer’s favorite flavor.
But just as I began to despair, Part I of a major exposé on a far more serious campaign of deception by the chemical industry ran on the front page of the Sunday Chicago Tribune. (Actually, the article occupies virtually the entire front page of today’s edition.) Read More
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
I’ve blogged here frequently about EPA’s efforts over the past couple of years to make more chemical information available to the public, especially health and safety information. A key part of this, believe it or not, is simply making sure that when EPA shares a health study with the public – as required by law – you get to know the identity of the chemical that is the subject of that study.
EPA’s initial steps (see below) were met with a little grumbling on the part of the chemical industry, but not a whole lot. After all, the industry says it wants the public to have more information about chemicals. At #7 on the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) top 10 principles for TSCA reform is: “Companies and EPA should work together to enhance public access to chemical health and safety information.”
Times, apparently, have changed. In recent weeks, ACC has launched a broadside attack on the EPA’s efforts to compel its member companies ever to name a chemical when submitting health and safety information to EPA. My evidence? A 36-page White Paper delivered by ACC to the office of the regulatory czar at the Office of Management and Budget, at a meeting held there on January 20. The ACC document is a wonder of tortured logic, obfuscation and selective renditions of the history of TSCA.
Today, a response was mounted. EDF and Earthjustice staff, as well as representatives of health-affected individuals, environmental justice communities and workers, held their own meeting with OMB officials. And we delivered our own letter to OMB that thoroughly rebuts ACC’s White Paper. It also points out that, way back in 1976, the drafters of TSCA actually wanted you to have access to health and safety information on chemicals – and they darn well didn’t expect you to have to guess at the identity of those chemicals. Read More
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
One thing I’ve learned in observing EPA try to operate under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) over the years is that – faced with limited authority and significant evidentiary and resource burdens – the Agency often has to resort to a workaround to get something it needs to do done.
Can’t ban a nasty chemical? Wait until it’s voluntarily withdrawn and then pounce on it with a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) to try to wedge the door closed. Witness PFOS and penta and octaBDE. (Under TSCA, without a SNUR in place on a chemical, a new producer or importer could start up without even letting EPA know; where EPA has issued a SNUR for a chemical, advance notification is required and EPA least has a chance to weigh in before production or import proceeds.)
Can’t require an up-front minimum data set for new chemicals? Recommend to companies that for certain chemicals they submit such a data set along with the pre-manufacturing notice (PMN) they’re required to file, or risk having EPA extend the review of their new chemical or negotiate with them to do the testing. EPA has made such “recommendations” for those relatively few new chemicals where the company “anticipates” at the outset producing it in large amounts in the first three years or where significant release or exposure is projected.
The latest such workaround? EPA’s simultaneous issuance of a proposed test rule and a proposed SNUR for a batch of high production volume (HPV) “orphan” chemicals that no company agreed to sponsor under the Agency’s voluntary HPV Challenge Program.
Necessity is the mother of invention, they say, and these creative new proposals are a case in point. But, my oh my, there’s gotta be a better way…. Read More
Science, health, and business experts at Environmental Defense Fund comment on chemical and nanotechnology issues of the day.
Effective April, 2009, we have expanded the scope of our blog to encompass our work and perspectives on both chemicals and nanomaterials.
Our work: Chemicals
Subscribe via RSS