Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
Featured
Our impact
For more almost 60 years, we have been building innovative solutions to the biggest environmental challenges — from the soil to the sky.
Featured
About us
Guided by science and economics, and committed to climate justice, we work in the places, on the projects and with the people that can make the biggest difference.
Featured
Get involved
If we act now — together — there’s still time to build a future where people, the economy and the Earth can all thrive. Every one of us has a role to play. Choose yours.
Featured
News and stories
Stay informed and get inspired with our in-depth reporting about the people and ideas making a difference, insight from our experts and the latest environmental progress.
Featured
    • EDF Health

    Chemical Concerns – Insights on Air Pollution, Public Health, and Chemical Safety

    New Draft of House Chemical Safety Bill Falls Short; EDF Calls on All Sides to Redouble Effort

    Posted: in Health policy, TSCA reform

    Written By

    Share

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

    Release in response to today’s House Environment and Economy Subcommittee hearing on a revised discussion draft of the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA)

    Today’s hearing makes clear that the discussion draft has made progress but still falls far short of legislation that will fix the fundamental flaws of the current law, according to Dr. Richard Denison, Lead Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. He urged all sides to keep the bipartisan process moving forward in both houses of Congress.

    “While bipartisan discussions have yielded a number of substantial improvements to address serious concerns with the original draft, the most problematic provisions remain virtually untouched,” Denison said. “The goal now should be to keep the conversations going.”

    Examples of progress include giving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to require testing where data are insufficient for prioritization purposes; incorporation of deadlines for agency action to assess and address risks of high-priority chemicals; and less prescriptive and onerous information quality and evaluation requirements.

    Sections of the draft pose major concerns and fail to strike a fair and reasonable balance. Examples include the sweeping preemption of state authority for chemicals never subject to a thorough EPA safety review; overly broad allowances for companies to mask the identity of chemicals even long after market entry; and a failure to ensure that conditions placed on new chemicals apply to all companies making or using them.

    “We’re optimistic that solutions are at hand that address the needs of all stakeholders, but it is going to take a redoubling of effort by all sides to get there,” he said.

     

    Related Posts