Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
[See also my more recent post on this topic here.]
I was alerted yesterday to a new website – kidschemicalsafety.org – funded by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and run by its right-hand “non-profit,” TERA (Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment). The website and an accompanying Facebook page are a wonder to behold, replete with photos of happy kids. For the most part, I’ll leave it to you to explore. But here are a few highlights. (more…)
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
This week, two letters – one signed by 13 prominent public health scientists and the other signed by the heads of 8 major national environmental organizations – were sent to the House Science Committee voicing strong opposition to H.R. 6564, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2012.
The sponsors of this legislation claim that it is needed to “enhance transparency and limit conflicts of interest” on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) and its panels. In fact, it would do the precise opposite. Here’s how the scientists’ letter summarizes the impacts that would arise from passage of the bill:
“This proposed legislation would only serve to reverse progress in bringing the best scientific advice and analysis to EPA. The consequence would be to deprive EPA of needed scientific advice on the most complex and pressing environmental health problems of our day.”
Among the most perverse provisions of this bill (and there are many) are two that would turn the very notion of conflict of interest on its head. One would limit scientists that receive competitive grants through EPA’s extramural research program from serving on the SAB or its panels – claiming that such funding constitutes a conflict of interest. The scientists’ letter goes directly at that provision:
“The underlying idea that scientists who obtain funding from EPA for any project have conflicts about all EPA matters is baseless and reflects a misunderstanding of who we are as scientists and our role in society.”
Another provision is even more perverse: It would reverse longstanding conflict-of-interest policy and practice followed by virtually every authoritative scientific body in the world – including the National Academy of Sciences, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Health Organization – by allowing unfettered access of industry representatives with direct conflicts of interest to serve on the SAB and its panels, as long as their conflicts are disclosed.
Who’s behind this radical legislation? Here’s a hint: The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents the chemical manufacturing industry, couldn’t wait to express its unequivocal support, stating it “cannot overstate the importance of this bill to Americans” in a press release titled “House Science Committee Proposes Common Sense Reform To EPA Scientific Advisory Process: Proposed Legislation Would Improve Expert Panel Selection, Limit Conflicts of Interest and Enhance Systematic Reviews.” And ACC’s been singing the bill’s praises all over town ever since (see, e.g., slide 6 of this ACC presentation). (more…)
Alissa Sasso is a Chemicals Policy Fellow.
This week, the American Sustainable Business Council released the results of a bipartisan national survey of 511 small business owners conducted by Lake Research Partners and Public Opinion Strategies. The survey showed that small business owners, just like voters, support stronger chemical safety regulations to mitigate the risks posed to human health and the environment by toxic chemicals.
Small business owners are an important part of the discussion on TSCA reform; the chemical industry frequently uses this group as an excuse to oppose tighter regulations, claiming that these regulations are “bad for business” and would detrimentally harm small business owners. In contrast, the survey shows that there is broad consensus among small business owners on the need to ensure the safety of their products and their customers. (more…)
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
I provide in this post the comments I delivered as a panelist at the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) November 13, 2012 Public Stakeholder Meeting on its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program. EPA describes IRIS as “a human health assessment program that evaluates information on health effects that may result from exposure to environmental contaminants.”
The theme of my comments today is the critical need to restore balance to the IRIS program. In my view, the program’s structure and practice have over time tilted badly toward allowing one set of interests and desirable attributes of chemical assessments to wholly dominate over another, equally critical set. Let me explain. (more…)
Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.
New approaches for evaluating chemical hazard and risk are needed to help address substantial data gaps that exist for the thousands of chemicals currently in the marketplace as well as those yet to be introduced. EPA has been investing significant resources to create research programs dedicated to advancing new types of chemical testing and assessment approaches. But what exactly are these approaches? How might they improve the practice of risk assessment? Are they appropriate for decision-making, and if so, what kinds of decision making? What role does the public interest community have to play?
To explore these and other important issues, EDF’s Health Program has launched a website, “Chemical Testing in the 21st Century,” that provides an introduction to these new approaches and the programs the EPA has built around them—including their potential uses, benefits and limitations. The website includes the following informational resources:
We will soon be adding a page with descriptions of and links to additional resources.
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
A study conducted by the State of California [Update 10-26-12: The study was funded by the California Air Resources Board and conducted by Asa Bradman and colleagues at the Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health at UC Berkeley] – described as “the first comprehensive study in child care centers to measure a broad spectrum of pollutants including many volatile organic chemicals, particles, and pesticides, and emerging pollutants such as flame retardants, phthalates and perfluorinated compounds” – has routinely detected dozens of these toxic contaminants in the air or floor dust present in such facilities.
Some of the key findings include the following:
The presumed sources of most if not all of these chemicals are everyday materials and products used to construct, furnish or clean these facilities. Formaldehyde, for example, is used in hundreds of materials and products, including furniture, wood products, carpeting, paints, and household cleaning products. California took action in 2007 to limit is use in pressed wood products, and Congress passed a law in 2010 to do the same. (Unfortunately, the proposed regulations needed to implement the federal law – which Congress mandated be in place by January 1, 2013 – are stuck in regulatory review limbo at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): The proposed regulations were sent by EPA to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) more than 170 days ago, on May 5 of this year, but remain under “pending review” by OIRA despite the requirement for OIRA to complete its reviews within 90 days.)
The larger problem exposed by the California study demands, of course, a far more comprehensive solution – TSCA reform.
