Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
Eric Jjemba, Health Legislative Intern, Joanna Slaney, Legislative Director, and Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director
Last week, over 100 House members led by Representatives Paul Tonko (D-NY), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Daniel Kildee (D-MI), Gwen Moore (D-MI), and Henry Cuellar (D-TX) sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi asking that she prioritize funding for full lead service line (LSL) replacement in “any major infrastructure legislation moving through the chamber.” Additionally, a group of 8 medical and health associations led by the American Academy of Pediatrics sent a letter of their own urging Congressional leadership “to fully fund this proposed public health measure with $45 billion.” These letters highlight the broad support around treating America’s lead in water crisis as one that necessitates federal action. EDF, and many others, have advocated for $45 billion in funding to fully replace the more than 9 million remaining LSLs in the country.
For too many families in this country, turning on the faucet for water essentially means drinking through a lead straw. This hundred year old legacy problem of LSLs impacts communities across the nation, but it disproportionately harms already overburdened communities– those that experience racial, economic, and environmental disparities together. To make sure that necessary assistance reaches those that need it most, including low-income communities, communities of color, and rural communities, the federal government needs to adequately fund full LSL replacement across the country.
EDF applauds the members of Congress and key public health organizations that are continuing to push for this investment, of which we have frequently outlined the clear and tangible benefits. Among these are:
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
[I delivered these comments at the July 28, 2021 webinar titled “Toxic Chemicals, Whistleblowers, and the Need for Reform at EPA”
cosponsored by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), NY PIRG, and EDF. [A recording of the webinar is available here.] The webinar followed on whistleblower disclosures in a complaint filed by PEER and the first in what will be a series of articles by Sharon Lerner in The Intercept detailing the allegations.]
I have long described the EPA new chemicals program as a “black box.” For decades, it has operated almost entirely out of public view, in multiple respects:
TSCA reform sought to address key problems
The 2016 amendments to TSCA significantly overhauled the new chemicals provisions of the then-40-year-old law, seeking to rebalance those interests to some extent:
To be sure, the amendments did not address all of the program’s problems. For example, despite the fact that the vast majority of new chemicals lack basic safety data, requiring companies to provide a minimum set of information – as many other countries do for new chemicals – was a bridge too far in the face of massive industry opposition. The revelations indicate this is still a big problem: Despite TSCA’s mandate that EPA restrict or require testing of chemicals lacking sufficient information, that has not been happening. EPA still excessively relies on estimating a new chemical’s potential risks using models and extrapolations of data from other chemicals – approaches that have serious limitations, introduce large uncertainties, and are themselves a black box.
Enter the Trump EPA – the damage done
Immediately after the 2016 reforms, there were signs that EPA was starting down a better path. But under the last Administration that progress was quickly reversed and the worst features of the pre-reform program came roaring back. Indeed, where the program ended up was worse than before TSCA reform. Clearly, the new revelations vividly show that – and how far we have to go, both in implementing the reforms and in changing the disturbing culture that still pervades the program. What strikes me about the whistleblowers’ allegations is that they all cut in industry’s favor, removing or downplaying risks the scientists had flagged. This argues against these simply being cases of scientific disagreement and points to a systemic problem. (more…)
Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director
With the recent passage of excellent legislation in Illinois and New Jersey, one out of every four of the nation’s lead service lines (LSLs) is on a mandatory schedule to be fully replaced, with strict limits on partial replacement in the interim. These states now join Michigan in leading the way on replacing lead pipes– made all the more important because they have some of the highest numbers of LSLs in the country.
Both the Illinois and New Jersey laws[1] were the result of extensive negotiations between stakeholders and were passed with broad bipartisan support. We applaud the bill sponsors and the advocacy organizations that made it happen.
The most significant difference between the three state policies is their deadlines for utilities to fully replace the LSLs:
Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist with the Health Program.
Prominent incidences of environmental injustice in the public eye are typically place-based — from lead-contaminated tap water in Flint, Michigan to smokestacks lining Cancer Alley in Louisiana. For decades, communities of color and low income communities have confronted long-standing discriminatory practices and policies around land use, housing, and related issues that result in greater exposures to pollution and toxic chemicals.
While geography is a predictor of an individual’s health and well-being, environmental injustice and environmental racism extend beyond geography to include inequities in toxic exposures like in personal care product formulations. Beauty and personal care products marketed to women of color often contain more toxic ingredients than products marketed to white women. As a result, women of color are disproportionately exposed to toxic chemicals through these products. (more…)
By Boma Brown-West. This blog was originally posted on EDF+Business.
The U.S. beauty industry is under scrutiny for its use of toxic chemicals. Consumers, particularly Gen Z, are concerned about the ingredients in their beauty and personal care products and the impact they are having on their health, and are pushing the industry to clean up its act.
Companies are responding by trumpeting clean beauty commitments. From major retailers to boutique brands, the number of companies marketing “cleaner” alternatives is exploding. Today, the clean beauty industry is estimated to reach $11 billion by 2027.
While it’s encouraging to see companies work to fill the current regulatory void on safe beauty products, the majority of clean efforts are focused only on products marketed to white women. As a result, women of color don’t have the same access to safer beauty options, and are therefore facing alarming and disproportionate exposure to toxic chemicals.
Retailers and product manufacturers need to champion clean beauty justice, which will put racial equity front-and-center in their efforts to provide consumers of color with safer products. (more…)
Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist, and Lariah Edwards, Ph.D., is an EDF-George Washington University Postdoctoral Fellow
A recent article in Inside EPA ($) indicated that the US EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) will begin piloting a “unified approach” to the evaluation of chemicals for cancer and non-cancer endpoints. Specifically, it appears that the program intends to develop analyses demonstrating how a unified approach could work as supplements to some of its chemical assessments. This represents a major step forward in advancing the science of chemical assessment at EPA and is responsive to recommendations the scientific community and stakeholders have been making for years.
By way of background, chemical regulatory assessments generally assume that if a chemical is a genotoxic carcinogen, there is no exposure threshold for the effect. This means that across a diverse population, some level of risk for developing cancer exists at any level of exposure. Traditionally for all other toxicity endpoints, EPA and other regulatory agencies typically have assumed that there is a bright-line exposure threshold below which no adverse health effect will be seen.
This bifurcated approach to characterizing chemical hazards and risks is not scientifically supported. The assumption that there are “safe” exposure thresholds for all non-cancer endpoints ignores real-world variability in exposure and susceptibility across the human population. This variability influences whether any particular person or group will experience an adverse effect, and includes such factors as: co-exposures to other chemical and non-chemical stressors and differences in susceptibility that may arise from things like genetic differences or underlying health conditions.
