Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
Tom Neltner, J.D. is Chemicals Policy Director
Today, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a “Food Additives and Child Health” policy statement calling for “urgently needed reforms to the current regulatory process at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for food additives.” The policy applies to chemicals deliberately added to food or to food packaging or food processing equipment that get into food. These substances are used to flavor, color, preserve, package, process and store our food, but many never appear among the list of ingredients. AAP’s statement calls specifically for the following:
EDF applauds AAP’s policy statement and its decision to add its influential voice to the rising call for reform of the process by which FDA and food manufacturers decide additives are safe. AAP, a professional society representing 67,000 pediatricians, develops policy statements regarding federal, state, and community policies that affect children through an extensive, deliberative process that draws on tremendous scientific expertise. As with past policies, such as those concerning lead toxicity and fruit juice consumption, this statement on chemicals in food presents a well-reasoned assessment of the problem and clear recommendations for reform.
Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director
On July 2, 2018, in response to a court order, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule[1] tightening its standards for lead in dust on floors and window sills for housing and child-occupied facilities built before 1978. The agency declined to lower the standard for lead in paint – citing insufficient information – and did not consider tightening the standards for lead in soil. While the proposed rule is a tentative step forward for lead poisoning prevention, as explained below, it will create unnecessary confusion and falls far short of what the science and the law demands. Comments are due by August 16, 2018. Pursuant to an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, EPA must finalize the rule by July 1, 2019.
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
EDF has learned from multiple sources that political appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are on the verge of taking yet another huge lurch away from what the 2016 reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) require when EPA reviews the safety of new chemicals prior to their market entry. A reporter at Bloomberg Environment has heard the same thing, and published an article this morning on some of the changes.
The Trump EPA apparently intends to abandon its November 2017 “New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework,” which already strayed far from the law’s requirements. That approach would have allowed EPA staff to limit their review of a new chemical only to the intended uses identified by its manufacturer, despite the law’s clear mandate that EPA consider known or reasonably foreseen, as well as intended, uses when conducting its review. Under the framework, where EPA had concerns about reasonably foreseen but not intended uses – rather than issue an order as required by the law – EPA would take two other steps: make a “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” determination for the chemical, clearing it to enter commerce; and issue a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR), which could trigger a separate, future review on any subsequently intended use, wholly divorced from the initial review.
Initially, EPA staff indicated the “not likely” finding would be made only once a final SNUR had been promulgated. That then slipped to have issuance of the finding coincide with the proposal of the SNUR. That then slipped further to allow the finding to be issued based on EPA’s mere intent to develop a SNUR.
Now, however, the Trump EPA plans to decouple completely its ability to issue a “not likely” finding from any dependency at all on promulgation of a SNUR. How then, you might well ask, would EPA consider reasonably foreseen uses of a new chemical? The short answer is, it won’t. (more…)
Tom Neltner, Lindsay McCormick, and Audrey McIntosh
This blog is the first in a series focused on how states are handling the essential task of developing inventories of lead service lines (LSLs) and making them public.
Most communities have a general sense of how many lead service lines (LSLs) they have and what neighborhoods have them. The utilities that manage these community water systems (CWSs) base their estimates on installation and maintenance records, size and age of the service line, and professional experience supplemented with field investigations. It is the 80:20 rule in action; most utilities know enough to scope out the problem, develop a strategy, and set broad priorities.
Utilities hesitate when they are expected to provide precise numbers or say with confidence whether a specific address has or does not have a LSL. It is especially difficult for older neighborhoods where records are particularly weak and there are long histories of repairs.
It takes leadership for utilities to share what they know – and don’t know – about LSLs with their customers and the public. They need to be prepared for questions, including why they don’t know more and what they plan to do to remove the lead pipes. Sharing the information with state regulators and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brings additional scrutiny, especially if they claim they have zero LSLs.
For these reasons, EDF applauds leaders such as Boston, MA; Washington, DC; Cincinnati, OH; Columbus, OH; Evanston, IL; Providence, RI; and Pittsburgh, PA that have address-specific maps available online showing what is known and not known about each customer’s service line. We encourage you to check out their maps. In the coming months, we will share a study EDF recently conducted that evaluates consumer reactions to various approaches to online maps to help guide communities planning similar efforts.
An accurate, publicly-accessible inventory of LSLs was a key element of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council’s (NDWAC) recommendations to EPA in December 2015 for its overdue revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR).[1] Two months later, EPA sent letters to each governor and state environment/public health commissioner asking, as one of five near-term actions, that they:
Experts for Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today to withdraw the “censored science” proposal – a proposed rule that would bar the agency from considering some of our most important public health studies in making decisions about vital protections for human health and the environment.
EPA held an all-day public hearing on its proposal at its Washington, D.C. headquarters today. EDF Senior Health Scientist Jennifer McPartland was among the more than 100 Americans who were expected to testify.
“EPA’s proposed rule represents a total disregard for the agency’s core mission: protection of human health and the environment,” said McPartland in her testimony. “If finalized the rule will erode critical public health protections, and with them, the scientific integrity and public trust of the agency.”
Lindsay McCormick, Project Manager.
Last week, EDF submitted comments to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) on the state’s proposed rules for lead in water testing at licensed child care facilities. Our comments focused on what we learned from our pilot in 11 child care facilities, including 4 in the Chicago area.
Even at very low levels, lead can impair brain development, contributing to learning and behavioral problems as well as lower IQs. While national attention on lead in drinking water has spurred action in schools, few states have addressed lead in water in child care settings – even though these facilities serve children at younger, more vulnerable ages.
Illinois is one of seven states that EDF has highlighted in a previous blog for requiring lead in water testing in child care facilities. In January 2017, Illinois General Assembly enacted SB550, establishing a new set of requirements to address lead in drinking water in the state. Under the legislation, Illinois was required to adopt rules prescribing the procedures and standards to assess lead in water in licensed day care homes, day care centers, and group day care homes (herein after “child care facilities”). (more…)
