EDF Health

A question of priorities: Comparing available statistics for baseball’s “boys of summer” to those for U.S. chemical production and use

By / Published: August 8, 2011

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

I’ve often been amazed when watching sports games on TV how quickly commentators can dig up the most obscure statistic about a player or team in real time, truly on the fly.  It’s not uncommon to be watching a game when a batter comes to the plate and I am immediately provided with his on-base percentage when batting left, facing that specific pitcher in the 9th inning when there’s a runner on second and his team is trailing by two or fewer runs.

I was reminded of all that this morning when perusing the New York Times sports page, which had this incredible graphic.  It depicts the exact location of every ball put in play this season by Yankee first baseman Mark Teixeira, who’s having a bad year, comparing how well (or in this case, poorly) he does when he bats left- vs. right-handed.

In the accompanying article, there is a link to Teixeira’s BaseballReference.com page showing batting stats for his entire career.  These include his batting stats for home vs. away games, games before vs. after the All-Star Game break, stats broken down by month of the season, by whether his team won or lost, by whether he was a starter or a substitute, by what position he was playing, by his position in the batting order, by inning, by what the ball-strike count was when he got a hit, by what bases were occupied at the time – this list represents only half of the slices and dices of the data provided on this one player’s page.

One player out of hundreds active this year, all with such stats available at the flick of a mouse.  Comparable stats on past players for decades past.  And this is just major league baseball.  There’s football, soccer, tennis, horse racing.

So, just one question:  Would somebody tell me why can’t I find out how many chemicals are produced in the U.S. and how they’re used?  Or what their hazards or risks are?

Speaking of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and baseball, I can’t help but point to this recent quote (subscription required) that, believe it or not, links the two.  It was delivered by Fisk Johnson, CEO of S.C. Johnson & Son, at the American Chemical Society’s 15th annual Green Chemistry & Engineering Conference in Washington, DC on June 21:

Your child has a better chance of becoming a Major League Baseball player than a chemical has of being regulated by EPA.

Now there’s a  statistic!

Also posted in Health policy / Tagged | Read 1 Response

EPA moves chemical reporting into the 21st century – though we’ll have to wait until mid-decade to actually get there

By / Published: August 3, 2011

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.  Allison Tracy is a Chemicals Policy Fellow.

A major initiative of EPA’s toxics office finally made it across the finish line yesterday when EPA posted a pre-publication copy of the final rule upgrading its chemical reporting system under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The process took over 16 months just to get from the draft of the proposed rule to yesterday’s final rule, with EPA having to endure not one but two nearly six-month regulatory reviews by the Office of Management and Budget.

The wait was largely worth it:  EPA’s new program – renamed the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule – significantly advances chemical production and use reporting relative to its predecessor, the more arcane-sounding Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule.  Most, though not all, of the critical elements EPA proposed last year made it through to the final rule.  The catch is we’ll have to wait until 2016 for the program to reach its full potential.  Read More »

Also posted in Health policy / Tagged , , , , | Read 1 Response

Funny name, serious concern: EPA proposes Significant New Use Rule for 14 glymes

By / Published: July 11, 2011

Allison Tracy is a Chemicals Policy Fellow. Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

EPA today proposed a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that, once finalized, would mandate that companies notify EPA prior to engaging in any “significant new use” of any of the 14 chemicals EPA has identified collectively as glymes.  Among other concerns, EPA has identified their use in various consumer products and their potential to cause reproductive and developmental toxicity.  For most of the glymes, the significant new use would be any use in a consumer product beyond those that are already ongoing.  For two of these chemicals, the significant new use would be any use.

This proposed SNUR, which was mired at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for more than six months, is now out for a 60-day public comment period.  A SNUR is essentially the only means available to EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by which it can try to limit the use of an existing chemical of concern.  It is far from a perfect means of doing so.

Nonetheless, within its limited authority under TSCA, today’s step by EPA brings at least some degree of scrutiny over a quite nasty group of chemicals.  Read More »

Also posted in Health policy / Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments are closed

Waiting for Godot: 405 days and counting at OMB on EPA’s modest proposal to identify chemicals of concern under TSCA

By / Published: June 21, 2011

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

Yesterday, three legal scholars from the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) sent a letter to Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  That letter rebutted on legal grounds the call made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in its own letter to Mr. Sunstein for OMB to force EPA to withdraw its proposal to use its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to list chemicals of concern.

EPA’s proposal, which entails use of its clear authority under Section 5(b)(4) of TSCA, has been stalled at OIRA for 405 days as of today, with OIRA refusing even to allow the proposal out for public comment.  I wrote an extensive blog post earlier about all of the reasons why EPA’s proposal is legally sound and makes good market sense.  That post – titled “Why is OMB blocking EPA from using even its limited authority under TSCA?” – went up way back in December, and there’s been no movement on the proposal since then.

CPR’s letter rebuts the Chamber’s claims, noting that it plain and simply “Gets the Law Wrong.”  EDF, too, has developed a legal analysis of EPA’s authority under TSCA to identify and list chemicals of concern, which is fully consistent with CPR’s analysis but goes further to address a few other legal aspects of the issue.  That’s why I’ve decided to post it here.

I’ll leave you to read our memo for the details, but provide its conclusion here as a teaser:

“EPA has clear authority under Section 5(b)(4) to list chemicals of concern and is not required to establish criteria in advance of the issuance of a proposed rule listing specific chemicals.  EPA’s authority also extends to the listing of categories of chemicals.  The legal threshold for action under Section 5(b)(4) should be interpreted as identical to that in Section 4(a), which requires only a “more than theoretical” basis for concluding that a chemical “may present” an unreasonable risk.  Even if Section 5(b)(4) is interpreted to mean something different from that in Section 4(a), it should be interpreted to be far less restrictive than the standard in Section 6.  In addition, Section 5(b)(4) does not require consideration of economic impact in the decision to list a chemical.  Finally, the statute is clear that listing of a chemical in a proposed rule under Section 5(b)(4) triggers export notification under Section 12, and may require the issuance of a SNUR [Significant New Use Rule] with respect to significant new uses of the chemical.”

It’s a sad state of affairs when even this modest step proposed by EPA to use its clear authority under TSCA is not even being allowed by OMB to see the light of day and benefit from public review and comment.

Samuel Beckett’s play, which I borrowed for the title of this post, is described as an absurdist play.  That pretty much sums up the endless review by OMB of EPA’s modest proposal.

Also posted in Health policy / Tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

ACC resorts to smear tactics to defend its cash cows, formaldehyde and styrene

By / Published: June 13, 2011

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

An increasingly common tactic in modern bare-knuckle politics is to divert attention away from your own weakness or vulnerability by loudly – and falsely – accusing your opponent of having that very defect you possess but won’t admit to.

That Rovian tactic was on display last week, with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) as the accuser, and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) as its “opponent.”  Mind you, NTP is the nation’s leading authoritative body on cancer-causing chemicals.

The precipitating event?  NTP’s long-overdue release of its 12th Report on Carcinogens (RoC).  Among other additions NTP made since its last report was published way back in 2005, it had the audacity – according to ACC – to:

  • upgrade its classification of formaldehyde to “Known to be a human carcinogen,” from its earlier classification (dating back to 1981) as “Reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen,” and
  • for the first time include styrene on its list of chemicals linked to cancer, classifying it as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”

The accusation hurled at NTP was this gem from ACC President and CEO, Cal Dooley:

“We are extremely concerned that politics may have hijacked the scientific process and believe this report by HHS is an egregious contradiction to what the President said early in his administration, ‘…That science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my administration…’.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black (per the “second, subtler interpretation” of that phrase).

Read More »

Also posted in Health policy, Industry influence / Tagged , , , , , | Read 1 Response

A sea of red herrings is behind opposition to EPA’s proposal to enhance chemical reporting

By / Published: April 7, 2011

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist. Allison Tracy is a Chemicals Policy Fellow.

With the chemical industry and now Congressional Republicans mounting a last-minute effort to derail the EPA’s long-time-in-coming enhancements to its Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule (see our last post), it’s worth examining their main objections.  That examination reveals a sea of red herrings.  Here are a few of the smelliest ones, discussed in detail in this post:

Red herring #1:  EPA has failed to indicate how it will use the information it collects.

Red herring #2:  Small businesses would be excessively burdened.

Red herring #3:  More frequent reporting is a “needless” burden on the industry.

Red herring #4:  EPA is expanding the IUR from data reporting to data-gathering.

Red herring #5:  EPA’s requirement for retroactive reporting is unfair.

Red herring #6:  Requiring electronic reporting is too inflexible.

Read More »

Also posted in Health policy / Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments are closed