EDF Health

Advocates to treat chemical industry to free lunch at next week’s GlobalChem – no joke!

By / Published: March 18, 2011

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

[Update 2:20 EDT:  For GlobalChem attendees who would like to attend our luncheon but won’t yet be at the conference on Monday, we have a call-in number you can use:  (800) 256-8682; code 43491.]

Next week is the chemical industry’s annual GlobalChem bash in Baltimore.  Like last year, there will be a session on “modernization” of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  I was the NGO representative in that session last year, but alas, my inbox never saw an invite this year.  This year’s session will instead be limited to four industry speakers and there won’t be anyone from the advocacy community speaking in any other session of this year’s conference.

Might that be because the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition that EDF helped found held a rally in plain view of last year’s conference that featured a 20-foot-high rubber ducky and the message:  “Chemical industry — You can’t duck real reform!”?

But no matter.  To show our magnanimity, our coalition will be back this year on the first day (Monday, March 21) of the GlobalChem conference – and this time we’ll be offering a free lunch to the participants.  Lunch will be served from 11:30-12:30 in the same hotel, the Hilton Baltimore, that is hosting the industry conference.  But there’s more than just lunch on the menu … .   Read More »

Posted in Health policy, TSCA reform / Tagged , , | Read 2 Responses

Chemical safety evaluation: Packing tox tests into single drops of liquid!

By Jennifer McPartland / Published: March 17, 2011

Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.

Parts in this series:      Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4

In my last post I introduced EPA’s collaborative NexGen effort and briefly described the scientific advances underpinning the program.  In this post, I’ll explore some of the potential power of EPA’s efforts, which will require that we get a bit into the nitty gritty (nerd spoiler alert!).

NexGen is focusing on how new scientific knowledge and technological capabilities may interplay with traditional hazard and risk assessment that predominantly relies on more expensive and time-consuming animal studies.

There has been a lot of buzz around what is called high-throughput (HT) testing of chemicals.  Just last week, EPA issued a public statement describing the unveiling of a new robot housed at the National Institutes of Health Chemical Genomics Center (NCGC).  I highly recommend watching the robot in action by clicking on the “Toxicity Testing Robot System” video link available on the NIH National Human Genome Research Institute’s website.  The robot is scheduled to test 10,000 chemicals for potential toxicity!   So, what does that actually mean?  Read More »

Posted in Emerging testing methods, Health science / Tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

ACC endorses cumulative impact assessment for all TSCA regulations!

By / Published: March 14, 2011

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

In what seemed a startling move, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) last week gave testimony at a Congressional hearing that included a full-throated endorsement of mandating that EPA be required to assess cumulative impacts when developing regulations addressing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The call for cumulative impact assessment was a contentious element in last year’s debate over the safety standard that would apply to chemicals under a reformed TSCA.  Reform advocates supported assessing such impacts where the science allows, while ACC had staunchly opposed the concept.  The need to account for cumulative impacts is also a key recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences, in its recent reports Science and Decisions:  Advancing Risk Assessment (2009) and Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment:  The Tasks Ahead (2008).

Ah, but the devil is indeed in the details:  ACC’s apparent change of heart is no such thing.  Rather, ACC is endorsing a step that would make it even harder for EPA to act to control dangerous chemicals under TSCA, namely that the agency would have to consider the cumulative impact of all prior regulations affecting a given industry before it could propose a  new one.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation / Tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

Memo to ACC et al.: What’s said in Maryland doesn’t stay in Maryland

By / Published: March 10, 2011

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

It’s only a little more than 30 miles from Washington, DC to Annapolis, the Capitol of the State of Maryland.  But to judge from testimony given there on February 24 and March 1 by representatives of the chemical, formulated products and food industries, you’d think Annapolis existed in a parallel universe, with only a passing resemblance to the one in DC.

The occasions were hearings on companion bills introduced into the Maryland State Senate, SB 637, and the State House of Delegates, HB 759, titled the “Healthy Kids, Healthy Maryland – Toxic Chemical Identification and Reduction.”

Actually, the industry associations’ testimonies suggest either of two alternative universes.  In one of them, Maryland should do nothing to address dangerous chemical exposures because the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and other related laws are working quite well, thank you very much.  Residing in this parallel universe are the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American Cleaning Institute (ACI, until recently the more accurately named Soap and Detergent Association), the Maryland Industrial Technology Alliance and the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA).

In the other parallel universe, Maryland should do nothing to address dangerous chemical exposures because it will only get in the way of TSCA reform, which is just around the corner.  Inhabiting this alternative universe are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the Can Manufacturers Institute, and yes – as another indication that it just can’t quite make up its mind about TSCA reform – once again, the American Chemistry Council.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation, TSCA reform / Tagged , , , , | Read 1 Response

Chemical safety evaluation: EPA is doing the “Robot” 21st century style

By Jennifer McPartland / Published: March 2, 2011

Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.

Parts in this series:      Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4

Remember that then-new dance move from the 20th century?  Now don’t get too excited, EPA is not adding a dance category to its new sustainability research program.

No, the ‘Robot’ in my title refers to some of the impressive machines involved in EPA’s efforts to develop and apply new automated approaches to chemical toxicity testing.  These approaches integrate modern insights being gleaned from the biological sciences with advances in computation.  A new term has even been coined for all this:  Computational toxicology.

Though perhaps less of a draw than a dance-off featuring EPA staff, EPA’s exploration of new ways to better assess and address the safety of the tens of thousands of chemicals in use today is pretty exciting.    Read More »

Posted in Emerging testing methods, Health science / Tagged , , | Read 2 Responses

No authorization, no market: REACH identifies first six chemicals to be phased out except for explicitly authorized uses

By / Published: February 17, 2011

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

The European Commission today identified the first six chemicals to be made subject to authorization under the European Union’s Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals, or REACH.

The long road to today’s decision began in October 2008, when the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) identified these chemicals as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) and placed them on its Candidate List for chemicals potentially to be subject to authorization. Under REACH, a chemical qualifies as a SVHC as a result of being:  (1) carcinogenic, mutagenic, or a reproductive toxicant (CMR), (2) being persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), (3) being very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB), or (4) being found to “give rise to an equivalent level of concern.”  Clearly these are the types of chemicals we want to pay attention to!

Today’s formal addition of these chemicals to REACH’s Annex XIV serves to notify manufacturers and importers that they must apply for, and obtain, authorization for specific uses of these chemicals if they want to continue using them beyond their designated sunset dates in 2014 and 2015.  It is of note that this rule applies to the chemicals in question regardless of their production volumes.   Read More »

Posted in Health policy / Tagged , , , , , | Comments are closed