EDF Health

Companies are not withdrawing PFAS exemptions on their own; EPA should

Samantha Liskow, Lead Counsel, Healthy Communities; and Lauren Ellis, Research Analyst, Environmental Health

EPA has committed to address the urgent issues presented by PFAS, a harmful class of human-made chemicals that are used widely in everyday products. Last July, as part of this effort, EPA called on companies to voluntarily withdraw some 600 PFAS that were previously allowed onto the market through a fast-track exemption process known as a “low volume exemption” (LVE).

Nearly a year later, however, less than 3% of these low volume per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been pulled from the market. That means manufacturers in the U.S. could still be making PFAS that never went through a full safety review – possibly millions of pounds each year. Read More »

Posted in EPA, PFAS, Public Health / Tagged , , , | Read 1 Response

Unleaded Juice: Tougher limits on lead in juice would bring more than a billion dollars in socioeconomic benefits

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals

This is the second in our Unleaded Juice blog series exploring how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets limits for toxic elements like lead, arsenic, and cadmium in food and its implications for the agency’s Closer To Zero program.

When developing its draft action levels for lead in juice, FDA started with the current 50 parts per billion limit and considered progressively tighter levels, settling on 10 ppb for apple juice and 20 ppb for other juices. FDA did not consider more protective limits despite acknowledging that there is no known safe level of children’s exposure to lead – which can harm a child’s developing brain – and that many in the food industry already meet the lower draft levels.

FDA also failed to quantify the socioeconomic benefits of its action. While this task is difficult in many settings, it is entirely reasonable for lead because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a quantitative model when considering rules to protect children from exposure to lead.[1] Read More »

Posted in FDA, Food, lead / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed

FDA takes action to limit lead in juice, proposes significant – but insufficient – limits

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safery Chemicals

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently released draft action levels for lead in juice, proposing to reduce lead limits from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb for apple juice and 20 ppb for all other juices. However, the draft limits don’t go far enough to protect children. They also risk undermining the agency’s broader Closer to Zero effort to drive down children’s exposure to lead, arsenic, and cadmium in food. 

If finalized, these levels would be the most stringent in the world, including current European standards[1] and anticipated international standards.[2] For that FDA deserves credit. Public comments to FDA are due June 28. 

This blog is the first in our Unleaded Juice blog series where we explore these issues. Heavy metals like lead are potent neurotoxicants that can impair children’s brain development. Lead can also result in lower IQs in children.  Read More »

Posted in FDA, Food, lead / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed

The many ways the American Chemistry Council wants to turn back time on TSCA implementation – Part 2

Part 2 of a 2-part series: Unrestricted approvals of new chemicals, with low fees 

Maria Doa, Ph.D., Senior Director, Chemicals Policy

In its recently issued ‘State of TSCA’ report, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) tries to turn back the clock on how EPA assesses and mitigates the risks of toxic chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and in the process leave workers, frontline communities and other vulnerable individuals at risk.  

In my previous blog, I looked at how ACC’s proposals would restrict the EPA’s ability to assess chemical risks and the science behind it. In this second and final part of our blog series looking at the chemical industry trade group’s report, I discuss ACC’s plan to dictate how EPA should assess the safety of new chemicals industry hopes to bring to the marketplace, as well as its effort to let industry avoid paying its fair share of the cost for EPA to evaluate chemical risks.  Read More »

Posted in EPA, Health Policy, Industry Influence, Public Health, TSCA Reform / Tagged , , , | Read 3 Responses

The many ways the American Chemistry Council wants to turn back time on TSCA implementation – Part 1

Part 1 of a 2-part series: Minimizing or ignoring chemical risks

Maria Doa, Ph.D., Senior Director, Chemicals Policy 

In its recently issued ‘State of TSCA’ report, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) tries to turn back the clock on how EPA assesses and mitigates the risks of toxic chemicals. The chemical industry group looks to return to the policies of the Trump years – a time rife with scientific integrity issues and wholesale disregard of risks – particularly those risks to frontline communities, workers and other vulnerable groups: the very groups the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) calls out for special consideration.

This 2-part blog series looks at the six ways ACC hopes to turn back time on chemical safety and looks at the harms that would result if trade group’s self-serving ideas were to be adopted. Part 1 looks at the types of risks ACC wants EPA to exclude from its chemical risk evaluations, the workers and other groups whose health would be affected, as well as the trade group’s goal to have itself appointed as the arbitrator of EPA science. Part 2 looks at ACC’s efforts to dictate the process for assessing new chemicals and industry’s clear goal to avoid paying its fair share of the cost to evaluate the risks posed by some of the most dangerous chemicals already in the marketplace.  Read More »

Posted in EPA, Health Policy, Health Science, Industry Influence, TSCA Reform, Worker Safety / Tagged , , | Comments are closed

EPA’s new Collaborative Research Program – A step toward improving new chemical reviews under TSCA

Maria Doa, Ph.D., Senior Director, Chemicals Policy; Lauren Ellis, MPH, Research Analyst; and Lariah Edwards, Ph.D., Post-Doctoral Fellow 

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) recently filed comments on EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Collaborative Research Program to Support New Chemical Reviews (Collaborative Research Program). The Collaborative Research Program is a multi-year scientific partnership between the agency’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) and Office of Research and Development (ORD) aimed at modernizing the methods, approaches, and tools used to evaluate new chemicals under TSCA.  

We strongly support OPPT’s collaboration with ORD, which has a breadth of scientific expertise across EPA’s different research programs. As such, ORD will help OPPT implement the best available science in its new chemical assessments, which should ultimately prevent risky chemicals from entering the marketplace. We urge OPPT to use this opportunity – and ORD’s expertise – to improve and expand its consideration of new chemical impacts to frontline communities, the risks new chemicals may pose throughout their entire life cycle, as well as cumulative risks from chemicals that may cause similar health effects. 

Below we outline the five proposed research areas for new chemicals under the Collaborative Research Program and our comments on each. All five can have an important impact on EPA’s new chemical assessments and consequently on EPA’s determination on whether a new chemical is expected to present an unreasonable risk.  Read More »

Posted in EPA, TSCA Reform / Tagged | Comments are closed