EDF Health

Correction: The Trump EPA’s first TSCA risk evaluation is a skyscraper of cards, not just a house

By / Published: January 8, 2019

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

We blogged before the holiday break about how EPA used a single, unverified and conflicted estimate of worker exposure to build a whole house of cards and then used it to conclude that Pigment Violet 29 (or PV29) poses no risk to human health.

But upon further consideration, we need to issue a correction:  It’s not a house, it’s a veritable skyscraper of cards EPA has constructed.  That’s because EPA took its highly suspect worker exposure level and combined it with a hazard value EPA erroneously asserts demonstrates minimal hazard, in violation of its own and other authoritative guidance.   Read More »

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

From villages to states, significant progress on lead service line replacement in 2018

By Sam Lovell / Published: January 7, 2019

Sam Lovell, Project Specialist and Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director

We recently finished a round of updates to our webpages recognizing states and communities leading the way in efforts to accelerate lead service line (LSL) replacement across the country. As we start the New Year, we wanted to summarize the good news from 2018 and highlight some opportunities for more success.

Ninety-five communities are leading the way on LSL replacement programs:[1]

  • 6 communities have publicly announced that they have completely replaced all known LSLs.
  • 53 communities have publicly set a goal of eliminating LSLs on public and private property, totaling more than 300,000 LSLs. Ten of the communities are in Wisconsin; Indiana has one investor-owned utility, American Water, which operates 27 separate community water systems; Michigan has four communities; Colorado and Ohio have two; and Arkansas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Washington have one.
  • 36 communities are publicly taking steps to replace LSLs but have not yet set a goal of full replacement. One third of these communities are from Wisconsin; seven from Illinois; and five or fewer from New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Iowa, and Kentucky.

Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Lead, Public health / Tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

Lead in hair dye – one company considers it safe

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: January 4, 2019

Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director

In October 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of lead acetate in hair dyes in response to a March 2017 color additive petition from EDF and other health advocates. In December, we learned that Combe, Inc., the maker of the lead-acetate based hair dye Grecian Formula, objected to FDA’s decision, requested a formal evidentiary public hearing to review the decision, and claimed the use is safe. The objection puts the FDA’s decision on hold awaiting a process that may take years to resolve. Apparently, the company thinks it is safe for men to slather skin-soluble lead on their head every couple of days and to risk exposing their families to a heavy metal for which no safe level of exposure has been identified.

Combe’s action was somewhat surprising because the company told CBS News that it removed lead acetate from its Grecian Formula “quite a long time ago,” but was unable to provide an exact date. Presumably, someone in the know updated the product’s Wikipedia page, which says Grecian Formula does not contain lead acetate as of July 2018, although an earlier version of the page said April 2018.

Whatever the date it was reformulated, why would Combe block FDA’s decision when it has long sold a lead-free brand – Just For Men – and had already reportedly removed lead from Grecian Formula? From a market standpoint, objecting to FDA’s decision benefits Youthair, Combe’s main competitor, which continues to sell a leaded-version of progressive hair dye.

Read More »

Posted in FDA, Lead, Public health / Tagged , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Trump Administration’s lead action plan is a missed opportunity to protect kids from lead

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: December 20, 2018

Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director

Yesterday, the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children released its long-delayed Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and Associated Health Impacts (Lead Action Plan). A year ago the Task Force described this document as a federal lead strategy that would identify clear goals and objectives to “serve as a ‘roadmap’ for federal agencies on actions to take to reduce childhood lead exposure.” It requested feedback on the approach and received over 700 public comments.

The Trump Administration’s Lead Action Plan falls far short of what was promised. To understand what the Plan is and what it is not, we compared it to two earlier documents from the Task Force: 1) A federal lead strategy released in February 2000 by the Clinton Administration focused on reducing exposure to lead-based paint; and 2) An inventory of key federal programs released in November 2016 by the Obama Administration summarizing the activities of the 17 federal agencies and departments with responsibilities to protect children from lead.

Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Lead, Public health, Regulation / Tagged , , , | Read 2 Responses

The Trump EPA’s first risk evaluation under the new TSCA is a house of cards

By / Published: December 19, 2018

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

I’ve been blogging about the deep problems surrounding the first draft risk evaluation the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released under the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  This risk evaluation, which is now out for public comment, is on a chemical commonly called Pigment Violet 29, or PV29.  Among the many problems that immediately jumped out as we began our review of this draft evaluation are EPA’s reliance on clearly inadequate health and environmental hazard data to conclude the chemical is safe, as well as EPA’s illegal withholding from the public of the little hazard information it does have.[pullquote]I suppose if you start with almost no reliable data on a chemical, are dead set against using your enhanced authorities to get any more data, and are hell-bent on finding the chemical is safe, this is how you might choose to conduct a risk evaluation.[/pullquote]

This post will look at the other half of the risk equation, exposure.  EPA has even less information on exposures to PV29 than it does on hazard.  EPA has no actual data on the levels of PV29 released to or present in air, soil, sediment, surface water, people, other organisms, workplaces or products containing or made from the chemical.  It lacks any data from, and hasn’t used its authorities to require, monitoring in workplaces or any environmental media.

So what does EPA have?   Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Health science, Industry influence, Regulation, TSCA reform / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed

Exhibit PV29: Why this EPA can’t be trusted to forthrightly assess chemical risks under TSCA

By / Published: December 13, 2018

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

I blogged last week about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) illegal and hypocritical decision to deny the public access to health and safety studies conducted on the first chemical to undergo a risk evaluation under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  In its draft risk evaluation, now out for public comment, EPA relied on these secret studies to assert that the chemical, commonly known as Pigment Violet 29, or PV29, is safe, so EPA’s denial of public access matters a great deal.

EPA asserts that these studies are entitled to protection as confidential business information (CBI) under TSCA, when in fact TSCA explicitly does not extend CBI protection to such studies.  The only health and environmental information on this chemical that is public are brief summaries of those studies that were prepared by the companies that make the chemical, and were submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) when the chemical was registered under the European Union’s REACH Regulation.  (EPA erroneously states that the studies were “summarized by ECHA.”  This is simply not the case:  Registrants, not ECHA, develop the summaries that are then made available in the registration “dossiers” for REACH chemicals.)

As we review EPA’s draft risk evaluation for PV29, we are finding that EPA’s assertions cannot be trusted even about what these summaries state are the findings of the underlying studies.  I’ll discuss one such case in this post.   Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Health science, TSCA reform / Tagged , , , , | Comments are closed