A message to our RSS subscribers:
We are making a change to how our blog subscriptions are managed. Please update your RSS feed URL to: https://blogs.edf.org/health/feed/ by Thursday, July 27th to ensure you don’t miss a blog.
EDF Health
A message to our RSS subscribers only:
Posted in General interest
Comments are closed
EDF has deep concerns over nomination of industry consultant to lead toxics program at EPA
[Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.]
We are deeply concerned over the nomination of Michael Dourson to head the toxics office at EPA. Unfortunately, this nomination fits the clear pattern of the Trump Administration in appointing individuals to positions for which they have significant conflicts of interest. Dr. Dourson has extensive, longstanding ties to the chemical industry (as well as earlier ties to the tobacco industry). He also has a history of failing to appropriately address his conflicts of interest. For example: Read More
Podcast: You Make Me Sick! Diversity in the environmental movement
This month on our podcast, we talked with Whitney Tome, Executive Director of Green 2.0, to talk about the importance of diversity in the environmental movement. In talking about our need to have more chairs at the table, we discussed Green 2.0’s new report, Beyond Diversity, which looked at how hiring practices might be reshaped to cast a bigger net, as well as their scorecards on the state of racial and gender representation at major environmental organizations.
Want more? Subscribe to us on iTunes or Google Play, or check out our SoundCloud to listen via desktop!
Final TSCA framework rules retreat from best available science
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
[This post is adapted from comments I provided for the science policy panel at the June 27, 2017, forum TSCA Reform: One Year Later, co-sponsored by Environmental Law Institute, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., Environmental Defense Fund, and George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health.]
I don’t know anyone who opposes EPA using the best science it can and considering all the evidence in making decisions.[pullquote]The irony here is that core features of the final rules – each the result of changes since their proposal made in response to chemical industry comments – actually move us away from any meaningful realization of what best available science means.[/pullquote]
So why is it that this science stuff is so controversial? It’s long been a battleground across all of what EPA does, and the debate over reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was no exception. I have no doubt this will continue unabated into implementation of the amendments to TSCA made by last year’s Lautenberg Act.
Science policy issues are among the most “cultish” of any policy issues I have ever dealt with. Different camps have formed, each with its own belief system, each seeing a right way and a wrong way of doing science. Each is highly suspicious of the others, including what they mean by each word.
At the risk of appearing cultish myself, I want to briefly discuss my concerns about the final prioritization and risk evaluation rules in relation to the term “best available science.” Read More
Posted in Health policy, Health science, TSCA reform
Comments are closed
One year and counting: On its first anniversary, near-term threats abound to implementation of our strong new chemical safety law
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
This week marks the first birthday of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemicals Safety for the 21st Century Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on June 22, 2016, after passing the Senate and House with overwhelming bipartisan support.[pullquote]If balance is lost to short-term priorities of the new Administration and the chemical industry, the common ground so many of us fought for and found to support last year’s historic passage of the Lautenberg Act will quickly dissipate.[/pullquote]
The Lautenberg Act significantly overhauled and substantially improved the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the core provisions of which had never been amended since their adoption in 1976. Among the enhancements are new provisions that:
- mandate safety reviews for chemicals in active commerce;
- require safety findings for new chemicals before they are allowed on the market;
- replace TSCA’s burdensome safety standard — which prevented the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even from banning asbestos — with a pure, health-based safety standard;
- explicitly require protection of vulnerable populations like children, pregnant women and workers;
- give EPA enhanced authority to require testing of both new and existing chemicals;
- make more information about chemicals available, by limiting companies’ ability to claim information as confidential, and by giving states and health and environmental professionals access to confidential information they need to do their jobs; and
- retain a significant role for states in assuring chemical safety, while strengthening the federal role.
Passage of the Lautenberg Act was made possible by the coming-together of members of both parties and a broad spectrum of stakeholders around two facts: the old law wasn’t working for anyone, and a stronger federal chemicals management system was needed to restore lost confidence among the public and in the marketplace over the safety of chemicals.
At the one-year mark, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) remains confident that the law is strong and can and will ultimately deliver on its promises. At the same time, its effective implementation in the near term is threatened on numerous fronts, unfolding as it is in one of the most anti-environmental and anti-regulatory climates this nation has faced in a long time. Read More