EDF Health

TSCA reform on hold again – and over what this time?

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

Well, it looks like American families will have to wait a bit longer for better protection from toxic chemicals, with today’s decision by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to place a hold on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.  Earlier this week, the House passed the legislation by a vote of 403-12, and it was due to come to Senate floor today – until Sen. Paul announced his hold.

Arguing that he needed more time to review the bill, Sen. Paul cited brand new concerns over two provisions that were already in the Senate bill when it came to the Senate floor last December by unanimous consent and passed on a voice vote with no objections.  Those provisions involve criminal penalties and state preemption.  Let’s look at each:   Read More »

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

Initial analyses of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act

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

Based on the text of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act posted today, I have prepared the following analyses of the bill:

I hope these analyses are useful to those interested in understanding this complex piece of legislation.

 

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

Historic deal on TSCA reform reached, setting stage for a new law after 40 years of waiting

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

House and Senate negotiators have reached agreement on a final reconciled bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), our nation’s badly broken chemical safety law.  The final text of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was posted today, and is set to be voted on by the full House tomorrow, with Senate consideration expected to follow later this week.

Negotiations to reconcile the two chambers’ quite different reform bills, both passed last year, reached a feverish pace in the last few weeks, leading to today’s historic breakthrough.

The result is a final bill that, while a compromise, is a substantial improvement over current law.  The bill adopts the comprehensive approach taken by the Senate bill, while sticking closer to the structure of current TSCA, as did the House bill.  Negotiators adopted the House bill’s construct of risk evaluations over the Senate’s safety assessments and determinations, while largely adopting the Senate approach to reforming TSCA’s new chemicals program, establishing a prioritization process applicable to all chemicals, and updating the inventory of chemicals active in commerce.  The bill’s chemical testing provision is more of an amalgam of the two bills and negotiators agreed to leave several sections of TSCA (e.g., exports and imports) largely untouched, as the House bill had done.

Overall, the new bill makes significant improvements to all of TSCA’s core provisions.  Read More »

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

FDA accepting public comments on the safety of ortho-phthalates

Tom Neltner, J.D.is Chemicals Policy Director.

Today, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was accepting public comment on a food additive petition asking the agency to reconsider the safety of 30 toxic chemicals known as ortho-phthalates, which are used as additives in food packaging and handling materials.

The announcement, to be published in tomorrow’s Federal Register, comes shortly after a new study by Dr. Ami Zota published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that individuals who consume large amounts of fast food have higher levels of exposure to two of the most commonly-used phthalates—diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) and diisononyl phthtlate (DiNP). Because the study was about fast food, final food packaging is less likely to be a major source than food handling equipment, including gloves. Read More »

Posted in FDA, Food, Health policy, Regulation / Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Washington Post looks at the long and painful history of Lead in Drinking Water rule

Sarah Vogel, Ph.D.is Vice-President for Health.

If you missed last week’s Washington Post piece, “The EPA’s lead-in-water rule has been faulted for decades. Will Flint hasten a change?”  we suggest you go back and take a look. Post reporter Brady Dennis takes us back to the beginning to figure out how a federal rule intended to help ensure safe drinking water nationwide faltered, and why it has taken so long to fix.

In 1991, EPA issued the Lead and Copper Rule to reduce lead in drinking water that primarily relied on corrosion control. But initial progress stalled and the rules shortcomings became clear. As EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy explained at a recent hearing, the rule “needs to be strengthened.” Critics claim the outdated rule has become too easy to evade and too hard to enforce.

EPA now is developing an overhaul of the rule. Given the complexity and scope of the challenge, as my colleague Tom Neltner points out, the stakes are high and the agency needs to get it right.

Neltner should know. He served on the expert panel advising the EPA National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) which looked at the rule’s flaws. For example, EPA’s original “lead action level” was based on whether or not corrosion control was working and not on the health risk. The group Neltner served on recommended establishing a new health-based “household action level” that will empower people to make informed choices about how to manage their risk to lead hazards in water. In February 2015, EPA agreed to develop an estimated level for the panel to consider. Given the consumer’s need for the number as a result of Flint, EDF has urged that the agency move quickly to release the household action level.

EPA has indicated the lead rule update will be issued in 2017. But with bipartisan Hill support and a new Presidential Administration on the horizon, many are anxious to see it move faster.

Posted in Drinking water, General interest, Lead, Regulation / Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments are closed

Senator Markey asks: What if people could buy food they know is free of secret ingredients?

[pullquote]Senator Markey (D-MA) asked FDA if it can require a label to tell consumers when the food they are eating contains chemicals it has not reviewed for safety. In his April 26 letter, he asked the agency to respond by May 17.

[/pullquote]Tom Neltner, J.D.is Chemicals Policy Director.

In May 2015, 36% of consumers said that chemicals in food was their most important food safety issue and 23% of consumer said they changed their purchase habits out of concern with chemicals in their food. Leading food manufacturers responded by reformulating their products to remove artificial flavors and colors.

What if these same consumers knew that chemicals added to their food had not been reviewed for safety by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? As the Natural Resources Defense Council made clear two years ago, 56 food additive makers chose to avoid FDA’s scrutiny by taking advantage of a loophole in the law for “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) substances. They purposely chose not to be transparent by keeping secret the safety evaluation conducted by their employees or consultants. These companies appear to make only a few of the estimated 1000 chemicals that FDA has not checked for safety or is aware they exist.

In February, we learned that 51% of consumers think that safety means not only that a product is free of harmful ingredients but that its labeling is clear and accurate. Forty-seven percent want clear information on ingredients and sourcing. With this in mind, it’s fair to assume that consumers also expect that all food chemicals are safe and known to the FDA. Many consumers would likely not buy products where the labeling failed to disclose that the food they serve their families contained ingredients the FDA has admitted it “cannot vouch for their safety”.

On April 26, Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) put the issue front and center when he asked FDA whether it has “sufficient authority to require a special label on any foods or beverages containing ingredients that have been self-determined to be GRAS without an FDA review?” If FDA had sufficient authority, then “what would the label look like?” Read More »

Posted in FDA, Food, GRAS, Markets and Retail, Regulation / Tagged , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed