EDF Health

Selected tag(s): Chemical identity

How should the problem of “secret chemicals” be addressed?

By / Published: January 5, 2010

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

A front page article by Lyndsey Layton in yesterday’s Washington Post – spurred by an intriguing new report by the Environmental Working Group – did a great job of exposing the extent to which the identities of chemicals in widespread use are hidden from view, and of exploring some of the many adverse consequences.

Neither the article nor the report, however, had much to say about how this problem of excessive reliance on confidential business information (CBI) claims by industry might be solved, especially in the context of impending reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

In this post I’ll provide some concrete proposals for addressing this serious problem.

Read More »

Posted in Health policy, TSCA reform / Also tagged , | Read 3 Responses

Testing for endocrine disruption: Are we there yet?

By / Published: December 22, 2009

Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.

After long delays, the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs recently issued endocrine disruptor screening test orders for dozens of high-priority pesticide ingredients.  Endocrine disruptors are chemicals capable of interfering with the action of hormones that regulate biological processes such as development, growth, reproduction and metabolism.  The test orders require pesticide manufacturers to evaluate their chemicals using a specific battery of tests.

Identifying which chemicals are endocrine disruptors can help protect people and the environment from harmful exposures.  So, with test orders now in the hands of pesticide manufacturers, will we finally get the data we need? Read More »

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

How to turn a “quick start” into a choke point

By / Published: November 18, 2009

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

Over the last few months, I was heartened to hear a number of industry stakeholders in the debate over TSCA reform embrace the idea of designating in TSCA reform legislation a “jump-start” or “quick-start” list of chemicals of high concern or priority.  The idea was to allow EPA to hit the ground running, by having an agreed-to list of chemicals on which it could immediately initiate action.  Well, it now appears many in industry actually have something far slower and far more cumbersome in mind. Read More »

Posted in Health policy, TSCA reform / Also tagged , , , , , | Authors: / Read 2 Responses

The nanotube SNURs: Nano step forward, nano step back

By / Published: August 21, 2009

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

In June, EPA published a Federal Register notice that included Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) for two carbon nanotubes (as well as 21 other chemicals).  That notice certainly got the attention of lawyers in town (see here, here and here).  The nanotube SNURs would require anyone planning to produce or process either of the two substances to notify EPA if the person intended not to comply with the (rather limited) risk management conditions specified by EPA.  Well, as reported yesterday by Sara Goodman of E&E News, EPA is now withdrawing the SNURs, at least temporarily.

Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Nanotechnology, Regulation / Also tagged , , , | Read 3 Responses

Hiding a toxic nanomaterial’s identity: TSCA’s disappearing act

By / Published: July 14, 2009

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

In earlier posts (here and here), I discussed a notice EPA had received in July of 2008 from BASF reporting toxic effects at very low doses of a carbon nanotube (CNT) observed in a 90-day rat inhalation study.  In that notice, BASF had declared the specific identity of its CNT to be confidential business information, hence denying that information to the public.  Now, in a setting more to its liking, it appears the company has decided to reveal the identity after all. Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Nanotechnology, Regulation / Also tagged , , , , | Read 1 Response

ChAMP’s double standard

By / Published: June 1, 2009

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

This new post serves as a response to Charlie Auer’s most recent comment responding to our critique of ChAMP.  (To see the whole exchange, start here, then go here, here and here.)  So far, this exchange has focused mainly on our disagreement over whether or not EPA is somehow required to do risk assessments under ChAMP.  At some point, I hope Charlie and others will engage on the substance of our critique – the serious concerns we’ve raised about the quality and validity of the ChAMP assessments.
Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation / Also tagged , , , , , | Comments are closed