EDF Health

Selected tag(s): Industry tactics

Advocates to treat chemical industry to free lunch at next week’s GlobalChem – no joke!

By / Published: March 18, 2011

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

[Update 2:20 EDT:  For GlobalChem attendees who would like to attend our luncheon but won’t yet be at the conference on Monday, we have a call-in number you can use:  (800) 256-8682; code 43491.]

Next week is the chemical industry’s annual GlobalChem bash in Baltimore.  Like last year, there will be a session on “modernization” of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  I was the NGO representative in that session last year, but alas, my inbox never saw an invite this year.  This year’s session will instead be limited to four industry speakers and there won’t be anyone from the advocacy community speaking in any other session of this year’s conference.

Might that be because the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition that EDF helped found held a rally in plain view of last year’s conference that featured a 20-foot-high rubber ducky and the message:  “Chemical industry — You can’t duck real reform!”?

But no matter.  To show our magnanimity, our coalition will be back this year on the first day (Monday, March 21) of the GlobalChem conference – and this time we’ll be offering a free lunch to the participants.  Lunch will be served from 11:30-12:30 in the same hotel, the Hilton Baltimore, that is hosting the industry conference.  But there’s more than just lunch on the menu … .   Read More »

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

ACC endorses cumulative impact assessment for all TSCA regulations!

By / Published: March 14, 2011

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

In what seemed a startling move, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) last week gave testimony at a Congressional hearing that included a full-throated endorsement of mandating that EPA be required to assess cumulative impacts when developing regulations addressing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The call for cumulative impact assessment was a contentious element in last year’s debate over the safety standard that would apply to chemicals under a reformed TSCA.  Reform advocates supported assessing such impacts where the science allows, while ACC had staunchly opposed the concept.  The need to account for cumulative impacts is also a key recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences, in its recent reports Science and Decisions:  Advancing Risk Assessment (2009) and Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment:  The Tasks Ahead (2008).

Ah, but the devil is indeed in the details:  ACC’s apparent change of heart is no such thing.  Rather, ACC is endorsing a step that would make it even harder for EPA to act to control dangerous chemicals under TSCA, namely that the agency would have to consider the cumulative impact of all prior regulations affecting a given industry before it could propose a  new one.  Read More »

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

A bright spot in industry-NGO dialogue on TSCA

By / Published: December 9, 2010

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

A couple of weeks ago, a short letter was sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under this rather unusual letterhead:

 

 

 

 

 

The letter noted:  “Our three organizations have been working together to discuss how best to achieve effective processor reporting of use and exposure information, which is a clear demonstration of our mutual interest in providing EPA with reliable use and exposure information on chemicals in commerce.”

What’s up with that?  Read More »

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

Irresponsible Care: ACC seeks an exception to swallow the IUR Rule

By / Published: November 29, 2010

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

I noted in an earlier post that the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is seeking major delays in the implementation of enhanced chemical information reporting requirements that EPA has proposed under its TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR).  But ACC isn’t content with just delaying the enhanced reporting.  It’s also seeking an exemption so large that it literally threatens to swallow much of the rule.

The proposed exemption is called for in a footnote on page 2 of the comments ACC filed on the proposed rule:  “Exemptions should be provided for any company engaged in an acquisition or divestiture during the years since the last reporting cycle.”

Just how large an exemption would that be?  Read More »

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

Reporting deferred is right-to-know denied: ACC seeks major delays in EPA chemical reporting program

By / Published: November 2, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist. Allison Tracy is a Chemicals Policy Fellow.

Well, in its comments on EPA’s proposed rule to enhance chemical information reporting under the TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR), it took the American Chemistry Council (ACC) all of 5 paragraphs to get through the lip service it no doubt felt it had to pay to supporting EPA’s proposals “in principle,” and then proceed to devote 31 pages to arguments opposing virtually every element of EPA’s proposals.

Cunningly on its part, ACC’s arguments often do not oppose outright the EPA proposals.  Rather, it seeks to put off their implementation for as long as possible.  EPA’s proposed rule calls for reporting in 2011 that would provide information for years 2006 and forward.  In contrast, ACC would have EPA put off implementation of all of its proposed IUR enhancements, with the result that both EPA and the public would not get any of the additional information until at least 2015.

Like we said in the title of this post:  Reporting deferred is right-to-know denied.

We’ll be posting more about ACC’s comments in the coming weeks, but in this post, we’ll consider the core argument ACC makes for deferral:  that “the business of chemistry is product-focused, not substance focused.”  ACC would have us believe their member companies don’t know what chemicals are in any of the products (i.e., mixtures of chemicals) they make and sell.

This argument warrants – ahem – additional scrutiny.  Read More »

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

State-level nano regulation: Yes, indeed, the industry “should have seen it coming” – it caused it!

By / Published: September 10, 2010

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

I just read an interesting column by John DiLoreto, CEO of NanoReg, that appears online at Nanotechnology Now.  It’s titled “We Should Have Seen It Coming: States Regulating Nanotechnology.”  It nicely describes the important role states play in advancing environmental policy and regulation – especially when the feds are asleep at the wheel.  And it also gives a neat rundown of the various state actions aimed at nanomaterials that are underway.

But, search as I might, I couldn’t find a single acknowledgment in Mr. DiLoreto’s latest column – or in his earlier related column titled “What Drives the Regulation of Nanomaterials?” – of the role the nanotechnology industry itself played in bringing all of this on itself.

That’s quite an omission, in my view, given that the industry’s actions (or, more accurately, the lack thereof) played a central role in getting us to where we are (or, more accurately, aren’t) today on nanotechnology oversight.  That includes driving states to feel they had to step in to fill the federal void.   Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Nanotechnology, Regulation / Also tagged , , , , | Authors: / Read 2 Responses