{"id":11372,"date":"2022-12-02T14:33:53","date_gmt":"2022-12-02T19:33:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=11372"},"modified":"2022-12-02T14:42:06","modified_gmt":"2022-12-02T19:42:06","slug":"toxic-chemicals-regulatory-exemptions-prioritize-industry-wants-over-safety-needs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2022\/12\/02\/toxic-chemicals-regulatory-exemptions-prioritize-industry-wants-over-safety-needs\/","title":{"rendered":"Toxic Chemicals: Regulatory exemptions prioritize industry wants over safety needs"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/11\/files\/2022\/12\/221202-EPA_rubber_stamping_LVEs-scaled.jpeg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\" wp-image-11375\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/11\/files\/2022\/12\/221202-EPA_rubber_stamping_LVEs-300x180.jpeg\" alt=\"A rubber stamp lies on its side to the right of the photo. To the left, you see the stamped image of a skull and crossbones and the words Toxic Substances\" width=\"567\" height=\"340\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/11\/files\/2022\/12\/221202-EPA_rubber_stamping_LVEs-300x180.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/11\/files\/2022\/12\/221202-EPA_rubber_stamping_LVEs-1024x614.jpeg 1024w, https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/11\/files\/2022\/12\/221202-EPA_rubber_stamping_LVEs-768x461.jpeg 768w, https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/11\/files\/2022\/12\/221202-EPA_rubber_stamping_LVEs-1536x922.jpeg 1536w, https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/11\/files\/2022\/12\/221202-EPA_rubber_stamping_LVEs-2048x1229.jpeg 2048w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 567px) 100vw, 567px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>By <u><a href=\"https:\/\/www.edf.org\/people\/maria-doa\">Maria Doa<\/a><\/u>, PhD, Senior Director, Chemicals Policy<\/p>\n<p><strong>What\u2019s the Issue?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>EPA grants exemptions from full safety reviews for approximately half the new chemicals submitted by the chemical industry. Once those exemptions are granted, EPA very rarely revises or revokes them\u2014even in the face of new information.<\/p>\n<p>The <u><a href=\"https:\/\/www.edf.org\/sites\/default\/files\/denison-primer-on-lautenberg-act.pdf\">Toxic Substances Control Act<\/a><\/u> allows EPA to grant an exemption from a full safety review only if it determines that the chemical <em>will not<\/em> present an unreasonable risk. That&#8217;s a high standard\u2014and one that many exemptions do not meet.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why it Matters:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>The chemical industry takes maximum advantage of exemptions<\/strong> given the abbreviated safety review and the industry\u2019s ability to keep their use of new chemicals under the radar. For example, the chemicals that get exemptions don\u2019t go on the <u><a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/tsca-inventory\">national inventory of chemicals that are in use<\/a><\/u>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>For years, EPA has granted exemptions for chemicals that can have long-term negative impacts<\/strong> on human health and the environment. They include <u><a href=\"https:\/\/earthjustice.org\/sites\/default\/files\/files\/pfas_revocation_petition_submitted.pdf\">hundreds of exemptions for PFAS<\/a><\/u>, \u201cforever chemicals\u201d known to contaminate our water supplies and farmland. <em><strong>And it\u2019s not just PFAS<\/strong><\/em>. EPA has granted exemptions for other types of persistent, bio-accumulative, toxic (PBT) chemicals that can have lasting impacts on people and the environment.<\/li>\n<li><strong>These exemptions often contradict TSCA\u2019s requirement that EPA consider the risks from a chemical throughout its lifecycle<\/strong>. That includes the risks for vulnerable groups who may be more susceptible to the chemical or who are more highly exposed, such as frontline communities.<\/li>\n<li><strong>EPA does not typically consider the cumulative impacts of multiple exempted chemicals <\/strong>on frontline communities, consumers, or the environment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Our Take:\u00a0<\/strong>EPA has an important opportunity to address overuse of TSCA exemptions.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Next Steps:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>EPA should revisit the exemptions it has already granted. <\/strong>The agency should determine that chemicals truly do not present an unreasonable risk\u2014particularly to vulnerable populations\u2014throughout their lifecycles. EPA should focus first on chemicals that can have long-lasting impacts on health and the environment, like PFAS and other PBTs.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Before granting any new exemptions, EPA should consider the combined impacts throughout the lifecycle of these chemicals on all stakeholders, especially frontline communities.<\/strong> EPA Administrator Regan recently said EPA would be embedding environmental justice into the <u><a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/newsreleases\/epa-launches-new-national-office-dedicated-advancing-environmental-justice-and-civil\">DNA of EPA<\/a><\/u>. This is another opportunity for EPA to do just that.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Maria Doa, PhD, Senior Director, Chemicals Policy What\u2019s the Issue? EPA grants exemptions from full safety reviews for approximately half the new chemicals submitted by the chemical industry. Once those exemptions are granted, EPA very rarely revises or revokes them\u2014even in the face of new information. The Toxic Substances Control Act allows EPA to &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":151199,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[114050,56093,39263,114033],"tags":[68,5021,56108,39156,106773,5017,91722,82],"coauthors":[114042],"class_list":["post-11372","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-frontline-communities","category-industry-influence","category-public-health","category-tsca-2","tag-epa","tag-chemical-industry-tactics","tag-new-chemicals","tag-persistant-bioaccumulative-and-toxic-pbt","tag-pfas","tag-risk-assessment","tag-risk-evaluation","tag-tsca"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11372","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/151199"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11372"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11372\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11372"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11372"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11372"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=11372"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}