{"id":13826,"date":"2026-07-07T15:37:57","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T20:37:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=13826"},"modified":"2026-07-07T15:37:58","modified_gmt":"2026-07-07T20:37:58","slug":"why-weakening-the-toxic-substances-control-act-could-put-complex-toxic-chemicals-on-a-fast-track-to-our-communities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2026\/07\/07\/why-weakening-the-toxic-substances-control-act-could-put-complex-toxic-chemicals-on-a-fast-track-to-our-communities\/","title":{"rendered":"Why weakening the Toxic Substances Control Act could put complex toxic chemicals on a fast track to our communities"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In case you missed it, an<\/a>\u00a0out-of-touch, industry-first proposal<\/a>\u00a0from Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives threatens to significantly weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act, a\u00a0popular<\/a>\u00a0chemical safety law that helps keep dangerous chemicals out of our homes, workplaces and schools. A similar proposal from the U.S. Senate would also\u00a0roll back these essential public health protections<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why does this matter? The Toxic Substances Control Act gives the EPA the authority and responsibility to review chemicals more effectively, before and after they enter the market. The law underwent a critical reform 10 years ago because it was not sufficiently protecting millions of Americans. Now, the Toxic Substances Control Act is working, and it keeps the most dangerous chemicals out of our lives.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are some ways our bedrock chemical safety law is working to protect us, and what\u2019s at stake if it\u2019s weakened. Over the next few weeks, we\u2019ll dive deeper into how industry-first Republican proposals in Congress would put profits over health, and how the Toxic Substances Control Act keeps us safe \u2013 and is worth fighting for.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note: This is the sixth in a series about how the House Republicans\u2019 proposal would undermine the EPA\u2019s ability to protect public health and the environment from toxic chemicals.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Toxic Substances Control Act’s 2016 reforms shield communities from toxic chemicals<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thanks to the 2016 improvements<\/a> to the Toxic Substances Control Act, many harmful chemicals have been kept out of our communities, homes and everyday products. The Toxic Substances Control Act now requires the EPA to make an affirmative determination about the safety of any new chemical; the process of manufacturing a new chemical cannot commence until the EPA has made its determination through an evidence-based chemical safety review process under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The 2016 revision of the law prevents the approval of new chemicals without an assessment of its risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unknown or Variable Composition, Complex Reaction Products and Biological Materials (UVCBs) form a significant portion of the chemical substances subject to the Toxic Substances Control Act. Unlike many chemicals, which have well-defined molecular structures, UVCBs are complex mixtures with varied compositions, the specifics of which are generally unknown, earning them their name. Many are also poorly characterized, so they are often described not by what they are but by how they were made and what they were made from. The inherent variability and lack of specific information on UVBCs\u2019 exact make-up complicate the characterization of their toxicity and the risks they pose. And given their inherent non-specificity, inherently different UVCBs may have similar sounding names.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Republican draft prioritizes industry profits over public health, leaving families, workers and fenceline communities at risk<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tucked inside the Republican discussion draft is new language that sounds procedural and abstract \u2014 including provisions about “UVCB chemical substances” and “equivalency” \u2014 but within the framework of the Toxic Substances Control Act, these terms carry significant weight and consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If passed, this would allow a new UVCB that is claimed to be like one already on the market to bypass the EPA\u2019s new chemical safety review process and automatically enter the market. This would introduce an even greater uncertainty and ignore significant differences by treating different unknown and variable mixtures as equivalent to a known chemical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While there may be many similarities between two different UVCBs, the differences can lead to substantial variations in their toxicity profiles. Let\u2019s use cakes as an example. The provision suggests treating a lemon pound cake and a chocolate cake \u2013 both complex mixtures \u2013 as essentially equivalent because both contain flour, eggs, and sugar and are baked at 350 degrees F. Yes, there are similarities but also significant differences, such as the varying additional ingredients and different calorie counts. A taste test will immediately show that they\u2019re not equivalent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the difference between types of cakes may not affect more than our preferences in desserts, the difference between two different UVCBs can have serious implications. For complex substances like UVCBs, a chemical\u2019s exact make-up directly affects its properties such as composition, toxicity, how long it lasts in the environment and its ability to accumulate in the body \u2014 factors that are central to a meaningful risk assessment. The Republican draft ignores the reality that two UVCBs that appear somewhat similar on paper may differ significantly in their toxicity and the presence of harmful contaminants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practice, this would open a back door to allow the toxic, harmful substances generated through the burning of waste plastic \u2013 so-called \u201cchemical\u201d or \u201cadvanced recycling\u201d \u2013 onto the market. For example, burning waste plastics or tires could be characterized as producing substances \u201cequivalent\u201d to petroleum naphtha \u2014 already on the inventory \u2014 despite containing flame retardants, phthalates, heavy metals, dioxins and many other harmful chemicals not found in conventional naphtha. Treating these substances as equivalent to petroleum naphtha would allow other extremely hazardous substances to enter the market without any chemical review or assessment, creating public health risks that often fall disproportionately on already overburdened communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Go deeper: <\/strong>Dive into our analysis<\/a> of the House Republicans\u2019 proposal to gut the Toxic Substances Control Act, and read more<\/a> about a similarly harmful proposal from Senate Republicans. ICYMI, our other pieces in this series are here:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Toxic Substances Control Act is working to protect millions of Americans. So why do Congressional Republicans want to weaken it?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is how the House Republicans\u2019 proposal to weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act hamstrings EPA\u2019s ability to protect us from the worst toxic chemicals already on the market<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Toxic Substances Control Act is working to keep potentially dangerous new chemicals off the market and out of our lives<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keeping workers safe under the Toxic Substances Control Act<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why \u201cfeasibility\u201d is a dangerous, slippery slope for chemical reviews<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In case you missed it, an\u00a0out-of-touch, industry-first proposal\u00a0from Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives threatens to significantly weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act, a\u00a0popular\u00a0chemical safety law that helps keep dangerous chemicals out of our homes, workplaces and schools. A similar proposal from the U.S. Senate would also\u00a0roll back these essential public health protections. Why …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":150429,"featured_media":13827,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[114078,114054,44,56093,39263,114119,114033],"tags":[68],"coauthors":[114042],"class_list":["post-13826","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-chemical-regulation","category-congress","category-policy","category-industry-influence","category-public-health","category-rules-regulations","category-tsca-2","tag-epa"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13826","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\/150429"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13826"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13826\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13828,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13826\/revisions\/13828"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13827"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13826"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13826"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13826"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=13826"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}