{"id":3751,"date":"2014-04-29T11:20:28","date_gmt":"2014-04-29T16:20:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=3751"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:35","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:35","slug":"new-draft-of-house-chemical-safety-bill-falls-short-edf-calls-on-all-sides-to-redouble-effort","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2014\/04\/29\/new-draft-of-house-chemical-safety-bill-falls-short-edf-calls-on-all-sides-to-redouble-effort\/","title":{"rendered":"New Draft of House Chemical Safety Bill Falls Short; EDF Calls on All Sides to Redouble Effort"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.<\/em>,<\/em> is a Lead Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n

Release in response to today’s House Environment and Economy Subcommittee hearing on a revised discussion draft of the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA)<\/b><\/p>\n

Today\u2019s <\/span>hearing<\/span><\/a> makes clear that the discussion draft has made progress but still falls far short of legislation that will fix the fundamental flaws of the current law, according to Dr. Richard Denison, Lead Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. He urged all sides to keep the bipartisan process moving forward in both houses of Congress. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWhile bipartisan discussions have yielded a number of substantial improvements to address serious concerns with the original draft, the most problematic provisions remain virtually untouched,\u201d Denison said. \u201cThe goal now should be to keep the conversations going.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Examples of progress include giving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to require testing where data are insufficient for prioritization purposes; incorporation of deadlines for agency action to assess and address risks of high-priority chemicals; and less prescriptive and onerous information quality and evaluation requirements.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Sections of the draft pose major concerns and fail to strike a fair and reasonable balance. Examples include the sweeping preemption of state authority for chemicals never subject to a thorough EPA safety review; overly broad allowances for companies to mask the identity of chemicals even long after market entry; and a failure to ensure that conditions placed on new chemicals apply to all companies making or using them.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re optimistic that solutions are at hand that address the needs of all stakeholders, but it is going to take a redoubling of effort by all sides to get there,\u201d he said. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. Release in response to today’s House Environment and Economy Subcommittee hearing on a revised discussion draft of the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA) Today\u2019s hearing makes clear that the discussion draft has made progress but still falls far short of legislation that will fix the fundamental flaws …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,114108],"tags":[39155,39153,39171,39193,5017],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-3751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policy","category-tsca","tag-cbi","tag-data-requirements","tag-exposure-vs-hazard","tag-prioritization","tag-risk-assessment"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t