{"id":3796,"date":"2014-06-04T08:57:11","date_gmt":"2014-06-04T13:57:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=3796"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:35","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:35","slug":"chemical-safety-reform-will-the-center-hold","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2014\/06\/04\/chemical-safety-reform-will-the-center-hold\/","title":{"rendered":"Chemical Safety Reform: Will the Center Hold?"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

Copyright \u00a9 2014, Environmental Law Institute\u00ae, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org<\/a>
\nReprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum\u00ae, May\/June 2014<\/p>\n

Compromise is tough. It can be thankless and unsatisfying, and, by definition, you don\u2019t get everything you want. But it\u2019s the only way reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act will happen. Nearly everyone, from environmentalists to industry honchos, agrees TSCA is badly broken. But start talking about how to fix the problems and you\u2019ll find there are legitimate core principles held by different stakeholders that are difficult to reconcile. Here are just three examples: <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

New chemicals<\/i>. The common-sense notion that new chemicals should be shown safe before entering the market, versus the desire not to hinder innovation or U.S. companies\u2019 ability to compete globally by getting chemicals to market quickly; <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Preemption<\/i>. The appeal of a single federal oversight system that does not impede interstate commerce, versus the view that states have the right to act to protect their residents; and <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Confidential business information<\/i>. The right of citizens, consumers, and the market to information on potential risks of chemicals they may use or be exposed to, versus assurance that legitimate trade secrets submitted to regulators will not generally be disclosed. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As an active participant in the past decade\u2019s debate, I\u2019ve seen firsthand how such conflicting principles complicate \u2014 politically and substantively \u2014 prospects for achieving reform. I\u2019ve also learned that progress comes only when both sides accept they have to give something to get something. Conversely, progress stalls when stakeholders get greedy. The past year has seen both tendencies. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) assessed the landscape last year and saw the need for compromise. He took the political risk of working on legislation with Senator David Vitter (R-LA), who had been about to introduce his own legislation. The result was the first-ever bipartisan legislation to reform TSCA, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Sadly, Senator Lautenberg died shortly after CSIA was introduced. But the legislation remains very much alive, and although it was (and is) far from perfect, there has been major progress thanks to the continuing work of Senator Vitter and Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) to address major concerns raised about the bill and strengthen its health protections. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Additional progress is endangered, however, as some players have fallen back to their core principles and hardened their positions. And after holding a promising series of constructive, balanced hearings on TSCA, the House majority floated reform legislation \u2014 albeit a discussion draft rather than a bill \u2014 that tilts heavily in industry\u2019s favor. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

These challenges have led some stakeholders to consider forgoing the present opportunity and either opt to retreat to the status quo or try to forestall action and wait for more political advantage in the future. In my view, this notion of an easier path any time in the foreseeable future is illusory. The conflicting needs of stakeholders are so fundamental, and the political climate so polarized, that counting on them to change appreciably is wishful at best. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The only recourse is to do the hard work of negotiating to forge a legitimate and fair compromise that delivers an efficient and effective chemicals management system. Let me use my earlier three examples to illustrate what common ground looks like: <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

New chemicals. <\/i>EPA should make an affirmative determination of safety before market entry, but using a standard that allows prompt review based on the limited information available for a new chemical. Where that information is insufficient, EPA should be able to require more \u2014 or impose conditions sufficient to address potential risks even in its absence; <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Preemption<\/i>. States should be able to act to address a chemical\u2019s risks wherever EPA has not, or when they can make the case for going further. Preemption should apply prospectively, and when, but only when, the agency has all the information it needs to make a definitive safety decision and takes final action on a chemical. Requirements that do not directly restrict a chemical\u2019s manufacture or use \u2014 such as for reporting, warnings, monitoring or assessment, which do not unduly impede interstate commerce \u2014 should remain available to states; and <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Confidential business information<\/i>. Legitimate trade secrets should be protected, but not information on health and environmental effects or general information on a chemical\u2019s use. Identities of chemicals should generally be available once they enter commerce. Up-front substantiation and EPA approval of claims should be required. Claims should generally be time-limited but renewable upon resubstantiation. State and local governments, medical personnel, first responders, and health and environmental officials should have access to confidential business information. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The opportunity before us is apparent: Our best chance to fix an outdated law that serves nobody\u2019s interests. The alternative \u2014 sticking with a piecemeal system that undermines consumer confidence and puts our health at risk \u2014 is no alternative at all. All it takes to seize this opportunity is to agree that compromise doesn\u2019t have to be a dirty word.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. Copyright \u00a9 2014, Environmental Law Institute\u00ae, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum\u00ae, May\/June 2014 Compromise is tough. It can be thankless and unsatisfying, and, by definition, you don\u2019t get everything you want. But it\u2019s the only way reform of the Toxic Substances Control …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,114108],"tags":[39155,134],"coauthors":[114100],"class_list":["post-3796","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policy","category-tsca","tag-cbi","tag-states"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3796","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\/100"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3796"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3796\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13677,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3796\/revisions\/13677"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3796"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3796"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3796"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=3796"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}