Q & A: The Cooperative Testing Program

 

Q Why is this program needed, and how did it come about?
A Congress and the public have tended to assume that "Scientists know which chemicals are toxic," and therefore that the chemicals we hear about in the news (e.g., lead, dioxin, DDT) are pretty much the only ones that need close attention.

Last year the Environmental Defense Fund published a study, Toxic Ignorance, which contradicted that assumption. Based on a review of the public record, it showed that most high-production-volume chemicals in the US had never been tested for health effects - 13 years after the National Academy of Sciences first documented the problem. EDF executive director Fred Krupp then invited the CEOs of the top 100 chemical manufacturing companies in the US to commit to testing their own HPV chemicals by the year 2000; and eleven of those manufacturers agreed.

Earlier this year, on April 21, Vice President Gore challenged the entire chemical manufacturing industry (not just the top 100) to come up with a plan for testing all of the high-volume chemicals (not just the ones made by the top 100 manufacturers). Although industry and US EPA regulators had been acutely aware of EDF's results and their implications, the announcement by Vice President Gore gave general public recognition to the problem.

Q What testing of these chemicals has been going on up to now?
A In 1990 the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) set up the Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) program, agreed to by its more than 30 member nations and their chemical industries, to conduct preliminary screening tests on high-production volume chemicals. US industry, which had been supporting testing at a rate of approximately 30 chemicals per year, recently increased its commitment to approximately 50 chemicals per year.

Q Who's supposed to test these chemicals?
A "Those who manufacture and those who process such chemical substances . . . " are the ones who have "the responsibility" of developing "adequate data . . . with respect to the effect of chemical substances and mixtures on health and the environment . . ." according to the introductory section of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. ß2601(b), passed by Congress in 1976.

That clear statement of the official "policy of the United States" has unfortunately been honored in the breach ever since TSCA was passed.

Q Does this mean that the public isn't getting health protection when it comes to most of the major industrial chemicals in US commerce?
A If a chemical hasn't had preliminary screening tests to see what toxic effects it might have on humans or the environment, most of the laws in this area can't function, and neither can voluntary controls by industry. Those efforts need to know what a chemical's toxic effects are, before they can be effectively targeted.

This does not mean that the public is being subjected to high levels of hidden risk. The untested chemicals may, or may not, have toxic effects that would be of concern. We simply don't know. What it does mean is that, with so many major chemicals untested (at least as far as the public can tell), no one can say whether the public is safe. Right now, everyone is just guessing.

Q How could the laws that cover toxic chemicals have such a large loophole?
A Those laws generally allow action to be taken only when a great deal is known about a chemical's harms and risks. An unintended consequence is that ignorance is rewarded: the less is known about a chemical, the less likelihood that it might receive legal scrutiny. This "incentive for ignorance" feature is one that Congress presumably overlooked when it wrote the laws in this area.

Q Why would chemical manufacturing companies volunteer for this program, instead of waiting for EPA to issue a test rule?
A All CMA members and a number of other chemical manufacturing companies are pledged to a Responsible Care(r) program to offer chemical safety assurance to the public. A number of those companies recognize that, without testing, "Responsible Care" cannot be a meaningful concept.

In the program announced today, companies that volunteer chemicals for testing will be able to take advantage of a number of important efficiencies, including testing by category of chemical (rather than having to test each individual chemical in the category) where that is scientifically appropriate. If testing is ordered under existing law, such options will not be available.

Also, since there will be public disclosure of the testing status of every chemical in this program, companies may prefer to inform the public that their chemicals have been volunteered for testing, rather than that they are subject to an order to test.

Q Why is public disclosure important?
A All participants agree that a program covering 2,800 chemicals, taking six years and lasting through three new Congresses and one new President, has a much better chance of delivering on its promises if the public can watch it every step of the way. EDF has pledged to track the program closely and to report to the public on how it's going, as well as to make sure people can find out the testing status of any one of the chemicals involved. Public safety can be insured only if the public has information about what the hazards are.

In general, disclosure has proven to be a very powerful tool in the world of chemicals. Overall emissions to the air of several hundred toxic chemicals that are tracked by the federal Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) have dropped by nearly half since that public disclosure system began ten years ago (reducing the amount of those chemicals flowing into the environment by more than one billion pounds). Sharing information with the public has caused the makers and users of industrial chemicals to rethink their practices and reduce their releases, at a dramatic rate and without apparent economic harm.

Q When all these tests are done, will we then know we're safe?
A Not automatically and not without more scrutiny. The required tests are all preliminary screening tests, designed to give early-warning signals rather than definitive results. No toxicologist would definitively identify a chemical as "safe" or "hazardous" based only on the results of screening tests.

However, these tests are a good screen for where chemical hazards are likely to lie, and they will make it possible to target future studies and future action intelligently. Also, once a large body of major chemicals has been screened, we will have a much better grasp of the chemical safety issue, and of what it will take to get to the point of being able to offer meaningful safety assurance to the public.

Q What happens if a chemical is tested, and we find out it's toxic?
A Screening tests will not provide definitive answers (see above), but results that suggest a particular type of toxicity for a particular chemical will draw attention to that chemical's potential for posing risk. Existing methods of public health protection can then be brought to bear, both voluntary (in the form of self-imposed controls by industry) and regulatory (in the form of the laws discussed above). The more knowledge is introduced into the system, the better it can work.

Q Why focus on these 2,800 chemicals instead of others?
A There are over 75,000 chemicals in U.S. commerce, according to U.S. EPA. The reason to focus on those chemicals in the 1 million-pound-per-year category is because, at such high volume, it's reasonable to assume that enough people are being exposed to enough of it, and enough of it is reaching the environment, that testing is worthwhile. The Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) testing program, developed through international consensus in 1990 by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), used the same targeting assumption for its testing program: assume that testing is needed for chemicals produced in high volume.

The 2,800 chemicals do not include pesticides, drugs, or food additives, which are handled separately under US law.

Q How do I come into contact with any of these chemicals in my daily life?
A Many of these chemicals are routinely released into air and water; many are incorporated into consumer products; and many can turn up as part of hazardous waste. Information about which ones, in what amounts, with what possible toxic effects, is much more sketchy. Chemicals that haven't been tested tend not to be tracked ("Why track it unless you have a reason to worry about it?"). This is another reason why preliminary testing is so important: to focus attention on finding out more about chemicals with troublesome screening results.

Q Where do I go to find out information about testing?
A The participants are setting up an information collection system and a website on the Internet which will be available before January 1, 1999. EDF's much-praised Scorecard.org Web site (a database that makes it easy for the public to get information about chemicals), will provide testing status information about every one of the chemicals in the program, as soon as that information is collected.

 

Additional details about the program

News release

History of the program