Our scientist works to reform chemicals policy

For nearly a decade, EDF senior scientist Richard Denison, Ph.D., has worked to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

This outdated federal law utterly fails to protect Americans from toxic chemicals. In fact, TCSA doesn’t regulate even the most dangerous chemicals — such as asbestos, formaldehyde and lead — despite their undeniable linkage to a whole raft of chronic diseases.

To shine a spotlight on this bad law’s shortcomings, Denison has written science and policy reports, testified before Congressional committees and teamed up with citizen advocacy groups to create health-based, reform-minded coalitions like “Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.”

This year his efforts and those of his colleagues bore fruit with the introduction of a bill in Congress aimed at overhauling TSCA for the first time in 35 years.

A Ph.D. from Yale in molecular biophysics and biochemistry and a veteran of 27 years as a Washington warrior, Denison decided that for the crucial debate on TSCA he would try a new approach. As the rhetoric and maneuvering heated up, he would comment on developments directly, “in real time,” pulling no punches.

He would wield his formidable knowledge and combustible prose in EDF’s innocent-sounding blog, “Chemicals and Nanomaterials.”

Making the case, post by post

In addition to TCSA reform, Denison’s blogging covers news and comments of relevant scientific studies, regulatory developments, public polls and state and international developments.

The headlines favor a tabloid directness (“ACC Resorts to Smear Tactics to Defend its Cash Cows…”), and the writing is unbuttoned, sometimes sardonic. But the posts — even those that expose deliberate delaying tactics or subterfuge by the chemical companies — are meticulously researched and carefully linked to their sources.

Post after post reveals the urgent need for reform. TCSA does not adequately identify or ban from the marketplace chemicals linked to cancer, learning disabilities, asthma, reproductive problems and other serious diseases. The vast majority of the 80,000 chemicals available for use in the United States have never been tested for toxic impacts on humans or the environment.

If a manufacturer wants to introduce a new chemical, no proof of safety is required. In fact, under TSCA, the burden falls on the government to prove actual harm before a chemical can be controlled or replaced (with drugs and pesticides it is the companies that must prove they are safe).

Making a difference

But can a mere blog make a difference? Has "Chemicals and Nanomaterials,” with its defiantly utilitarian name and wonkified subject matter, found a readership?

According to Denison, it has. The blog makes a powerful case for reform because it reaches precisely the audience for which it is written — the stakeholders in the ongoing TSCA debate, including EPA and other government workers, NGOs, Congress, interested businesses, trade associations, lawyers, journalists, academics and citizen activists. Each time he posts a new blog, Denison sends out email teasers to his list of 400-500 interested individuals. He also tweets a notice on his Twitter account.

Denison knows the blog is working by the frequency with which he is asked (or challenged) about posts by key people in the debate. Such anecdotal evidence, along with visitor-tracking software, suggests the blog has become a go-to clearinghouse for players on all sides of the issue.

Does this mean "Chemicals and Nanomaterials” is actually influencing policy? As a scientist, Denison knows better than to claim such a direct outcome.

But he notes that, over the past year, his writing has relentlessly chided the chemical industry for refusing to offer specific proposals while, at the same time, claiming to support reform. Now at least some of those companies have become willing to sit down to talk seriously.

Is that influence? You decide.