5 ways Biden can better protect us from toxic chemicals

In June 2016, Congress passed historic, bipartisan legislation overhauling the Toxic Substances Control Act, the country’s main chemical safety law, to better protect the public from harmful exposure to toxic chemicals. The Trump administration has spent the last four years working to undermine TSCA by driving its implementation dangerously off the rails.

Now, with President-elect Biden set to take the helm in January, there’s a tremendous opportunity not only to repair the damage done by the Trump administration, but also to use the law proactively to ensure that everyone in the country is better protected from hazardous chemicals -- with attention to those whose health is most at risk and to communities where exposures are greatest.

Here are five ways to restore sound and legal implementation of the law and strengthen health protections for families across the country.

Learn all about the Toxic Substances Control Act 1. Identify and eliminate chemical threats to those who are most at risk

Under the law, the EPA must review the safety of chemicals in use today and those entering the market. These reviews must specifically evaluate the risks posed to populations that are particularly susceptible to health effects from exposure, such as pregnant women and children, and those that experience greater exposure, such as workers handling the chemicals or communities near industrial plants.

The Trump administration has blatantly flouted these requirements. Here is but one example: In the first batch of 10 chemicals reviewed, the Trump administration’s EPA ignored the tens of millions of pounds of these chemicals released to air, water, and land every year. In doing so, it ignored the higher exposures, and underestimated the risks, experienced by communities closest to those releases. That means the EPA won’t apply the protections needed to safeguard the health of these communities.

Conducting the comprehensive risk reviews that TSCA requires is critical to protecting health — this should be a key aim for the Biden Administration.

2. Make safety information public and fill data gaps

Most chemicals on the market today lack adequate health and environmental information to determine their risks. One of the key reforms to TSCA was enhancing the EPA’s authority to begin filling these data gaps and to ensure it can make informed decisions about chemicals’ safety. Importantly, the law also requires the agency to make this information accessible to the public.

The Trump EPA has significantly undermined its safety reviews by ignoring its own authority to fill data gaps about chemicals’ health and environmental impacts. The agency has consistently approved new chemicals to enter the marketplace without the information needed to evaluate potential risks. The EPA has also allowed companies to hide health and safety information on its chemicals and has slow-walked the steps mandated under the law to make more information accessible to the public, state and local governments, and to health and environmental professionals.

Improving the rigor and transparency of the EPA’s decisions and making more chemical risk information public will be strong indicators that the new administration is setting TSCA back on the right path.

3. Engage the communities that are most impacted

Some communities experience greater exposure to pollution, greater health risks from exposure, or both. This includes fenceline communities — those located closest to industrial facilities — that, due to discriminatory practices in facility siting and in housing policies, tend to be communities of color and low-wealth communities. Such communities also include those that face higher risks due to lack of access to health care and due to employment in higher-risk jobs.

Under TSCA, the EPA should be prioritizing the protection of such communities and actively engaging them when identifying which chemicals pose the greatest concern and when reviewing and deciding how to mitigate a chemical’s risks.

The Biden administration should direct the EPA to use its full authority under TSCA to make this happen.

4. Restore the role of sound science in decision-making

The Trump Administration has taken countless actions across agencies to downplay or disregard science, but it has been particularly ruthless at the EPA.

One egregious example involves the agency’s risk evaluation for the cancer-causing chemical TCE, a common industrial solvent that pollutes the groundwater of millions of people and is found at over 350 Superfund sites across the country. Even very low exposures to TCE are linked to fetal heart defects that can have lifelong health consequences. Yet the Trump administration’s risk evaluation of TCE excluded the impact on fetal heart defects — a choice that an investigative report revealed was due to White House political interference.

Understanding the risk we face from a chemical requires examining all exposures to it, as well as other factors such as health status, life stage and exposure to other agents that can amplify the risk. The reforms to TSCA open the door to adopting a more comprehensive approach as we seek to understand and mitigate the cumulative impacts of chemical exposures. The new administration must ensure that all of EPA’s actions and decisions for chemical safety are based on objective scientific evidence.

5. Appoint experts suited to the mission of protecting health

It’s no secret that the Trump EPA has been dominated by people who’ve spent much of their careers fighting to block environmental safeguards. Nancy Beck was a top staffer at the American Chemistry Council — the industry’s main lobbying group — before she was handpicked to help oversee the EPA’s chemical safety office. The administration also appears intent on stacking critical advisory committees, including the Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals, the TSCA scientific advisory body, by appointing members with serious conflicts of interest.

The new administration should ensure that the staff it hires, including political appointees and expert advisors on chemical safety, are free of all conflicts of interest and have the necessary expertise, independence and objectivity to provide sound advice. Further, such individuals should be committed to advancing the chemical safety program’s charge and carrying out the EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment.

It’s time to implement TSCA as intended, to protect all people from toxic chemicals.

tmoran November 17, 2020 - 02:01

5 ways Biden can better protect us from toxic chemicals

In June 2016, Congress passed historic, bipartisan legislation overhauling the Toxic Substances Control Act, the country’s main chemical safety law, to better protect the public from harmful exposure to toxic chemicals. The Trump administration has spent the last four years working to undermine TSCA by driving its implementation dangerously off the rails.

Now, with President-elect Biden set to take the helm in January, there’s a tremendous opportunity not only to repair the damage done by the Trump administration, but also to use the law proactively to ensure that everyone in the country is better protected from hazardous chemicals -- with attention to those whose health is most at risk and to communities where exposures are greatest.

Here are five ways to restore sound and legal implementation of the law and strengthen health protections for families across the country.

Learn all about the Toxic Substances Control Act 1. Identify and eliminate chemical threats to those who are most at risk

Under the law, the EPA must review the safety of chemicals in use today and those entering the market. These reviews must specifically evaluate the risks posed to populations that are particularly susceptible to health effects from exposure, such as pregnant women and children, and those that experience greater exposure, such as workers handling the chemicals or communities near industrial plants.

The Trump administration has blatantly flouted these requirements. Here is but one example: In the first batch of 10 chemicals reviewed, the Trump administration’s EPA ignored the tens of millions of pounds of these chemicals released to air, water, and land every year. In doing so, it ignored the higher exposures, and underestimated the risks, experienced by communities closest to those releases. That means the EPA won’t apply the protections needed to safeguard the health of these communities.

Conducting the comprehensive risk reviews that TSCA requires is critical to protecting health — this should be a key aim for the Biden Administration.

2. Make safety information public and fill data gaps

Most chemicals on the market today lack adequate health and environmental information to determine their risks. One of the key reforms to TSCA was enhancing the EPA’s authority to begin filling these data gaps and to ensure it can make informed decisions about chemicals’ safety. Importantly, the law also requires the agency to make this information accessible to the public.

The Trump EPA has significantly undermined its safety reviews by ignoring its own authority to fill data gaps about chemicals’ health and environmental impacts. The agency has consistently approved new chemicals to enter the marketplace without the information needed to evaluate potential risks. The EPA has also allowed companies to hide health and safety information on its chemicals and has slow-walked the steps mandated under the law to make more information accessible to the public, state and local governments, and to health and environmental professionals.

Improving the rigor and transparency of the EPA’s decisions and making more chemical risk information public will be strong indicators that the new administration is setting TSCA back on the right path.

3. Engage the communities that are most impacted

Some communities experience greater exposure to pollution, greater health risks from exposure, or both. This includes fenceline communities — those located closest to industrial facilities — that, due to discriminatory practices in facility siting and in housing policies, tend to be communities of color and low-wealth communities. Such communities also include those that face higher risks due to lack of access to health care and due to employment in higher-risk jobs.

Under TSCA, the EPA should be prioritizing the protection of such communities and actively engaging them when identifying which chemicals pose the greatest concern and when reviewing and deciding how to mitigate a chemical’s risks.

The Biden administration should direct the EPA to use its full authority under TSCA to make this happen.

4. Restore the role of sound science in decision-making

The Trump Administration has taken countless actions across agencies to downplay or disregard science, but it has been particularly ruthless at the EPA.

One egregious example involves the agency’s risk evaluation for the cancer-causing chemical TCE, a common industrial solvent that pollutes the groundwater of millions of people and is found at over 350 Superfund sites across the country. Even very low exposures to TCE are linked to fetal heart defects that can have lifelong health consequences. Yet the Trump administration’s risk evaluation of TCE excluded the impact on fetal heart defects — a choice that an investigative report revealed was due to White House political interference.

Understanding the risk we face from a chemical requires examining all exposures to it, as well as other factors such as health status, life stage and exposure to other agents that can amplify the risk. The reforms to TSCA open the door to adopting a more comprehensive approach as we seek to understand and mitigate the cumulative impacts of chemical exposures. The new administration must ensure that all of EPA’s actions and decisions for chemical safety are based on objective scientific evidence.

5. Appoint experts suited to the mission of protecting health

It’s no secret that the Trump EPA has been dominated by people who’ve spent much of their careers fighting to block environmental safeguards. Nancy Beck was a top staffer at the American Chemistry Council — the industry’s main lobbying group — before she was handpicked to help oversee the EPA’s chemical safety office. The administration also appears intent on stacking critical advisory committees, including the Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals, the TSCA scientific advisory body, by appointing members with serious conflicts of interest.

The new administration should ensure that the staff it hires, including political appointees and expert advisors on chemical safety, are free of all conflicts of interest and have the necessary expertise, independence and objectivity to provide sound advice. Further, such individuals should be committed to advancing the chemical safety program’s charge and carrying out the EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment.

It’s time to implement TSCA as intended, to protect all people from toxic chemicals.

tmoran November 17, 2020 - 02:01

A new low even for the Trump EPA on chemical safety

Recent decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency are failing to protect workers from the leading cause of asthma in the workplace: a class of chemicals called isocyanates.

It's a new low in this administration’s implementation of the nation’s chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA.

First — a bit of background for understanding how this happened and why it presents an even more concerning turn in the Trump EPA’s reckless approval process for new chemicals to enter the market.

Nasty chemicals that endanger workers

Isocyanates (pronounced “eye-soh-SY’-uh-nayts”) are nasty chemicals used in various industrial processes as well as everyday materials and products.

They are dangerous when they’re left unreacted as “residuals” after manufacturing other chemicals or in products such as paints, insulation and certain plastics.

In prior new chemical reviews under TSCA, the EPA repeatedly indicated that “[i]socyanate exposure has been identified as the leading attributable cause of work-related asthma, and prevalence in the exposed workforce has been estimated at 1-20 percent” (emphasis added).

The EPA in the recent past imposed various restrictions and concentration limits on isocyanates. The conditions have included:

• A prohibition on activities that could put the chemical into the air workers are breathing.
• Mandatory requirements for use of respirators and gloves.
• Strict limits on the amount of unreacted isocyanates allowed to be present in the new chemical.

How the Trump EPA is risking workers' health But now: Few or no restrictions, no protections

Considering the high worker risks and the history of the EPA’s statements and actions on such chemicals, how has the Trump EPA been treating new chemicals with residual isocyanates?

Over the last year alone, in at least 10 such cases, the EPA has declared the chemicals “not likely to present an unreasonable risk,” clearing them for market access without requiring their manufacturers to employ any of these protections — even in cases where the EPA has specifically identified significant risks to workers.

The determinations, and lack of restrictions, are particularly astounding because they are based on the EPA’s unfounded “expectation” that employers would universally require and workers would use suitable protective equipment.

For one new isocyanate, while the Trump EPA did propose a rule that would require companies to notify the EPA before exceeding a residual concentration, the concentration level the EPA set is vastly higher than the level it has set in the past, as needed to protect health.

Trump’s EPA is caving to industry

The clear winner at least in the short term is the chemical industry. The American Chemistry Council — the main trade association for chemical companies — has pressured the EPA to loosen limits on isocyanates for years.

Now, it appears its wishes are being granted — without the EPA providing any explanation for the abrupt shift in practice or any public notice and opportunity for comment.

For many of these new isocyanates, much of the information about them — who plans to make the chemical and where, how it will be used, and even the identity of the chemical itself — is withheld from the public because it is claimed to be confidential.

However, what we do know is disturbing: Often against career staff recommendations and the agency’s own risk findings, the EPA has abandoned precedent and approved numerous new chemicals with residual isocyanates to enter the market with few or no restrictions on their manufacture or use.

Once again, the EPA is caving to the chemical industry’s demands, and worker health is being left in the dust.

Take action: Don't let Trump reverse chemical safety progress mmelendez October 1, 2019 - 03:30

A new low even for the Trump EPA on chemical safety

Recent decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency are failing to protect workers from the leading cause of asthma in the workplace: a class of chemicals called isocyanates.

It's a new low in this administration’s implementation of the nation’s chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA.

First — a bit of background for understanding how this happened and why it presents an even more concerning turn in the Trump EPA’s reckless approval process for new chemicals to enter the market.

Nasty chemicals that endanger workers

Isocyanates (pronounced “eye-soh-SY’-uh-nayts”) are nasty chemicals used in various industrial processes as well as everyday materials and products.

They are dangerous when they’re left unreacted as “residuals” after manufacturing other chemicals or in products such as paints, insulation and certain plastics.

In prior new chemical reviews under TSCA, the EPA repeatedly indicated that “[i]socyanate exposure has been identified as the leading attributable cause of work-related asthma, and prevalence in the exposed workforce has been estimated at 1-20 percent” (emphasis added).

The EPA in the recent past imposed various restrictions and concentration limits on isocyanates. The conditions have included:

• A prohibition on activities that could put the chemical into the air workers are breathing.
• Mandatory requirements for use of respirators and gloves.
• Strict limits on the amount of unreacted isocyanates allowed to be present in the new chemical.

How the Trump EPA is risking workers' health But now: Few or no restrictions, no protections

Considering the high worker risks and the history of the EPA’s statements and actions on such chemicals, how has the Trump EPA been treating new chemicals with residual isocyanates?

Over the last year alone, in at least 10 such cases, the EPA has declared the chemicals “not likely to present an unreasonable risk,” clearing them for market access without requiring their manufacturers to employ any of these protections — even in cases where the EPA has specifically identified significant risks to workers.

The determinations, and lack of restrictions, are particularly astounding because they are based on the EPA’s unfounded “expectation” that employers would universally require and workers would use suitable protective equipment.

For one new isocyanate, while the Trump EPA did propose a rule that would require companies to notify the EPA before exceeding a residual concentration, the concentration level the EPA set is vastly higher than the level it has set in the past, as needed to protect health.

Trump’s EPA is caving to industry

The clear winner at least in the short term is the chemical industry. The American Chemistry Council — the main trade association for chemical companies — has pressured the EPA to loosen limits on isocyanates for years.

Now, it appears its wishes are being granted — without the EPA providing any explanation for the abrupt shift in practice or any public notice and opportunity for comment.

For many of these new isocyanates, much of the information about them — who plans to make the chemical and where, how it will be used, and even the identity of the chemical itself — is withheld from the public because it is claimed to be confidential.

However, what we do know is disturbing: Often against career staff recommendations and the agency’s own risk findings, the EPA has abandoned precedent and approved numerous new chemicals with residual isocyanates to enter the market with few or no restrictions on their manufacture or use.

Once again, the EPA is caving to the chemical industry’s demands, and worker health is being left in the dust.

Take action: Don't let Trump reverse chemical safety progress mmelendez October 1, 2019 - 03:30

7 ways Trump's EPA is breaking our bipartisan chemical safety law

It's been three years since Congress passed historic, bipartisan legislation to update our chemical safety law and better protect the American public from harmful exposures.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has implemented the Lautenberg Act in a manner that threatens the bipartisan achievement along with public health. What's more, many of the administration's actions are flat-out illegal.

Here's our current run-down of some key ways the Trump EPA is skirting and openly defying the law for chemical safety.

1. Letting companies hide key information

The reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act require the EPA to review whether "Confidential Business Information" claims that mask the identities of existing chemicals are warranted. Under Trump, however, the agency crafted a rule that made it easier for companies to conceal such information in violation of the public's right to know.

Three years into TSCA How to properly implement the law and finally protect Americans from toxic chemicals

Fortunately, the D.C. Circuit Court recently agreed with us that a key part of this rule was unlawful — an important victory for public transparency. 

2. Withholding health and safety studies

In its first evaluation of a chemical's risk under TSCA, the EPA denied the public access to critical health and safety information from studies used in the assessment — in direct violation of the law's requirements.

In response to widespread criticism, the EPA has since released some additional information. But the agency is still illegally withholding data.

3. Ignoring exposures when evaluating risks

The EPA is tasked with evaluating the risks to health and the environment from priority chemicals under TSCA. But instead of doing what's required by law, the agency is ignoring ongoing, real-world exposures to these chemicals from their emissions to our air, water and land.

This approach has only one purpose: By ignoring major exposures, the EPA paves the way for chemicals to be deemed safe even if they may not be.

Environmental Defense Fund and other organizations are now challenging a key part of this violation in the courts.

4. Abandoning critical workplace protections

Under the reformed law, the EPA is expressly required to protect vulnerable populations — including workers. However, in a recently finalized rule on deadly methylene chloride in paint strippers, the agency narrowed its proposed ban to only cover consumer uses, while allowing its continued use in workplaces.

The EPA acknowledged that these products present unreasonable risks to consumers — yet workers are even more at risk.

5. Forgoing responsibility to protect workers

When reviewing new chemicals before they enter the marketplace, the EPA is also supposed to evaluate and mitigate risks to workers. Unfortunately, the agency is now approving new chemicals without any restrictions – even when it has found risks to workers, or when it lacks information needed to decide such risks.

To justify this unlawful practice, the agency has abdicated its responsibility to protect workers under TSCA, instead deferring to the far weaker health standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

6. Ignoring "reasonably foreseen" chemical uses

When reviewing a new chemical, the EPA is required not only to assess the intended use of that chemical, but also the ways in which the chemical can be "reasonably foreseen" to be made, processed, distributed, used or disposed of. The current administration is skirting and openly defying this requirement by only looking at the producers' intended uses.

The fatal flaw in this approach is that once the chemical is on the market, it may be made and used in new ways not initially intended that add to the chemical's potential risks.

By ignoring "reasonably foreseen" uses of chemicals, Trump’s EPA has returned the new chemicals program to the days when few chemicals were subject to any restrictions, and fewer still to any testing requirements.

7. Failing to obtain necessary chemical data

The majority of new chemical submissions lack any health or environmental data, hindering the EPA's ability to conduct robust safety reviews. Under the reformed law, if a chemical doesn't have enough data, the agency must require additional information or impose restrictions on the chemical to mitigate any potential risks — requirements it's steadfastly ignoring.

Three years, after the law's passage, Trump's EPA has not used its enhanced authority a single time to assess the safety of new or existing chemicals.

Get policy and political updates

Friday digests from our staff keep you up to date on the week's events.

Thanks for subscribing to In case you missed it

krives June 17, 2019 - 10:58

7 ways Trump's EPA is breaking our bipartisan chemical safety law

It's been three years since Congress passed historic, bipartisan legislation to update our chemical safety law and better protect the American public from harmful exposures.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has implemented the Lautenberg Act in a manner that threatens the bipartisan achievement along with public health. What's more, many of the administration's actions are flat-out illegal.

Here's our current run-down of some key ways the Trump EPA is skirting and openly defying the law for chemical safety.

1. Letting companies hide key information

The reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act require the EPA to review whether "Confidential Business Information" claims that mask the identities of existing chemicals are warranted. Under Trump, however, the agency crafted a rule that made it easier for companies to conceal such information in violation of the public's right to know.

Three years into TSCA How to properly implement the law and finally protect Americans from toxic chemicals

Fortunately, the D.C. Circuit Court recently agreed with us that a key part of this rule was unlawful — an important victory for public transparency. 

2. Withholding health and safety studies

In its first evaluation of a chemical's risk under TSCA, the EPA denied the public access to critical health and safety information from studies used in the assessment — in direct violation of the law's requirements.

In response to widespread criticism, the EPA has since released some additional information. But the agency is still illegally withholding data.

3. Ignoring exposures when evaluating risks

The EPA is tasked with evaluating the risks to health and the environment from priority chemicals under TSCA. But instead of doing what's required by law, the agency is ignoring ongoing, real-world exposures to these chemicals from their emissions to our air, water and land.

This approach has only one purpose: By ignoring major exposures, the EPA paves the way for chemicals to be deemed safe even if they may not be.

Environmental Defense Fund and other organizations are now challenging a key part of this violation in the courts.

4. Abandoning critical workplace protections

Under the reformed law, the EPA is expressly required to protect vulnerable populations — including workers. However, in a recently finalized rule on deadly methylene chloride in paint strippers, the agency narrowed its proposed ban to only cover consumer uses, while allowing its continued use in workplaces.

The EPA acknowledged that these products present unreasonable risks to consumers — yet workers are even more at risk.

5. Forgoing responsibility to protect workers

When reviewing new chemicals before they enter the marketplace, the EPA is also supposed to evaluate and mitigate risks to workers. Unfortunately, the agency is now approving new chemicals without any restrictions – even when it has found risks to workers, or when it lacks information needed to decide such risks.

To justify this unlawful practice, the agency has abdicated its responsibility to protect workers under TSCA, instead deferring to the far weaker health standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

6. Ignoring "reasonably foreseen" chemical uses

When reviewing a new chemical, the EPA is required not only to assess the intended use of that chemical, but also the ways in which the chemical can be "reasonably foreseen" to be made, processed, distributed, used or disposed of. The current administration is skirting and openly defying this requirement by only looking at the producers' intended uses.

The fatal flaw in this approach is that once the chemical is on the market, it may be made and used in new ways not initially intended that add to the chemical's potential risks.

By ignoring "reasonably foreseen" uses of chemicals, Trump’s EPA has returned the new chemicals program to the days when few chemicals were subject to any restrictions, and fewer still to any testing requirements.

7. Failing to obtain necessary chemical data

The majority of new chemical submissions lack any health or environmental data, hindering the EPA's ability to conduct robust safety reviews. Under the reformed law, if a chemical doesn't have enough data, the agency must require additional information or impose restrictions on the chemical to mitigate any potential risks — requirements it's steadfastly ignoring.

Three years, after the law's passage, Trump's EPA has not used its enhanced authority a single time to assess the safety of new or existing chemicals.

Get policy and political updates

Friday digests from our staff keep you up to date on the week's events.

Thanks for subscribing to In case you missed it

krives June 17, 2019 - 10:58

Trump's EPA is flouting the law when approving new chemicals. Here are 3 examples.

 This summer, New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances got the green light from the Environmental Protection Agency to begin importing a potentially toxic chemical known as Jeffamine diacrylamide to the United States.

The company says it will import 1,000 kilograms of the chemical annually for use in a wide array of industrial, commercial and household products such as floor cleaners, cat litter and fabric refresher sprays to reduce “malodors.”

Political appointees at the EPA quietly overruled the recommendations of its own professional staff, ramming through an approval of the chemical in direct contempt of the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Here are three reasons EPA’s decision is so alarming – and what it tells us about the agency’s intentions for chemical safety going forward.

1. EPA sidestepped requirements under 2016 federal law

In its July 30 decision, the EPA determined that Jeffamine diacrylamide is “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” under TSCA. That means IFF can begin to import and sell the chemical on the American market without any conditions or limits.

This is a complete reversal from the interim decision EPA professional staff made when the company filed its initial notice. They recommended restricting the chemical because of insufficient information about its health effects, and its structural similarity to known and highly toxic chemicals.

Because of the radical shift by President Trump’s political appointees, however, the EPA will not regulate Jeffamine diacrylamide – meaning, it won’t place a single limit or require more information or additional testing of the chemical.

That’s in spite of the fact that Jeffamine diacrylamide falls under the “acrylamides” category. This class of chemicals can cause cancer and be toxic to human reproductive, developmental and neurological systems.

More details on how the EPA sidestepped the law

2. EPA gave a possibly toxic chemical unfettered access to market

The stamp of approval the EPA gave Jeffamine diacrylamide gives free rein to any company that wants to make this chemical in any amount, and for any use. Companies that want a piece of the market also won’t have to test the chemical themselves – much less tell the EPA how or where they market it.

Because the EPA has allowed this chemical to enter the market without any conditions whatsoever, there’s no way to know where it may pop up. In fact, IFF has indicated that it’s also interested in selling it for use in “down-the-drain” products such as general cleaners, laundry detergents and bar soaps.

EPA’s reckless approach for a potentially dangerous chemical such as Jeffamine diacrylamide doesn’t bode well for chemical safety in America.

More on the implications of this chemical approval

3. EPA ignored serious health concerns

Interestingly, IFF itself indicated that its chemical falls under the toxic acrylamides category, the class of chemicals known to be highly hazardous to human health.

With its final decision on Jeffamine diacrylamide, however, the EPA made a surprise move. With scant explanation and no additional data or publicly available analysis, it instead assigned the chemical into a second category that the EPA says poses significantly fewer health concerns. Voilà, toxic problem gone.

This shift radically departed from the key alert identified by both the company and the EPA’s own assessment tools, and ignored very real health concerns surrounding Jeffamine diacrylamide. Moreover, the agency has not made its full risk assessment public.

More on how the EPA downplayed chemical concerns

So what happens if the agency’s reassessment is wrong and it just gave carte blanche to a chemical that can harm people? We may not know until it’s too late:

Because there’s no order or limits placed on manufacturing, processing or use, the chemical will now enter the market in any number of everyday products, and there will be no testing to determine just how real that health risk is to us.

What’s clear is just how reckless the EPA’s review process for new chemicals has become.

Get policy and political updates

Friday digests from our staff keep you up to date on the week’s events.

Thanks for subscribing to In case you missed it

krives September 5, 2018 - 09:48

Trump's EPA is flouting the law when approving new chemicals. Here are 3 examples.

 This summer, New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances got the green light from the Environmental Protection Agency to begin importing a potentially toxic chemical known as Jeffamine diacrylamide to the United States.

The company says it will import 1,000 kilograms of the chemical annually for use in a wide array of industrial, commercial and household products such as floor cleaners, cat litter and fabric refresher sprays to reduce “malodors.”

Political appointees at the EPA quietly overruled the recommendations of its own professional staff, ramming through an approval of the chemical in direct contempt of the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Here are three reasons EPA’s decision is so alarming – and what it tells us about the agency’s intentions for chemical safety going forward.

1. EPA sidestepped requirements under 2016 federal law

In its July 30 decision, the EPA determined that Jeffamine diacrylamide is “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” under TSCA. That means IFF can begin to import and sell the chemical on the American market without any conditions or limits.

This is a complete reversal from the interim decision EPA professional staff made when the company filed its initial notice. They recommended restricting the chemical because of insufficient information about its health effects, and its structural similarity to known and highly toxic chemicals.

Because of the radical shift by President Trump’s political appointees, however, the EPA will not regulate Jeffamine diacrylamide – meaning, it won’t place a single limit or require more information or additional testing of the chemical.

That’s in spite of the fact that Jeffamine diacrylamide falls under the “acrylamides” category. This class of chemicals can cause cancer and be toxic to human reproductive, developmental and neurological systems.

More details on how the EPA sidestepped the law

2. EPA gave a possibly toxic chemical unfettered access to market

The stamp of approval the EPA gave Jeffamine diacrylamide gives free rein to any company that wants to make this chemical in any amount, and for any use. Companies that want a piece of the market also won’t have to test the chemical themselves – much less tell the EPA how or where they market it.

Because the EPA has allowed this chemical to enter the market without any conditions whatsoever, there’s no way to know where it may pop up. In fact, IFF has indicated that it’s also interested in selling it for use in “down-the-drain” products such as general cleaners, laundry detergents and bar soaps.

EPA’s reckless approach for a potentially dangerous chemical such as Jeffamine diacrylamide doesn’t bode well for chemical safety in America.

More on the implications of this chemical approval

3. EPA ignored serious health concerns

Interestingly, IFF itself indicated that its chemical falls under the toxic acrylamides category, the class of chemicals known to be highly hazardous to human health.

With its final decision on Jeffamine diacrylamide, however, the EPA made a surprise move. With scant explanation and no additional data or publicly available analysis, it instead assigned the chemical into a second category that the EPA says poses significantly fewer health concerns. Voilà, toxic problem gone.

This shift radically departed from the key alert identified by both the company and the EPA’s own assessment tools, and ignored very real health concerns surrounding Jeffamine diacrylamide. Moreover, the agency has not made its full risk assessment public.

More on how the EPA downplayed chemical concerns

So what happens if the agency’s reassessment is wrong and it just gave carte blanche to a chemical that can harm people? We may not know until it’s too late:

Because there’s no order or limits placed on manufacturing, processing or use, the chemical will now enter the market in any number of everyday products, and there will be no testing to determine just how real that health risk is to us.

What’s clear is just how reckless the EPA’s review process for new chemicals has become.

Get policy and political updates

Friday digests from our staff keep you up to date on the week’s events.

Thanks for subscribing to In case you missed it

krives September 5, 2018 - 09:48

5 ways chemical safety is eroding under Trump

Editor’s note: This post was updated on May 13, 2019.

In June 2016, Congress had the rare success of passing bipartisan legislation to update our nation’s badly broken chemical safety system. It finally gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the power to strengthen health protections for American families.

Fast-forward nearly three years and the implementation of that law is in extreme jeopardy.

The Trump administration is systematically weakening the EPA and seeking to dismantle key new authorities and mandates Congress gave it under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act. This with the goal of shifting critical policies to serve the chemical industry’s agenda instead of protecting public health.

Here are five actions Trump’s handpicked political appointees have already taken to undermine the law – potentially setting us back decades.

1. Blocking, weakening bans of 3 chemicals

In January 2017, the EPA proposed to ban high-risk uses of three dangerous chemicals: methylene chloride, N-methylpyrrolidone and trichloroethylene. Methylene chloride, for one, is responsible for more than 50 deaths in recent years from its use in paint strippers.

Less than a year later, with a new president in the White House, the EPA shelved the bans, two of them indefinitely, by moving them from active to “long-term action” status.

A delaying action on methylene chloride for over two years and only in the face of pressure from families who have lost loved ones to the chemical, the agency finally issued a severely weakened ban that leaves those Americans most at risk – workers – unprotected from the deadly chemical.

Such retrenchments go against the very spirit and goal of the 2016 chemical safety reform.

2. Issued illegal rules for implementing TSCA

One of the first orders of business under the 2016 Lautenberg Act was for the EPA to issue “framework rules” governing how the reformed law should work for years to come.

The proposed rules – released at the tail end of the Obama administration – were fair and faithful to the law. But the final rules published in July 2017 did a U-turn from those that had been proposed and now reflect the wish list of the chemical industry.

They are also patently illegal, which is why we’re suing the EPA and have already racked up one victory.

3. Reversed course on chemical reviews

After the new law passed, the EPA immediately began to conduct the more robust reviews of new chemicals before they can enter the market, as the new law called for.

It also planned to conduct broad reviews of all uses of chemicals already in commerce. But in response to industry demands, the EPA reversed course to instead conduct stripped-down reviews of new and existing chemicals. This will allow the agency to avoid imposing protective measures.

These changes circumvent clear requirements in the law and essentially return America to an era where few chemicals were adequately assessed or tested for safety as a condition of entering or staying on the market. Meanwhile, the public has been kept in the dark.

4. …and two more actions setting us back

The administration’s strategy for undermining chemical safety has two more components that – while not directly related to the 2016 chemical safety law – further achieve this objective.

By sidelining the science conducted by critical EPA programs on chemicals like formaldehyde, and by stacking the agency with industry cronies, the Trump administration is crippling implementation and enforcement of environmental and public health laws.

This is sadly consistent with its overall goal of elevating industry interests over the protection of our health.

Get policy and political updates

Friday digests from our staff keep you up to date on the week’s events.

Thanks for subscribing to In case you missed it

krives May 1, 2018 - 10:16

See comments

Add #6: defunding open data initiatives that allowed scientists, within federal and regional EPA offices, as well as university and civil society organizations, to access linked open datasets. By defunding programs introduced under the prior administration, such as https://opendata.epa.gov, they are making it harder to programmatically access human and machine readable data.

The linked open data that was a year old when published in 2016 — including Facilties (toxic) Substances, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), RCRA Handlers and CRC linked open data).

This data [was] technically made available under the new environmental data gateway on May 30, 2018, however no new linked open data [was] created by EPA’s Office of Environmental Informatio). This is a step backwards in modernizing open government data and making federally funded science and environmental data available to the public.

Bernadette May 26, 2018 at 6:04 pm

Couldn’t say it better.

G Lee June 15, 2018 at 4:21 pm

In reply to Add #6, defunding open data… by Bernadette

It's important to me and my family that the EPA and my government protect the American people from chemical companies being allowed to put out products that have proven harmful to the public's health. We need you to do your job. America has the weakest chemical laws of any industrialized nation on this plants. Put the public's best interest over profits!!!

Liinda Tift June 5, 2018 at 2:14 pm

It's unbelievable ! Never did I expect these kinds of things happening. No warnings in debates that i recall! Infuriating!!!

Paula Dollins August 4, 2018 at 4:55 pm

Trump has no regard for the safety of the people. It will take years to undo the harm he is responsible for and to get rid of those he has put in place.

Barbara Murphy August 5, 2018 at 6:32 am

In their rush to capitalize from the idiocy that is the complete public works of the Trump administration, the press overlooks the more dangerous items. When focusing on what Trump says, the press overlooks what laws and deregulations generated by his cabinet are doing to our environment. That is the real story and would get more attention if the press showed the American people what Trump is really doing to this country.

Jonathan Hodges August 9, 2018 at 4:03 pm

There are multiple international regulatory actions underway. Without US cooperation, many industries will find their products banned from importation into those countries.

Crystal McCown August 15, 2018 at 7:29 pm

Cleaning materials at Super 8 Motel, Alamosa, Colorado on Sept 30, 2018:  Woke up at 4am and I could not breathe. Went to Alamosa ER. Not much help. Now back in Boulder, Colorado, still feeling some discomfort. Trump’s EPA will kill many Americans!

Michael Lord September 30, 2018 at 2:43 pm

5 ways chemical safety is eroding under Trump

Editor’s note: This post was updated on May 13, 2019.

In June 2016, Congress had the rare success of passing bipartisan legislation to update our nation’s badly broken chemical safety system. It finally gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the power to strengthen health protections for American families.

Fast-forward nearly three years and the implementation of that law is in extreme jeopardy.

The Trump administration is systematically weakening the EPA and seeking to dismantle key new authorities and mandates Congress gave it under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act. This with the goal of shifting critical policies to serve the chemical industry’s agenda instead of protecting public health.

Here are five actions Trump’s handpicked political appointees have already taken to undermine the law – potentially setting us back decades.

1. Blocking, weakening bans of 3 chemicals

In January 2017, the EPA proposed to ban high-risk uses of three dangerous chemicals: methylene chloride, N-methylpyrrolidone and trichloroethylene. Methylene chloride, for one, is responsible for more than 50 deaths in recent years from its use in paint strippers.

Less than a year later, with a new president in the White House, the EPA shelved the bans, two of them indefinitely, by moving them from active to “long-term action” status.

A delaying action on methylene chloride for over two years and only in the face of pressure from families who have lost loved ones to the chemical, the agency finally issued a severely weakened ban that leaves those Americans most at risk – workers – unprotected from the deadly chemical.

Such retrenchments go against the very spirit and goal of the 2016 chemical safety reform.

2. Issued illegal rules for implementing TSCA

One of the first orders of business under the 2016 Lautenberg Act was for the EPA to issue “framework rules” governing how the reformed law should work for years to come.

The proposed rules – released at the tail end of the Obama administration – were fair and faithful to the law. But the final rules published in July 2017 did a U-turn from those that had been proposed and now reflect the wish list of the chemical industry.

They are also patently illegal, which is why we’re suing the EPA and have already racked up one victory.

3. Reversed course on chemical reviews

After the new law passed, the EPA immediately began to conduct the more robust reviews of new chemicals before they can enter the market, as the new law called for.

It also planned to conduct broad reviews of all uses of chemicals already in commerce. But in response to industry demands, the EPA reversed course to instead conduct stripped-down reviews of new and existing chemicals. This will allow the agency to avoid imposing protective measures.

These changes circumvent clear requirements in the law and essentially return America to an era where few chemicals were adequately assessed or tested for safety as a condition of entering or staying on the market. Meanwhile, the public has been kept in the dark.

4. …and two more actions setting us back

The administration’s strategy for undermining chemical safety has two more components that – while not directly related to the 2016 chemical safety law – further achieve this objective.

By sidelining the science conducted by critical EPA programs on chemicals like formaldehyde, and by stacking the agency with industry cronies, the Trump administration is crippling implementation and enforcement of environmental and public health laws.

This is sadly consistent with its overall goal of elevating industry interests over the protection of our health.

Get policy and political updates

Friday digests from our staff keep you up to date on the week’s events.

Thanks for subscribing to In case you missed it

krives May 1, 2018 - 10:16

See comments

Add #6: defunding open data initiatives that allowed scientists, within federal and regional EPA offices, as well as university and civil society organizations, to access linked open datasets. By defunding programs introduced under the prior administration, such as https://opendata.epa.gov, they are making it harder to programmatically access human and machine readable data.

The linked open data that was a year old when published in 2016 — including Facilties (toxic) Substances, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), RCRA Handlers and CRC linked open data).

This data [was] technically made available under the new environmental data gateway on May 30, 2018, however no new linked open data [was] created by EPA’s Office of Environmental Informatio). This is a step backwards in modernizing open government data and making federally funded science and environmental data available to the public.

Bernadette May 26, 2018 at 6:04 pm

Couldn’t say it better.

G Lee June 15, 2018 at 4:21 pm

In reply to Add #6, defunding open data… by Bernadette

It's important to me and my family that the EPA and my government protect the American people from chemical companies being allowed to put out products that have proven harmful to the public's health. We need you to do your job. America has the weakest chemical laws of any industrialized nation on this plants. Put the public's best interest over profits!!!

Liinda Tift June 5, 2018 at 2:14 pm

It's unbelievable ! Never did I expect these kinds of things happening. No warnings in debates that i recall! Infuriating!!!

Paula Dollins August 4, 2018 at 4:55 pm

Trump has no regard for the safety of the people. It will take years to undo the harm he is responsible for and to get rid of those he has put in place.

Barbara Murphy August 5, 2018 at 6:32 am

In their rush to capitalize from the idiocy that is the complete public works of the Trump administration, the press overlooks the more dangerous items. When focusing on what Trump says, the press overlooks what laws and deregulations generated by his cabinet are doing to our environment. That is the real story and would get more attention if the press showed the American people what Trump is really doing to this country.

Jonathan Hodges August 9, 2018 at 4:03 pm

There are multiple international regulatory actions underway. Without US cooperation, many industries will find their products banned from importation into those countries.

Crystal McCown August 15, 2018 at 7:29 pm

Cleaning materials at Super 8 Motel, Alamosa, Colorado on Sept 30, 2018:  Woke up at 4am and I could not breathe. Went to Alamosa ER. Not much help. Now back in Boulder, Colorado, still feeling some discomfort. Trump’s EPA will kill many Americans!

Michael Lord September 30, 2018 at 2:43 pm

Only 10 weeks left to pass chemical safety reform

When I first began working to help fix America’s broken chemical safety law, it was already decades old. Now it is approaching 40 – well past retirement age for a law that cannot ensure the safety of common chemicals.

An update seemed a remote possibility until last year, when senators introduced the first bipartisan, albeit flawed, reform bill. Unfortunately, 12 months later, Congressional inaction risks squandering that opening and the improvements to the bill made since it was first introduced. 

The time for patience is over. Congress needs to finish the job and pass a strong chemical safety law in this Congress, lest the opportunity be lost for another decade or three.

Take action for a stronger chemical safety law

Before I started on this issue, I had been working with consumer product companies to identify both potentially harmful chemicals in products such as cleaners, air fresheners, food packaging and plastics, and safer replacements.

But I kept running into the same problem: We knew very little about the health and environmental impacts of most of the ingredients in those products, especially whether they posed a risk of producing chronic health effects from long-term exposures.

We still don’t.

Scrutinize all chemicals before use

The root of the problem is the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which has so hamstrung the Environmental Protection Agency that the agency faces major challenges even to require that companies provide the most basic information about the safety of their chemicals. That means we fail to learn not only which chemicals pose risks, but also which chemicals are actually safe or at least safer.

So when it comes to replacing a problematic chemical, we run the risk of simply replacing the devil we know with one we don’t.

We can’t get off this toxic merry-go-round without a systematic evaluation of all chemicals. When bisphenol A – better known as BPA – raised concerns, for example, state governments, retailers and consumers all clamored for its removal. It was banned in some places in some products, and largely disappeared in other applications.

Unfortunately, scientists are now finding the common replacement, bisphenol S (BPS), may pose similar health concerns.

It is a sad story that has been repeated many times. Only a comprehensive approach to chemical safety will allow consumers—and manufacturers—to select safer chemicals with confidence.

A year has passed, now it’s time to act

The good news is that last year at this time – on May 22, 2013 – senators introduced the first bipartisan legislation to fix the Toxic Substances Control Act. The bill would for the first time direct EPA to review the safety of all chemicals in use.

It would provide stronger powers to require testing of chemicals and require an affirmative safety finding before new chemicals could enter the market. And it would limit the ease with which companies can claim safety information to be confidential and ease the restrictions on sharing confidential data about chemicals with state governments and health professionals.

However, that bill also put a number of serious roadblocks in the way of EPA effectively using its new powers, and placed excessive limits on states’ authority to regulate chemicals. Since its introduction, some members of Congress have been working in good faith to improve the bill and win broader support.

A 10-week window  

But now, time is running short: Congress has only 10 weeks of work scheduled before the elections.

Americans deserve a system that works. Families shouldn’t have to wonder if the products they buy are safe. Our kids shouldn’t be treated like lab rats subjected to untested chemicals.

It’s been one year since Congress took the first real steps in decades toward chemical reform. We’re counting on them to finish the job and protect Americans from toxic chemicals.

Demand protection from toxic chemicals dupham May 21, 2014 - 11:00

Only 10 weeks left to pass chemical safety reform

When I first began working to help fix America’s broken chemical safety law, it was already decades old. Now it is approaching 40 – well past retirement age for a law that cannot ensure the safety of common chemicals.

An update seemed a remote possibility until last year, when senators introduced the first bipartisan, albeit flawed, reform bill. Unfortunately, 12 months later, Congressional inaction risks squandering that opening and the improvements to the bill made since it was first introduced. 

The time for patience is over. Congress needs to finish the job and pass a strong chemical safety law in this Congress, lest the opportunity be lost for another decade or three.

Take action for a stronger chemical safety law

Before I started on this issue, I had been working with consumer product companies to identify both potentially harmful chemicals in products such as cleaners, air fresheners, food packaging and plastics, and safer replacements.

But I kept running into the same problem: We knew very little about the health and environmental impacts of most of the ingredients in those products, especially whether they posed a risk of producing chronic health effects from long-term exposures.

We still don’t.

Scrutinize all chemicals before use

The root of the problem is the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which has so hamstrung the Environmental Protection Agency that the agency faces major challenges even to require that companies provide the most basic information about the safety of their chemicals. That means we fail to learn not only which chemicals pose risks, but also which chemicals are actually safe or at least safer.

So when it comes to replacing a problematic chemical, we run the risk of simply replacing the devil we know with one we don’t.

We can’t get off this toxic merry-go-round without a systematic evaluation of all chemicals. When bisphenol A – better known as BPA – raised concerns, for example, state governments, retailers and consumers all clamored for its removal. It was banned in some places in some products, and largely disappeared in other applications.

Unfortunately, scientists are now finding the common replacement, bisphenol S (BPS), may pose similar health concerns.

It is a sad story that has been repeated many times. Only a comprehensive approach to chemical safety will allow consumers—and manufacturers—to select safer chemicals with confidence.

A year has passed, now it’s time to act

The good news is that last year at this time – on May 22, 2013 – senators introduced the first bipartisan legislation to fix the Toxic Substances Control Act. The bill would for the first time direct EPA to review the safety of all chemicals in use.

It would provide stronger powers to require testing of chemicals and require an affirmative safety finding before new chemicals could enter the market. And it would limit the ease with which companies can claim safety information to be confidential and ease the restrictions on sharing confidential data about chemicals with state governments and health professionals.

However, that bill also put a number of serious roadblocks in the way of EPA effectively using its new powers, and placed excessive limits on states’ authority to regulate chemicals. Since its introduction, some members of Congress have been working in good faith to improve the bill and win broader support.

A 10-week window  

But now, time is running short: Congress has only 10 weeks of work scheduled before the elections.

Americans deserve a system that works. Families shouldn’t have to wonder if the products they buy are safe. Our kids shouldn’t be treated like lab rats subjected to untested chemicals.

It’s been one year since Congress took the first real steps in decades toward chemical reform. We’re counting on them to finish the job and protect Americans from toxic chemicals.

Demand protection from toxic chemicals dupham May 21, 2014 - 11:00

Report: Staggering amounts of toxic chemicals produced across America

Alissa Sasso, a chemical policy fellow, co-authored this post and our new report. Alissa earned a BA in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology with a certificate in Environmental Studies from Princeton University.

Recent spills in West Virginia and North Carolina cast a spotlight on toxic hazards in our midst. But as bad as they are, these acute incidents pale in scope compared to the chronic flow of hazardous chemicals coursing through our lives each day with little notice and minimal regulation. A new report by EDF, Toxics Across America, tallies billions of pounds of chemicals in the American marketplace that are known or strongly suspected to cause increasingly common disorders, including certain cancers, developmental disabilities, and infertility.

While it’s no secret that modern society consumes huge amounts of chemicals, many of them dangerous, it is surprisingly difficult to get a handle on the actual numbers. And under current law it’s harder still to find out where and how these substances are used, though we know enough to establish that a sizeable share of them end up in one form or another in the places where we live and work.

Our new report looks at 120 chemicals that have been identified by multiple federal, state and international officials as known or suspected health hazards. Using the latest, albeit limited, data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, we identify which are in commerce in the U.S.; in what amounts they are being made; which companies are producing or importing them; and where they are being produced or imported. An interactive online map accompanying the report lets the user access the report’s data and search by chemical, by company, by state, and by site location.

Among our findings:

• At least 81 of the chemicals on the list are produced or imported to the US annually in amounts of one million pounds or more.

• At least 14 exceed one billion pounds produced or imported annually, including carcinogens such as formaldehyde and benzene, and the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA).

• More than 90 chemicals on the list are found in consumer and commercial products. At least eight are used in children’s products.

Our interactive map shows these chemicals are produced or imported in all parts of the country, in 45 states as well as the Virgin Islands. Companies with sites in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York reported producing or importing at least 40 listed chemicals.

Top 5 States with the Most Sites1. Texas 91 sites 2. Ohio 40 3. Pennsylvania 39 4. Louisiana 36 5. New York 31 Top 5 Companies with the Most Chemicals1. BASF Corp. 24 chemicals 2. Dow Chemical Co. 23 3. DuPont 12 4. Lanxess Corp 12 5(tie). ICC Industries Inc. 10 5(tie). Solvchem Inc. 10 Top 5 Chemicals by Volume1. Ethylene dichloride 28.1 billion pounds per year 2. Benzene 23.7 3. Vinyl chloride 16.7 4. Toluene 15.1 5. Styrene 10.2

While the report shows how deeply toxic chemicals are embedded in U.S. commerce, the chemicals we have identified represent just part of the story. Companies making or importing up to twelve-and-a-half tons of a chemical at a given site do not need to report at all. Others claim their chemical data is confidential business information, masking it from public disclosure. EPA only collects the data every four years, and chemical companies often don’t know and aren’t required to find out where or how the chemicals they make are being used.

Most Americans assume that somebody is regulating these chemicals to make sure we’re safe. In fact, thanks to gaping loopholes in federal law, officials are virtually powerless to limit even chemicals — such as those featured in our report — we know or have good reason to suspect are dangerous. Because none of us has the power to avoid them on our own, we need stronger safeguards that protect us from the biggest risks and give companies that use these chemicals a reason to look for better alternatives.

The good news is that Congress is working on bipartisan legislation that — if done right — would require greater evidence of safety for both chemicals already in use and new chemicals before they enter the market. And by driving development of and access to more chemical safety data, it would give not only government but also product makers and consumers much more of the information they need to identify and avoid dangerous chemicals, and strengthen incentives to develop safer alternatives.

dupham April 14, 2014 - 03:19

See comments

The lack of oversight is shocking...what is it going to take?

Grayce Schor April 16, 2014 at 10:11 am

Report: Staggering amounts of toxic chemicals produced across America

Alissa Sasso, a chemical policy fellow, co-authored this post and our new report. Alissa earned a BA in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology with a certificate in Environmental Studies from Princeton University.

Recent spills in West Virginia and North Carolina cast a spotlight on toxic hazards in our midst. But as bad as they are, these acute incidents pale in scope compared to the chronic flow of hazardous chemicals coursing through our lives each day with little notice and minimal regulation. A new report by EDF, Toxics Across America, tallies billions of pounds of chemicals in the American marketplace that are known or strongly suspected to cause increasingly common disorders, including certain cancers, developmental disabilities, and infertility.

While it’s no secret that modern society consumes huge amounts of chemicals, many of them dangerous, it is surprisingly difficult to get a handle on the actual numbers. And under current law it’s harder still to find out where and how these substances are used, though we know enough to establish that a sizeable share of them end up in one form or another in the places where we live and work.

Our new report looks at 120 chemicals that have been identified by multiple federal, state and international officials as known or suspected health hazards. Using the latest, albeit limited, data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, we identify which are in commerce in the U.S.; in what amounts they are being made; which companies are producing or importing them; and where they are being produced or imported. An interactive online map accompanying the report lets the user access the report’s data and search by chemical, by company, by state, and by site location.

Among our findings:

• At least 81 of the chemicals on the list are produced or imported to the US annually in amounts of one million pounds or more.

• At least 14 exceed one billion pounds produced or imported annually, including carcinogens such as formaldehyde and benzene, and the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA).

• More than 90 chemicals on the list are found in consumer and commercial products. At least eight are used in children’s products.

Our interactive map shows these chemicals are produced or imported in all parts of the country, in 45 states as well as the Virgin Islands. Companies with sites in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York reported producing or importing at least 40 listed chemicals.

Top 5 States with the Most Sites1. Texas 91 sites 2. Ohio 40 3. Pennsylvania 39 4. Louisiana 36 5. New York 31 Top 5 Companies with the Most Chemicals1. BASF Corp. 24 chemicals 2. Dow Chemical Co. 23 3. DuPont 12 4. Lanxess Corp 12 5(tie). ICC Industries Inc. 10 5(tie). Solvchem Inc. 10 Top 5 Chemicals by Volume1. Ethylene dichloride 28.1 billion pounds per year 2. Benzene 23.7 3. Vinyl chloride 16.7 4. Toluene 15.1 5. Styrene 10.2

While the report shows how deeply toxic chemicals are embedded in U.S. commerce, the chemicals we have identified represent just part of the story. Companies making or importing up to twelve-and-a-half tons of a chemical at a given site do not need to report at all. Others claim their chemical data is confidential business information, masking it from public disclosure. EPA only collects the data every four years, and chemical companies often don’t know and aren’t required to find out where or how the chemicals they make are being used.

Most Americans assume that somebody is regulating these chemicals to make sure we’re safe. In fact, thanks to gaping loopholes in federal law, officials are virtually powerless to limit even chemicals — such as those featured in our report — we know or have good reason to suspect are dangerous. Because none of us has the power to avoid them on our own, we need stronger safeguards that protect us from the biggest risks and give companies that use these chemicals a reason to look for better alternatives.

The good news is that Congress is working on bipartisan legislation that — if done right — would require greater evidence of safety for both chemicals already in use and new chemicals before they enter the market. And by driving development of and access to more chemical safety data, it would give not only government but also product makers and consumers much more of the information they need to identify and avoid dangerous chemicals, and strengthen incentives to develop safer alternatives.

dupham April 14, 2014 - 03:19

See comments

The lack of oversight is shocking...what is it going to take?

Grayce Schor April 16, 2014 at 10:11 am

Might we soon be facing an effort to roll back the Toxic Substances Control Act?

Andy.Schultz/Flickr

It seems like only yesterday there was broad consensus on the need to strengthen the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a consensus that included the chemical industry.

But that was then. Now there are growing indications that legislation will soon be introduced in the U.S. Senate that would not only not fix the fundamental flaws of TSCA, but would actually make the law even weaker. 

The first clue came from comments that the Republican minority filed on last year’s Safe Chemicals Act (which was just re-introduced yesterday). Among the many objections, they argued against a standard that has been endorsed by major medical groups as necessary to protect vulnerable subpopulations, especially the developing fetus, infants and young children. That’s a standard that also reflects the recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences to address the multiple chemical exposures that people face in the real world.

Now it appears that Senator David Vitter (LA) is close to introducing a TSCA bill of his own, written in close collaboration with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and a scant few of its member companies. By all reports, other chemical industry and related interests have had little opportunity for input, and other key stakeholders – the health and environmental communities, workers, consumer groups, health professionals, etc. – have been completely cut out of the process.

And while details are sketchy because few people have seen any actual text, the Minority’s comments and other sources suggest that the bill may contain provisions that would actually weaken current TSCA.  Here are just two examples:

• The bill could further limit EPA’s already highly constrained authority to ask for more information on chemicals.  It would reportedly force EPA to rely on existing data, however sparse, for key decisions.  EPA would have to document in detail why it needs more information – exacerbating the Catch-22 under current TSCA whereby EPA has to be able to show a chemical poses a potential risk in order to require testing to determine if there is a risk. And EPA would be constrained as to when in the process it could request new information.  If true, these provisions would weaken EPA’s already inadequate information authority under current TSCA.
• The bill reportedly would wholly quash state authority to address chemical risks. Worse, this pre-emption would start at the moment EPA initiates an assessment of a chemical – which is typically many years before any decision is made about whether to regulate that chemical. Even putting aside the need for states to be able to address their own priorities and geographic and population factors specific to their states (e.g., native populations highly dependent on wild plants and animals for food), think of the perverse incentive this approach would create for industry to seek to delay assessments and needed regulatory actions – states would have already been pre-empted from acting to fill the void!  Again, if true, this provision would be a severe roll-back of state authority under current TSCA.

Indications are that the bill would leave unchanged the provisions under TSCA that address new chemicals. This would perpetuate a flawed system in which EPA is compelled to review within 90 days each of more than 1,000 new chemical notifications annually, the vast majority of which include no health or environmental data whatsoever. This lack of any upfront safety data requirement stands in contrast to the policies of virtually every other developed country in the world. Only if EPA can meet its burden to affirmatively find that the chemical is expected to pose an unreasonable risk can it slow its review, require testing, or seek to negotiate conditions with the notifier on production or use of the chemical. These are the kinds of problems with the TSCA new chemicals program that led EPA’s own Inspector General to reach conclusions such as this:  “EPA’s assurance that new chemicals introduced into commerce do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment is not supported by data or actual testing.”

It’s exceedingly hard to see how “reform” along these lines would do anything to restore consumer confidence in our failed system for assuring chemical safety, let alone resolve the growing debate in the market, in the scientific and medical communities and in the public square over the risks posed by the ever-expanding range of chemicals and chemical-containing products we encounter in our daily lives.

I urge any Senators thinking about signing on to this approach to reconsider whether they want to be associated with a roll-back of health protections under what is widely acknowledged to be the weakest of all of the major health and environmental laws – one that will be opposed by every environmental health organization in the country.

This post originally appeared on our Chemicals & Nanomaterials blog. 

dupham April 12, 2013 - 08:18

Might we soon be facing an effort to roll back the Toxic Substances Control Act?

Andy.Schultz/Flickr

It seems like only yesterday there was broad consensus on the need to strengthen the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a consensus that included the chemical industry.

But that was then. Now there are growing indications that legislation will soon be introduced in the U.S. Senate that would not only not fix the fundamental flaws of TSCA, but would actually make the law even weaker. 

The first clue came from comments that the Republican minority filed on last year’s Safe Chemicals Act (which was just re-introduced yesterday). Among the many objections, they argued against a standard that has been endorsed by major medical groups as necessary to protect vulnerable subpopulations, especially the developing fetus, infants and young children. That’s a standard that also reflects the recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences to address the multiple chemical exposures that people face in the real world.

Now it appears that Senator David Vitter (LA) is close to introducing a TSCA bill of his own, written in close collaboration with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and a scant few of its member companies. By all reports, other chemical industry and related interests have had little opportunity for input, and other key stakeholders – the health and environmental communities, workers, consumer groups, health professionals, etc. – have been completely cut out of the process.

And while details are sketchy because few people have seen any actual text, the Minority’s comments and other sources suggest that the bill may contain provisions that would actually weaken current TSCA.  Here are just two examples:

• The bill could further limit EPA’s already highly constrained authority to ask for more information on chemicals.  It would reportedly force EPA to rely on existing data, however sparse, for key decisions.  EPA would have to document in detail why it needs more information – exacerbating the Catch-22 under current TSCA whereby EPA has to be able to show a chemical poses a potential risk in order to require testing to determine if there is a risk. And EPA would be constrained as to when in the process it could request new information.  If true, these provisions would weaken EPA’s already inadequate information authority under current TSCA.
• The bill reportedly would wholly quash state authority to address chemical risks. Worse, this pre-emption would start at the moment EPA initiates an assessment of a chemical – which is typically many years before any decision is made about whether to regulate that chemical. Even putting aside the need for states to be able to address their own priorities and geographic and population factors specific to their states (e.g., native populations highly dependent on wild plants and animals for food), think of the perverse incentive this approach would create for industry to seek to delay assessments and needed regulatory actions – states would have already been pre-empted from acting to fill the void!  Again, if true, this provision would be a severe roll-back of state authority under current TSCA.

Indications are that the bill would leave unchanged the provisions under TSCA that address new chemicals. This would perpetuate a flawed system in which EPA is compelled to review within 90 days each of more than 1,000 new chemical notifications annually, the vast majority of which include no health or environmental data whatsoever. This lack of any upfront safety data requirement stands in contrast to the policies of virtually every other developed country in the world. Only if EPA can meet its burden to affirmatively find that the chemical is expected to pose an unreasonable risk can it slow its review, require testing, or seek to negotiate conditions with the notifier on production or use of the chemical. These are the kinds of problems with the TSCA new chemicals program that led EPA’s own Inspector General to reach conclusions such as this:  “EPA’s assurance that new chemicals introduced into commerce do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment is not supported by data or actual testing.”

It’s exceedingly hard to see how “reform” along these lines would do anything to restore consumer confidence in our failed system for assuring chemical safety, let alone resolve the growing debate in the market, in the scientific and medical communities and in the public square over the risks posed by the ever-expanding range of chemicals and chemical-containing products we encounter in our daily lives.

I urge any Senators thinking about signing on to this approach to reconsider whether they want to be associated with a roll-back of health protections under what is widely acknowledged to be the weakest of all of the major health and environmental laws – one that will be opposed by every environmental health organization in the country.

This post originally appeared on our Chemicals & Nanomaterials blog. 

dupham April 12, 2013 - 08:18