Environmental and Health Organizations Say "Fully Fund the National Children's Study"

A group of national and state environmental and health organizations have written a letter to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations calling for full funding of the National Children’s Study.  The study was "authorized by the Children’s Health Act of 2000," and is "one of the most comprehensive national efforts to study environmental, social and genetic influences on children’s health, including air, water, diet, noise, family dynamics and community and cultural influences."  Unfortunately, it has never been properly funded.

According to a press release by the Environmental Working Group, one of the 24 organizations that signed the letter, it includes:

“There are great and growing concerns about the increased rate of chronic and acute disease in the United States, and the National Children’s Study is designed to help all Americans have a better understanding of the links between those diseases and our environment. However, to ensure the study’s success, it is critical that it continue to receive the necessary funding throughout each and every stage. No study has ever followed children from before birth to age 21, but to do so the National Children’s Study must receive sufficient and consistent funding.”

Further, the letter says that "the study will examine how the events and exposures of early life can lead to specific outcomes including birth defects, asthma, obesity, diabetes, and mental health disorders among other possible outcomes." It suggests that "science continues to emerge and show that early exposures, especially those during vulnerable times of development, are linked to future adverse health effects."

NGO Calls on Chemical Industry to Initiate Biomonitoring of Chemicals in People

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), long known for its reports on chemicals found in people, cosmetics, and sunscreens, has written a letter to USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging her to use EPA's authority to compel the chemical industry to conduct biomonitoring studies.  EWG argues that "biomonitoring studies are regularly conducted by academic and government scientists and have become vital elements in determining toxic pollutants found in the bodies of Americans and the health risks these chemicals may pose," but that there was "little evidence that industry is submitting biomonitoring studies to EPA." According to EWG President Ken Cook:

“Logically, the chemical industry should be conducting the same basic studies to understand the safety of its chemicals for the public. And if not, then why not?”

According to their news release, the NGO "strongly advocates that regulators and industry test for synthetic chemical contaminants in people, especially in human umbilical cord blood. These tests demonstrate how readily chemicals enter and accumulate in our bodies, even during the earliest stages of development.”  Cook argues that section 8(d) of TSCA gives EPA the authority to require the submission of "unpublished health and safety studies, as well as authority under TSCA 8(e) to require immediate notification of any evidence of "substantial risk."

The letter from EWG to Administrator Jackson can be read and downloaded as a PDF here.

US Chemical Makers to Seek Authorization for Continued European Use of Phthalates Under REACH Regulation

As noted previously the European Commission has announced that "six substances of very high concern will be banned within the next three to five years unless an authorisation has been granted to individual companies for their use." Three of these substances (DBP, BBP, and DEHP) fall into a general category called phthalates and now a major US trade association has indicated that phthalate manufacturers they represent will file applications for authorization to continued use in "important medical applications."  According to Steve Risotto, Phthalate Esters Panel, quoted in the American Chemical Council (ACC) statement:

"There is a large body of scientific information and a number of government safety assessments in the U.S. and abroad that give the manufacturers of these three phthalates confidence that their products are being used safely. In fact, phthalates are one of the most extensively studied groups of chemical compounds in the world." 

US manufacturers "will work with European regulatory authorities" (primarily the European Chemicals Agency, ECHA, in Finland) to "submit all the necessary data and seek approval for the continued use of these substances."  Without authorization, use of all six of the substances of very high concern (SVHC) will cease at their sunset dates in either 2014 or 2015. According to ECHA, these SVHCs are "are carcinogenic, toxic for reproduction or persist in the environment and accumulate in living organisms."

More information on phthalates can be found on the Phthalates Wikipedia page or ACC's Phthalate Esters Panel web page.  For contrasting information from an NGO activist organization, the Environmental Working Group also has a Phthalate web page.

Chemical Industry Rebuts "Secret Chemical" Report as Erroneous

As mentioned yesterday, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit advocacy group based in Washington DC, issued a report suggesting that many chemicals on the market today are "secret." The basis for this is that the identity of these chemicals is protected by confidential business information provisions under the existing TSCA chemical control law. On Monday the main chemical industry trade association offered a response in which it claimed that EWG misrepresented the CBI provisions.

According to ACC's news release available on its web site,

"[t]here are no 'secret' chemicals on the market. In those cases where a specific chemical identity has been claimed confidential - in order to protect the significant investment of time, money and human resources that went into the research and development process - the manufacturing and use of that substance must always fully comply with the requirements of the law."

The EWG report and the ACC response demonstrates that while both groups, along with most other stakeholders, are in general agreement on the need for TSCA reform and the basic principles of modernization, there are still some fundamental differences on many of the details. In this case, the advocacy groups feel that the more information available to the public and the more transparency the better. The industry, on the other hand, must deal with the fact that competitors can free ride off of the research expenditures of others and thus have a need to keep some information to themselves.

The key seems to be in developing a system that gives confidence that chemicals are adequately tested for safety prior to being put on the market. If the public can be convinced that the process protects them, then they will be less concerned if there are confidentiality protections for companies. But if the public feels that the process is insufficient to protect them from chemicals because those chemicals have not been demonstrated to be safe, then the public will want to see more information to allow them to make choices on their end.

The saga continues. I expect there to be quite a bit of activity in the next few weeks and months as Congress leads up to introducing a bill in the first quarter of this year.

Environmental Working Group Releases "Secret Chemicals" Report

On a note related to my post of yesterday, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released a report called "Off the Books: Industry's Secret Chemicals." In the report they call TSCA "an extraordinarily ineffective law."

EWG is a non-profit organization founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, the latter whom is a co-author on the current report. EWG's mission "to use the power of public information to protect public health and the environment." In the fall of 2009 the organization sponsored a widely attended stakeholder "dialogue" that included Lisa Jackson and Steve Owens from EPA, the heads of many industry trade associations, the advocacy community, and other interested stakeholders.

In their report, EWG is quite critical of the current system under TSCA and feels that industry has abused the privilege of claiming confidential business information. The report also faults EPA for allowing so many - 17,000 of the 83,000 on the TSCA Inventory - to be kept "secret" from the public, which according to EWG is "a de-facto witness protection program for chemicals," a large number of which are "used everyday in consumer products."

With advocacy groups seemingly intent on pressing the issue, I reiterate my belief that the "new TSCA" will significantly restrict the amount and type of CBI that companies may claim for new chemicals. The burden will also shift to industry to prove that their CBI claims are legitimate, rather than putting the onus on resource-strapped EPA to make an effort to reject claims. Whether this is a good or bad thing will have to wait until the details are worked out.

NGO Reaction to the Decision to Suspend ChAMP Chemical Program

As previously noted, the Obama EPA suddenly suspended its ChAMP program last week. ChAMP was the Agency's mechanism for evaluating the data received during the voluntary HPV Challenge, in which industry agreed to provide available health and safety data on about 2200 high production volume chemicals (i.e., those produced or imported in excess of 1 million pounds per year in the US).

Yesterday I gave some of the reaction from industry. Most felt that ChAMP was a good program and didn't understand its sudden suspension. Some feel it was so the Obama administration could institute more "command-and-control" regulation over chemicals, rather than the more voluntary (and EPA-onused) ChAMP.

The non-governmental organization (NGO) reaction, on the other hand, has been generally in favor of the move. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), whose 1997 report "Toxic Ignorance" was the catalyst that led to the HPV Challenge in the first place, has been very critical of the ChAMP program. According to EDF's Richard Dennison,"[i]t probably goes without saying that EDF welcomes EPA's decision to suspend the development and posting of risk-based prioritizations under its Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP)." Dennison has been writing a series of blog posts in recent months in which he notes some of the failings of ChAMP, arguing "that ChAMP's "rush to risk" has taken EPA badly off-track." He claims, however, that "we have also identified many useful things that EPA's existing chemicals program can and should be doing with the data it obtained through the HPV Challenge (whether called ChAMP or not)," and that EDF looked "forward to working with EPA to craft a new approach, grounded in a return to developing scientifically defensible hazard, not risk, characterizations and transparently identifying and addressing data gaps and data quality problems."

Another environmental advocacy group that has been following ChAMP, and in particular has been very supportive of the proposed Kid Safe Chemical Act, is the Environmental Working Group (EWG). EWG recently launched an interactive online site "featuring news and commentary, as well as a forum for a thought-provoking exchange of ideas on reforming the nation’s federal toxic chemicals policies." According to EWG, the site "will feature analysis and opinion by scientists, lawmakers, industry officials, community activists, policy specialists, journalists and others interested in environmental health issues." A major focus of the site "will be the emerging debate over reform of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)."

Another group interested in the ChAMP and TSCA reform is the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Commenting on the EDF blog, Gina Solomon of NRDC notes that "[t]his is a very important step toward meaningful chemical reform. It was clear that EPA needed to sweep the house clean before bringing in the new furniture, and the elimination of ChAMP does exactly that. Now we can get on with the job of really reforming U.S. chemical policy." She also congratulated EDF for its series of blog stories, saying "I really think this blog brought down ChAMP!"

Many in the NGO community feel that the administration's decision to suspend ChAMP is a clear signal that "ChAMP is grossly, indefensibly ineffective." EDF's Dennison says the decision is "implicit acknowledgement" that the ChAMP prioritization process needed an overhaul. According to the ChAMP web site, as of March 2009, EPA had "developed and posted risk-based prioritizations for 220 HPV chemicals and has posted hazard-based prioritizations for 83 chemicals." The goal of the program was to develop "screening-level hazard, exposure, and risk characterizations for an estimated 6,750 chemicals produced or imported in quantities of 25,000 pounds or greater a year" by 2012.

Clearly the administration felt that the program could not accomplish those goals and that a better way was needed. According to EPA, they expect to offer a new direction some time this summer.

House Subcommittee to Hold TSCA Reform Hearings Soon

Seems the US House of Representatives may begin hearings shortly on the US Toxic Substances Control Act. As I've reported here in the past, there has been much pressure to "reform" TSCA. To some this means a complete rewriting of the legislation in the form of the Kid-Safe Chemical Act (KSCA), which was introduced originally in 2005 and again in 2008. Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey has said he plans to reintroduce the KSCA into this Congress within the next few weeks.

In conjunction with the planned reintroduction of the KSCA in the Senate (and an identical companion bill in the House), the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade & Consumer Protection is expected to hold the first oversight hearings on the Hill as early as next week. This particular subcommittee gained the authority for oversight only after newly installed Chair of the House Environment and Commerce Committee Henry Waxman completely reorganized how the committee works.

The news of the subcommittee hearings comes on the heels of a letter sent by the advocacy organization, Environmental Working Group (EWG). EWG's letter, addressed to new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, strongly supports the KSCA (which they now refer to as "Kid-Safe") and offers a series of suggestions for EPA to take while they are waiting for KSCA - or some other version of TSCA reform- to be passed. The suggestions are:

1) Make children's environmental health a top EPA priority

2) Test umbilical cord blood for industrial chemicals

3) Improve public access to chemical toxicity data

4) Revamp voluntary programs under which industry has submitted data

5) Enforce TSCA

6) Challenge dubious or unsubstantiated Confidential Business Information

7) Keep persistent, bioaccumulative toxins off the market