Pesticide Trade Association Offers Their Insight Into Recent NGO Endangered Species Act Lawsuit

About 10 days ago I reported on a law suit filed by two NGOs in an attempt to force EPA to "consult" with the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on pesticide issues as required by the Endangered Species Act.  Now the major crop protection chemical (i.e., pesticide) trade association has weighed in on the suit.

The trade association, CropLife America, which "represents the developers, manufacturers, formulators and distributors of plant science solutions for agriculture and pest management in the United States," offered the following on their web site:

“The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is an important legislative vehicle which helps facilitate the conservation of endangered plants and animals, yet the litigation filed by CBD and PANNA reflects the much larger issue: real ESA reform is required to protect endangered species,” said Jay Vroom, president and CEO of CLA. “However, litigation does not help to improve a system which can only be fixed through sound policy and legislation.”

CropLife America believes that, while the lawsuit "alleges that EPA has failed to consult with the...Services to ensure that crop protection products do not jeopardize endangered species," the NGOs "overlook the numerous benefits of modern agriculture, its rigorous regulatory oversight and proven role in protecting America’s wildlife."  In other words, think of all the good that pesticides do for society.  But there is more, obviously, to the story as CropLife and the NGOs differ dramatically on the value of pesticides.  CropLife believes that they allow for greater crop growth, which means greater and more efficient food production.  The NGOs believe that pesticides epitomize the problem of reliance on monoculture, which requires heavy chemical usage to combat the resulting pest species that would otherwise not be able to gain a foothold.


Both groups would agree that a better consultation process is needed.  The NGOs think that having EPA make what are essentially summary decisions by themselves is a conflict of interest since EPA also garners fees for registering pesticides.  CropLife believes that bringing in the Services creates a huge stranglehold on innovation and the ability to bring new, and presumably safer, products onto the market.  This argument has been going on for years and perhaps is the real reason behind the NGO law suit - to get a case that can cause there to be decisions made on how to proceed.  Clearly a more effective procedure, both from an efficiency standpoint and from a human health and the environment standpoint, is needed.

30 States Introduce Chemical Restriction Laws as TSCA Chemical Reform Lies Dormant

With TSCA reform activities essentially dormant (and perhaps dead), a total of 30 separate US states have introduced chemical reform legislation.  According to the advocacy NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, "on Wednesday, January 19, legislators and advocates in thirty states across the country and the District of Columbia will announce legislation aimed at protecting children and families from harmful chemicals."  They also claim that "despite well-funded opposition from the chemical industry, 18 state legislatures have already passed 71 chemical safety laws in the last eight years by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin – with more to come this year."

Last year both the House and Senate introduced "Safe Chemical" bills in an attempt to modernize the 34-year old Toxic Substances Control Act.  While on the House side there were several stakeholder meetings held to get input so that the bills could be fine-tuned, no substantive action occurred in committee in an effort to get votes on the bills.  Which means they must be reintroduced in this new Congress.  With the Republicans gaining control in the House and narrowing the gap in the Senate, along with the continuing lagging (though improving) economy, it is unclear whether any federal level TSCA reform can get passed this year or next.

With that in mind NGOs are shifting their efforts to encouraging state level action.  According to the NGO's press release:

"The American public is demanding new chemical safety laws, and state elected officials – both Republicans and Democrats – are responding," said Andy Igrejas, Campaign Director of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition. "At some point Congress will wake up and realize it is better for industry and public safety to make these changes at the federal level, as well." 

Planned legislation includes comprehensive state laws in nine states, phase outs of the plasticizer BPA in at least 17 states, calls for federal action in at least 11 states, bans of cadmium in childrens products, and exposure reductions in at least three states to a brominated flame retardant.  More information is available on the SCHF web site.

Note: US state graphic from SCHF.

Needs of Downstream Users Critical to Safe Chemicals Act Developments

"The impact of chemicals on business is felt well beyond the factories where chemicals are manufactured or processed into other substances and mixtures," said Bob Sussman at last week's Business and NGO Forum on Safer Chemicals Policy Reform. Sussman, who is a senior policy counsel to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, went further and noted that "companies at the end of the value chain" have a unique position because they serve "a critical interface where the public comes into contact with chemical-containing products." As such, these downstream users (DUs) must play an active role in helping to define the developing Safe Chemicals Act (or Toxic Substances Safety Act in the House).

The forum was designed to do just that. Sponsors included the NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, the Business-NGO Working Group, and the American Sustainable Business Council. Points of discussion included a widespread agreement on the need for transparency, harmonization with other chemicals programs, and an emphasis on encouraging development of safer alternatives. Unlike some of the chemical trade associations, members of the Business-NGO Working Group strongly support a minimum data set on chemicals to be generated within five years. In short, they want to see data on all chemicals, not just a select few, so that there is enough information on potential alternatives to make sure they aren't just as bad as the ones that are being replaced. That can't be done unless there are data on everything.

According to Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, there is an expectation that votes on the House's Toxic Substances Safety Act could begin some time this month. Some even suggest that a floor vote could happen before the summer is up. Still, it seems rather unlikely that any bill will be passed by both the House and Senate this year given the paucity of actual legislation days left and the critical (and often contentious) mid-term elections on every legislators mind.

Advocacy Coalition Makes a "Health Case for Reforming TSCA" - The Chemical Control Law in the US

A coalition of nearly 140 diverse health and environmental advocacy groups called Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families issued a report on January 20th called "The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act."

As I've been discussing, most stakeholders agree that some form of modernizing TSCA is inevitable, and necessary. The EPA and various groups representing public advocacy, the chemical industry, and workers have offered their principles for reform. And mostly at the principle level there is good agreement. The details are a bit more contentious.

According to the report, "[t]he Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition believes that, by reforming TSCA, we can reduce our exposure to toxic chemicals, improve our nation’s health, and lower the cost of health care. This report documents some of the scientific findings and economic analysis underlying our position."

The report suggests that "chronic disease is on the rise" and cites increases in leukemia, various cancers, asthma, pregnancy difficulties, birth defects, autism, etc. The report provides a section reviewing each of these diseases. The coalition emphasizes that there are tremendous "health and economic benefits of reforming TSCA" and that estimates of the proportion of disease burden attributable to chemicals ranges widely "from 1% of all disease to 5% of childhood cancer to 10% of diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and neurodevelopmental deficits to 30% of childhood asthma." While the group acknowledges that identifying actual cause and effect between chemical exposure and disease is extremely difficult, they emphasize that

"[w]hatever the actual contribution, effective chemical policy reform will incorporate the last 30 years of science to reduce the chemical exposures that contribute to the rising incidence of chronic disease. And any decline in the incidence of chronic diseases can also be expected to bring health care cost savings. Even if chemical policy reform leads to reductions in toxic chemical exposures that translate into just a tenth of one percent reduction of health care costs, it would save the U.S. health care system an estimated $5 billion every year."

A press release can be read here, and the entire report can be downloaded here.

Additional information on TSCA reform can be read here.