EPA Administrator Jackson Offers More Insight into the "Essential Principles" for TSCA Chemical Control Reform

Administrator Jackson, with a small entourage that included Steve Owens, the new Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, participated in a forum this past week convened to offer the viewpoints of various stakeholders on chemical control reform in the United States. Jackson reiterated the 6 essential principles and indicated that EPA would more actively use its existing authority while TSCA reform worked its way through the legislative process.

The forum itself was sponsored by a wide variety of industry and advocacy groups, each with their own point of view of what needed to be done as legislators develop a bill to reform the current chemical control act.

There is a lot of general agreement that some form of "modernization" of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is needed. There also was quite a bit of agreement at the general principles level (e.g., chemicals put on the market should be safe). However, the "devil is in the details" and industry prefers risk-based assessment while NGOs prefer more emphasis on reducing hazard no matter what the exposure. Industry feels EPA should do the prioritizing to identify chemicals for which companies would provide more data, while the NGOs lean more toward industry providing at least some base set data.

Both industry and NGOs have been in deep discussions with Congress all year about a reform bill. Senator Lautenberg’s staff and Waxman/Rush’s staff have been working diligently on a new bill, which suggests they won't simply just reintroduce the same old Kid Safe bill. But there is some question of when a bill might actually be introduced, and then when it might actually be passed.

My own sense is that while it’s possible that a bill could be introduced at any time, passage will require more stakeholder involvement before anything meaningful is submitted. There has been quite a bit of involvement so far, but it seemed it just wasn’t ready for prime time yet. There is, however, quite a bit of agreement of the need for further stakeholder meetings to iron out the sticky details, and to do so together so they could agree on a reasonable bill. If the forum from this past week is the beginning of further dialogue, we might just see something being passed in this Congress. If not, it's quite possible that a chemical control law will have to wait until after the current big issues of health care reform, climate change, finance reform get passed, which puts it right in the middle of next year's election campaigns.

That said, there is a real sense that all the stars are in alignment for something to happen. And with industry apparently in agreement, it seems just a matter of Congress finding the time to get it on the schedule (and assuming no major power shifts occur in the next election).

More Americans Win Nobel Prizes

It's that time of year again...Nobel Prize week. Each day the Nobel Prize committee will announce the winners of this year's awards for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace. Each prize consists of a medal, personal diploma, and a cash award.

This year the first three announcements have involved a lot of Americans, something that isn't always the case for this international award.

On Monday, three Americans shared the Nobel Prize for Medicine "for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase." Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Grieder and Jack W. Szostak each get 1/3 of the prize.

On Tuesday, 1/2 the Nobel Prize for Physics went to Charles K. Kao "for groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication." The other half was split between Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith "for the invention of an imaging semiconductor circuit – the CCD sensor."

And today, two Americans and an Israeli share equally in the Nobel Prize for Chemistry "for studies of the structure and function of the ribosome." They are Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas Steitz, and Ada Yonath.

The remaining prizes will be announced in the following days.

It is important to keep in mind that the Nobel Prizes are given for work that may have been done decades ago, only after the significance of their achievements have become clear. It is critical that we continue to provide support for scientists in various fields for both basic and applied research. Without it our innovation for the future is sure to suffer.

New Report Updates Climate Change Science - It's Getting Worse, Faster

In anticipation of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the International Alliance of Research Universities has issued a report presenting an update of a broad range of research relating to climate change. The report synthesizes "the newest research results relating to climate change and what action can be taken in response to climate change."

According to the IARU, "the 36 page report is written for non-specialists and is based on discussions and presentations made at the scientific congress “Climate change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” held in Copenhagen in March."

The report is organised into six key messages:

1. Climatic Trends. Recent observations indicate that many aspects of the climate are changing according to the more severe IPCC projections. Sea level rise is changing at even greater rates than IPCC projections and new modelling methods suggest a rise of around one metre by 2100. Since 2007, Arctic sea ice has rapidly decreased. Recent work has indicated that the vulnerability of natural carbon sinks will further amplify these changes.

2. Social and Environmental Disruption. Although a 2ºC rise is the quoted threshold above which climate change is deemed dangerous, this level still has significant risks for society and the environment. For example, modelling studies indicate that a 2ºC temperature rise would double the death rate caused by heatwaves. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing acidification of the oceans and threatening marine ecosystems. There are already reports of 19 per cent decrease in the growth of Great Barrier Reef corals.

3. Long-term strategy: Global targets and timetables. Recent studies indicate that if the peak and subsequent decline of greenhouse gases (GHGs) does not occur until after 2020, emission reduction rates will have to exceed 5 per cent per year to meet the 2ºC threshold. Immediate reductions are needed with a long-term expectation that carbon prices will rise.

4. Equity Dimensions. The impacts of climate change are greater for the poor, the uneducated and the isolated. In a 2050 world of 9 billion people, carbon emissions per capita will need to be about 2 tonnes of CO2 per annum, or less, to avoid dangerous climate change. Current per capita emissions vary widely. For example, in the USA they are over 20 tonnes and in China (which has the greatest total emissions) they are 4 tonnes.

5. Inaction is inexcusable. Renewable energy technologies are already available and, combined with reduced energy use and improved efficiency, they have the potential to achieve a 50 per cent decrease in GHG emissions by 2050. There are also positive developments in land management, deforestation and transport.

6. Meeting the Challenge. Cultural dimensions of climate change need to be included in research and policy. For example, a recent analysis indicated that 12 billion people could be nourished on less than one third of the present agricultural area by using the best sites for the most appropriate crops. Linking climate change with broader consumption and production issues can help sustainable development but will require long-term global deals.

The full report can be downloaded at the IARU conference site here.

If you skipped over it, go back and read key message 1 above. It's getting worse, faster than we had anticipated. Now reread key message 5 above.

The time to act is now.

EPA outlines "Essential Principles" for TSCA Chemical Control Reform

Previously I have reported on EPA's shutting down of the voluntary ChAMP program of chemical control priortization. We've been waiting for word of what might replace it as reform of TSCA - the current chemical control law in the US - is under discussion in a very busy Congress. Well, the first signs of a framework are beginning to emerge in a presentation given by EPA Administrator yesterday.

Jackson outlines a series of "principles" that she hopes will be incorporated into new legislation. These principles underline the core belief of the Administration, which is that "it is important to work together to quickly modernize and strengthen the tools available in TSCA to increase confidence that chemicals used in commerce, which are vital to our Nation’s economy, are safe and do not endanger the public health and welfare of consumers, workers, and especially sensitive sub-populations such as children, or the environment."

According to Jackson and the EPA web site:

The following Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation (Principles) are provided to help inform efforts underway in this Congress to reauthorize and significantly strengthen the effectiveness of TSCA. These Principles present Administration goals for updated legislation that will give EPA the mechanisms and authorities to expeditiously target chemicals of concern and promptly assess and regulate new and existing chemicals.

Principle No. 1: Chemicals Should Be Reviewed Against Safety Standards That Are Based on Sound Science and Reflect Risk-based Criteria Protective of Human Health and the Environment.

EPA should have clear authority to establish safety standards that are based on scientific risk assessments. Sound science should be the basis for the assessment of chemical risks, while recognizing the need to assess and manage risk in the face of uncertainty.

Principle No. 2: Manufacturers Should Provide EPA With the Necessary Information to Conclude That New and Existing Chemicals Are Safe and Do Not Endanger Public Health or the Environment.

Manufacturers should be required to provide sufficient hazard, exposure, and use data for a chemical to support a determination by the Agency that the chemical meets the safety standard. Exposure and hazard assessments from manufacturers should be required to include a thorough review of the chemical’s risks to sensitive subpopulations.

Where manufacturers do not submit sufficient information, EPA should have the necessary authority and tools, such as data call in, to quickly and efficiently require testing or obtain other information from manufacturers that is relevant to determining the safety of chemicals. EPA should also be provided the necessary authority to efficiently follow up on chemicals which have been previously assessed (e.g., requiring additional data or testing, or taking action to reduce risk) if there is a change which may affect safety, such as increased production volume, new uses or new information on potential hazards or exposures. EPA’s authority to require submission of use and exposure information should extend to downstream processors and users of chemicals.

Principle No. 3: Risk Management Decisions Should Take into Account Sensitive Subpopulations, Cost, Availability of Substitutes and Other Relevant Considerations.

EPA should have clear authority to take risk management actions when chemicals do not meet the safety standard, with flexibility to take into account a range of considerations, including children’s health, economic costs, social benefits, and equity concerns.

Principle No. 4: Manufacturers and EPA Should Assess and Act on Priority Chemicals, Both Existing and New, in a Timely Manner.

EPA should have authority to set priorities for conducting safety reviews on existing chemicals based on relevant risk and exposure considerations. Clear, enforceable and practicable deadlines applicable to the Agency and industry should be set for completion of chemical reviews, in particular those that might impact sensitive sub-populations.

Principle No. 5: Green Chemistry Should Be Encouraged and Provisions Assuring Transparency and Public Access to Information Should Be Strengthened.

The design of safer and more sustainable chemicals, processes, and products should be encouraged and supported through research, education, recognition, and other means. The goal of these efforts should be to increase the design, manufacture, and use of lower risk, more energy efficient and sustainable chemical products and processes.

TSCA reform should include stricter requirements for a manufacturer’s claim of Confidential Business Information (CBI). Manufacturers should be required to substantiate their claims of confidentiality. Data relevant to health and safety should not be claimed or otherwise treated as CBI. EPA should be able to negotiate with other governments (local, state, and foreign) on appropriate sharing of CBI with the necessary protections, when necessary to protect public health and safety.

Principle No. 6: EPA Should Be Given a Sustained Source of Funding for Implementation.

Implementation of the law should be adequately and consistently funded, in order to meet the goal of assuring the safety of chemicals, and to maintain public confidence that EPA is meeting that goal. To that end, manufacturers of chemicals should support the costs of Agency implementation, including the review of information provided by manufacturers.

I will be looking more closely into these principles and reporting further in the days ahead.

Senate Climate Change Bill Expected September 30th

It appears that Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer Sources will finally introduce climate change legislation on Wednesday, September 30th. Boxer is planning hearings in her Environment & Public Works Committee during the week of Oct. 5 with a markup the following week.

According to a New York Times article, the two Senators "hope will be the vehicle for broader Senate negotiations and an eventual conference with the House," acknowledging that this is "just a 'starting point' in a bid to win over moderate and conservative Democrats, as well as Republicans."

This is the beginning of what will eventually be a climate change bill coming from the Senate, which then will go to conference with the bill passed earlier this year by the House and on to President Obama for signature. The timing of the final law being in place remains pretty uncertain at this point, but while possible, it's likely it won't be ready before the global climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December. But progress is being made.

Are biodegradable plastics the answer to the Pacific gyre?

Not long ago I posted here about a continent of plastic circulating in the Pacific gyre, and how slow degradation of some plastics may actually be releasing toxins. Since then a great deal of discussion has taken place as what might be possible solutions. Some have suggested biodegradable materials, including biodegradable plastics, while others suggest that just adds to the problem.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the primary organization for large chemicals manufacturers in the United States, including the plastics industry recently issued a press release entitled "Degradable Materials Hold Great Promise, But Not a Current "Solution" to Preventable Marine Litter." In it they first argue that it is all marine debris, not just plastics, that are the problem. The then note that there isn't any one easy answer, but that most agree that "recycling, coupled with tough litter abatement laws, well-run municipal waste management systems, and behavioral changes," are needed.

The idea of biodegradable plastics and other materials has been met with mixed reviews. In general these degrade into less harmful materials, and if fully biodegradable, into carbon dioxide and water. But as the ACC release notes, Keep Los Angeles Beautiful has suggested that the perception of biodegradability actually leads people to litter more, as they think the litter will "just go away."

Another concern is that "biodegradable" is often defined broadly to include plastics that break down into smaller particles but retain much of the original chemical composition. Small particles are mistaken by marine life as food and ingested, which presents both the risk of possible leaching of materials into the bloodstream but also the risk of blockage, which keeps animals from eating normal food, extracting nutrition, and eliminating waste. Another option are bioplastics, which are actually created from renewal biomass sources such as vegetable oil and corn starch (normal plastics are derived from petroleum based sources).

So the jury is still out on what to do, but clearly the process begins with each of us, including limiting our plastic (e.g., less bottles of water and soda), recycling, and not tossing out trash into the environment.

Fake "Experts" Touted by Climate Denialists (A Series): Paul Chesser

"Paul Chesser is a special correspondent for The Heartland Institute."

That in itself should immediately bring into question Mr. Chesser's ability to speak independently on climate change issues. After all, The Heartland Institute is a free market lobbying organization whose stated mission is:

The mission of The Heartland Institute is to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

Their entire reason for being is to help their members avoid what they see as excessive regulation. So what is their interest in climate science? Well, policy remedies being discussed to deal with the global scientific consensus that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are significantly contributing to climate change, a dramatic and perhaps irreversible disruption of the natural balance of the earth that sustains us all. Since most policy options would require additional regulation, and Heartland's mission to limit regulation, they made a strategic decision to deny the science. Don't like the cure, so deny the disease.

So where does Mr. Chesser fit in? Chesser is basically a Heartland hired propagandist. He has no scientific training at all, never mind in climate science. He's just there to be a new name since so many of the other skeptics Heartland puts forth have lost credibility (or never had it). Chesser bills himself as the Director of Climate Strategies Watch, which itself admits is a web site dedicated to "exposing stealth environmental advocacy by the Center for Climate Strategies and scrutinizing global warming policy in the States." In other words, their sole purpose for existence is to do a hatchet job on CCS and write propaganda articles for Heartland.

Why would he do that? Well, because the Heartland Institute told him to do that. Climate Strategies Watch admits that it is nothing more than "A joint project of the John Locke Foundation, The Heartland Institute and the Better Government Project. Like Heartland, the John Locke Foundation is a libertarian, free market think tank and lobbying group. The Better Government Project is a made-up web site name that as of this date existed only as a one-page (actually, one-paragraph) web site (it's part of a network of fake organizations set up by Heartland to make it look like there is more dissent than there really is).

Back to Mr. Chesser. According to his bio on the John Locke Foundation web site, he's kind of a freelance writer/blogger whose only other background experience is working as an accountant. No climate expertise. Not even any science expertise. Just writing for hire.

Which, of course, is why he was hired by Heartland to write and post on denialist blogs.

Rule number one. Consider the credibility of the source.

More climate related articles.

The Natural Fix?: The Role of Ecosystems in Climate Mitigation

The title of this post is also the title of a new report from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). The bottom line = The ability of the Earth's living systems to store carbon could play a vital role in the mitigation of climate change. The report, a PDF of which can be downloaded from here, suggests that safeguarding and restoring carbon in ecosystems has the potential to prevent huge amounts of carbon entering the atmosphere - some estimates say well over 50 gigatonnes (Gt).

The three priority ecosystems for carbon conservation and management are forests, peatlands and agriculture. For example, reducing deforestation rates by 50 per cent by 2050 could avoid the release of up to 50 Gt of carbon this century. Emissions from deforestation are equivalent to about 15 per cent of the total global anthropogenic carbon emissions. Similarly, the draining of peatland for agricultural land and other land uses emits up to 0.8 Gt of carbon a year. And in agriculture, if best management practices were adopted it could save up to 6 Gt of CO2 equivalent per year by 2030.

The report suggests that the management of carbon storage and uptake is achievable if the right policy framework is in place. It suggests we need to change our perception of the natural world from an offset mechanism, though the authors do note that there is some uncertainty about the amounts of carbon that can be sequestered and that all stores could eventually reach saturation.

See the report here. As I've reported before, we have to start finding solutions to climate change.

Green Businesses Now Generate More Revenue Than the Aerospace and Defense Sectors Combined

That's right. It pays to be green. According to a story by Fiona Harvey published in the September 18, 2009 Financial Times (the London version of the Wall Street Journal), "[b]usinesses selling low-carbon goods and services now generate more revenue than the aerospace and defence sectors combined, making the sector one of the new linchpins of the global economy."

And that global turnover reached $534bn for "companies in the climate change sector - including renewable-power generators, nuclear, energy management, water and waste companies," versus about $530bn total for the other two sectors. And the numbers are increasing at rates far beyond the initial predictions, which hadn't figured on reaching this level until 2050.

So it seems the smart and innovative money is on the low carbon industry. Guess those climate change denialists are going to lose out on the big bucks.

Read Fiona Harvey's full article here.

Scientist Norman Borlaug, "Father of the Green Revolution," Has Died

The man known as the "father of the green revolution," agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug, has died at the age of 95.

Many probably have never heard of Norman Borlaug, but he arguably did more to increase crop yields and reduce hunger in developing countries than any other individual. His research and activism in bringing the benefits of that research direct to the farmers both here and abroad led to a movement that came to be known as the "green revolution." And because of it, world food production more than doubled in the thirty years between 1960 and 1990. In two countries that benefited most from the new crop varieties, Pakistan and India, yields of wheat and other grains more than quadrupled over that period.

While most scientists toil without recognition for most of their careers, Borlaug was one of only five people who have won all of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. To that he can add the Padma Vibhushan, which is awarded by the President of India to "recognize exceptional and distinguished service to the nation in any field..." According to his Wiki article, Borlaug's discoveries have been estimated to have saved over 245 million lives worldwide (others estimate the green revolution averted global famine during the second half of the 20th century, which saved perhaps 1 billion lives worldwide). His work in India and Mexico are well known in agricultural, scientific, and humanitarian circles.

Needless to say, with an impact that large there were also criticisms. The green revolution, and Borlaug's programs involving genetic cross-breeding of plant species, were seen by some as being unnatural. In addition, large scale monocultures (picture a large expanse of wheat or corn fields) tend to reduce biodiversity, in addition to often increasing the amount of pesticides and fertilizers used, which can be damaging to the top soil and the subsistence farming of rural families in under-developed areas. Another concern is that these techniques create large profits for agribusiness and agrichemical corporations while widening social inequality in the recipient countries. While these concerns may be valid, Borlaug felt that keeping people from starving more than compensated for any of these drawbacks.

Scientists who speak out for the science (even if it's just to correct the misrepresentations that others make of that science), are sometimes looked on with disdain both by those for whom the science is ideologically inconvenient and by pure scientists who feel the scientist should remain in the lab and let others handle policy. Borlaug had a different philosophy. According to a wonderful article just published about him:

Equal parts scientist and humanitarian, the Iowa-born Borlaug realized improved crop varieties were just part of the answer, and pressed governments for farmer-friendly economic policies and improved infrastructure to make markets accessible.

We should remember that without scientists informing our policy-makers, our rivers would still be catching fire, our neighborhoods would still be exposing us to toxic waste, our country would have never made it to the moon, our air would still be thick enough to see (and kill), and our existence and that of many other species on this planet would come into question.

Should all sushi be banned to save the bluefin tuna? The EU thinks so!

Okay, technically the European Union isn't saying that sushi should be banned. But the EU has recommended listing bluefin tuna as an endangered species. And that could eventually mean that trade of the tuna most used in sushi does get banned. Which means we might all have to live with eating eel.

Most marine scientists agree that many fish species are severely over-fished. This had led to stocks so low that populations are no longer sustainable. Scientific advisors to the EU this week warned EU ministers of collapsing stocks of bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean Sea and the larger Atlantic Ocean. And with the EU behind banning trade of the delectable fish, it is highly likely that the same will happen next March at the next CITES meeting. For those who aren't familiar with it, CITES stands for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and is an international agreement between governments. According to its web site, its "aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival."

Not everyone agrees, of course. It should come as no surprise that Japan is actively lobbying to keep the current restrictions in place. These restrictions are much less onerous, something obviously more to the liking of a country that imports about 80% of the bluefin tuna retrieved in waters of the EU (not to mention elsewhere). Spain, Italy and Malta, all with large bluefin fisheries, are also not happy with the idea of any restrictions. On the flip side, several EU members, including France, the UK and the Netherlands, have publicly supported ending or suspending the fishing of bluefin tuna. In the end, the EU, however, votes as a block at CITES - fully 25% of the votes - so it is difficult for any one country to overturn a ban.

The EU’s position isn't final though, and may be revised pending additional information related to ongoing conservation efforts due later this year. And while the environmental unit of the Commission is strongly in favor of a complete ban, the Commission's fisheries unit is not keen on introducing additional regulation that could hurt the EU's fishing industry. Some argue that if the conservation efforts solve the over-fishing problem, a complete trade ban might not be necessary. In any case, the decision will be made in March 2010.

According to the European Commission's position paper, “[f]rom a scientific and technical point of view, the criteria for the listing of Atlantic bluefin tuna [as an endangered species] appear to be met...There is no doubt about the link between international trade and overexploitation of the species.”

Given my own marine fisheries experience, sometimes you have to just say no to fishing.

Schwarzenegger's Climate Summit Bags Some White House Staff

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will reprise the tradition he started last year and host the second annual “Governors' Global Climate Summit 2” in Los Angeles from September 30 to October 3, 2009. This year he will boast some representatives from the current Administration in Washington, DC. The summit is being held in partnership with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairwoman Nancy Sutley are expected to attend. Jackson will be keynote speaker. Joining them are expected to be UNICEF Executive Director Ann Veneman, UN Assistant Secretary-General Olav Kjørven, journalist and author Thomas Friedman (Hot, Flat and Crowded), and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

This second annual summit is being co-hosted by Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D), Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D), New York Gov. David Paterson (D) and Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell (R). Doyle also co-hosted last year's event, but the others are new as the other 2008 sponsors have moved on (Florida's Governor Crist to a run for a Senate seat, Kansas Governor Sebelius to Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Illinois Governor Blagojevich to talk radio [and perhaps jail])

The summit in part aims to gain UN recognition for so-called “sub-national” agreements between states and developing countries meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Featured discussions and announcements at the summit are expected to include: reaching a new global deal in Copenhagen; the essential role of progressive states and provinces; urban area contributions and solutions to climate change; forestry solutions and recommendations to negotiators in Copenhagen; global strategies to address the inevitable impacts of climate change; and climate leadership in driving technological innovation and economic growth.

Is the agency charged with ensuring chemical safety running out of money?

Chemicals are on everyone's mind these days, it seems. In the US there is talk of "reforming TSCA," the chemical control law that has been in force for over 30 years. In Canada they are prioritizing chemicals for further review. And in Europe, the chemicals agency created to manage the REACH process is struggling to keep its roughly $30 million a year budget.

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which is based in Helsinki, Finland, is tasked with managing the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) program. The problem is that its funding is dependent on registration fees that haven't started coming in yet. So to help fund it the European Union member states agreed to provide up front money, but due to the worldwide recession states are trying to cut back everywhere they can. And that might include ECHA.

Last year companies who manufacture or important chemicals in quantities of one tonne or more were required to "pre-register" their intent to keep the chemicals on the market. Pre-registration, which ended December 1, 2008, was free to companies, which meant no funds to ECHA. Registration fees vary by tonnage produced but can range up to around $70,000 per chemical and per legal entity. Given that many companies have several legal entities in Europe (e.g., different affiliates manufacturing the chemical in France, Germany and Italy, each one considered a legal entity), the fees going to ECHA can be large per chemical. While ECHA expected about 300,000 pre-registrations, the actual number was on the order of 2.7 million. So ECHA should be well-funded to handle the registrations once they come in.

But what about the period until then. The first registration deadline (for high quantity or more hazardous chemicals) isn't until November 30, 2010, and most of the pre-registered chemicals are slated for later deadlines. So until then ECHA is running on borrowed money, which according to ECHA's Executive Director, Geert Dancet, is barely sufficient to hire and train the needed staff (and get them to move to Finland).

All is not lost, as the European parliament’s environment committee voted recently to maintain ECHA’s annual budget, but this must still be approved by two other committees and the full Parliament. Dancet is relatively confident that he will get full funding for another year, just long enough for the large numbers of registration fees expected to arrive in mid 2010 as companies finish compiling the vast amounts of data needed to support the safety of their chemicals.

Our Floating Plastics Legacy

At a recent meeting of the American Chemical Society, the worlds largest professional scientific society, a researcher from Japan presented a paper demonstrating that plastics floating in the ocean break down faster than expected. Previously it was thought that plastics broke down very slowly (hundreds of years) and at very high temperatures.

Normally we like chemicals that break down, that is, degrade into smaller chemicals and eventually (hopefully) into carbon dioxide and water. But the study by Dr. Katsuhiko Saido of Nihon University suggests that when the plastics break down they release contaminants - some of them potentially very toxic.

The problem is more urgent because the oceans are now filled with plastic, which the New York Times called in a recent editorial, "...an amorphous, floating mass of waste plastic trapped in a gyre of currents..." Dr. Saido reports that these floating masses of plastic are releasing similar contaminants in seawater samples collected near Malaysia and the Pacific Northwest in addition to the northern Pacific between Hawaii and Japan. The northern Pacific patch is estimated to be on the order of twice the size of the state of Texas and may contain as much as 100 million tons of plastic debris.

Since plastic waste has long been known to trap up to a million seabirds every year and some 100,000 marine mammals, the discovery that degradation of the plastic releases contaminants is an added concern.

A video of the north Pacific gyre and plastic can be seen here.

[Note: Photograph by René Ehrhardt: attribution license]