26 States to Consider Toxic Chemicals Legislation in 2013

As TSCA reform enters another year without any resolution, at least 26 states are considering action to enhance protection of public health and the environment from exposure to chemicals. According to the advocacy coalition, Safer States:

In 2013, we expect at least 26 states to consider legislation and policy changes that will:

• Restrict or label the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in receipts, children's products and food packaging.
• Require removal of certain toxic flame retardants from children's products, home furniture or building materials.
• Change disclosure rules so that concerned consumers will have a way to identify toxic chemicals in products.
• Encourage manufacturers to remove identified toxic chemicals in favor of safer alternatives.
• Ban cadmium, a dangerous, persistent metal that is often found in inexpensive children's jewelry.
• Ban formaldehyde from cosmetics and children's products.
• Promote green cleaning products in schools.

Safer States states that "We believe families, communities, and the environment should be protected from the devastating impacts of our society’s heavy use of chemicals. We believe that new state and national chemical policies will contribute to the formation of a cleaner, greener economy." They have also been highly critical of industry, reporting on what it sees as misplaced priorities "inside the toxic chemical industry."

So state efforts continue. At the federal level, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg has indicated that he will reintroduce his Safer Chemicals Act. The SCA was passed out of committee last year but never came to the Senate floor for debate or vote. The committee-passed version includes substantial changes from the original bill, including many adjustments to take into consideration concerns expressed by industry. Still, industry widely denounced the bill as unworkable, a position that Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund and Andy Igrejas of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families have asserted is disingenuous at best. Industry is, however, reportedly working with Republican Senator David Vitter on what is effectively an industry-sponsored bill. It is unclear when or if Vitter's bill will be introduced, but any such bill would at least provide a counter-position to that of Lautenberg and offer opportunity for substantive debate.

EDF Questions Independence of TERA Kids Chemical Safety Site

Recently, the Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA) non-profit group teamed up with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and others to initiate a website called Kids + Chemical Safety. The site purports to provide "up-to-date health information on chemical hazards and chemical safe use in children." Its tagline is "+ Balanced, scientifically accurate chemical health information." Scientist Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), however, questions TERA's independence.

After pointing out that being a non-profit "does not conflate to, or somehow confer the right to claim, objectivity or independence" (noting that the NRA and EDF itself are non-profits but have a clear perspective on the issues they address), Denison goes on to suggest that the site is not what it seems.

Denison categorizes the topics of the website into two groups: 1) those that are "largely outside of the vested interests of the site's most prominent sponsor" (i.e., ACC), and 2) those that "fall squarely within those vested interests." Denison argues that those two categories "are treated very differently on the website." I'll leave it to you to read his arguments and determine whether his case is valid.

The issue that the website and Denison's counterpoint raises is really about how the public gets its information on the health and safety of products on the market. Ideally all products would have been proven safe to the extent such a proof is possible, with the information from the multiple studies involved synthesized and presented in language both trustworthy and easy to understand by the general public. But this is rarely the case.

Part of this is because science is messy. It doesn't always give us an easy and definitive answer. More comprehensive pre-market testing would help, but in many cases there is no way to prove a negative, i.e., that actual use might result in some unforeseen hazard. We're probably stuck with that uncertainty, though we clearly can do more to reduce it. 

But part of the communication problem is also because the public has learned to distrust the information that is being presented to it. Independent sites could be a good way to build trust, as scientifically accurate information is distilled into something we can all understand. That requires true independence. Unfortunately, too many "grassroots" public information campaigns have turned out to be "astroturf," i.e., they may look real from a distance but are revealed to be fake upon closer inspection. It is small wonder that the public has developed a cynical attitude toward the information it receives.

Clearly Richard Denison feels the new TERA site, in part supported by the chemical industry, does not adequately achieve the independence needed to inspire the public's confidence.

Again, please read Denison's argument before deciding if he makes his case. But also think about how data can be presented in a way that can be both trustworthy and useful. After all, the goal is to inform the public - first, to ensure reasonable protection of their health and safety, and second, to avoid the irrational fear of the unknown caused by lack of reliable and dependable information.

Industry Groups Say Safe Chemical Act Does Not Include Republican Input

On Monday the Environmental Defense Fund issued a summary of the main provisions of the Safe Chemicals Act and how they "fulfill every detail" of the Industry "10 Principles" for TSCA reform as put forth by the American Chemistry Council. On Tuesday Industry addressed a letter to the Senate disagreeing with that contention, though not specifically rebutting it. The letter was signed by 69 chemical organizations representing "each step in the supply chain."

The basic premise of the letter is that Republican member input was not fully considered in the present Safe Chemicals Act passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee late last month. The letter notes that "attempts have been made to characterize the current version of S. 847 as a compromise bill that could gain the support of Republicans and industry." The letter goes on to say that "this is not the case for the bill in its current form."

The industry letter confirms that industry "wholeheartedly support the continuation of a bipartisan process to discuss the right concepts needed in legislation to effectively reform the [EPA's] ability to regulate chemicals." Industry does not, however, believe that the current bill accomplishes this goal.

Now that the bill has been passed out of Committee it becomes eligible for a full debate of its merits on the Senate floor by all members of the Senate. Democrats in the Senate have indicated that they are more than willing to bring the bill up for debate, so it would seem that Industry and their Republican representatives in the Senate will have the opportunity to publicly present their views on what they agree with in the bill and what they do not agree with, along with solutions. Given that all stakeholders - Industry, NGOs, public health and environmental advocacy groups, parent groups, EPA and others - have agreed that TSCA needs to be reformed, it seems that the Safe Chemicals Act bill gives all parties the opportunity to move toward that goal.

The EDF comparison between the Safe Chemical Act and ACC "10 principles" can be viewed here.

The ACC "10 principles" document can be viewed here.

Further information on ACC's position on TSCA reform can be viewed on their web site.

New Safe Chemicals Act "fulfills every detail" of Industry's principles for moderning TSCA

Dr. Richard Denison, Senior Scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), has "developed a detailed 8-page table that shows, side by side, the principles and the new version of the Safe Chemicals Act, with citations to each specific provision of the Act." The principles in question are the "10 Principles for Modernizing TSCA" issued by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the major trade association for the chemical industry.

According to Dr. Denison, "the alignment is strong" between the "10 Principles" and the provisions in the Safe Chemicals Act proposed by Senator Frank Lautenberg and passed by vote out of committee for discussion and vote in the full Senate. The ACC statement issued following the committee vote indicated that "after a cursory review, we believe the bill is still fundamentally flawed in many critical areas." However, Dr. Denison notes that:

The changes made to the Safe Chemicals Act specifically reflected the input received from all stakeholders, including the converging views that have emerged from several industry-NGO dialogues held over the past 18 months.

He thus reaches the conclusion that "ACC’s complaints are more about politics than about substance."

Denison has provided a PDF link to his side-by-side table that details his comparison of the bill's provisions versus the ACC "10 Principles."


The full blog article by Dr. Denison can be read here.

REACH Won't Work for TSCA Reform, Says Industry Based on Indiana Report

The US chemical industry is pointing to a new academic report as proof that the European REACH chemical management system is not a good fit for implementing in the US.  The report from Indiana University comes while Congress has effectively punted on pursuing reform of the 35 year old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

The full report, for preparation of which the authors acknowledge receiving "unrestricted financial support from the American Chemistry Council, Dow, and DuPont," presents information about REACH and offers the following five findings:


FINDING #1: U.S. Policymakers Should Consider Simplifications of the REACH program.

FINDING #2: If a REACH-like system is adopted in the United States, more public disclosure of safety-related information and opportunities for public participation should be provided.

FINDING #3: In considering how to streamline REACH for application in the United States, more focus should be on priority-setting based on risk and the opportunity to reduce risks to human health and the environment.

FINDING #4: Since some of the frustration and burden in the early years of REACH implementation has been linked to ambiguity in program design, a REACH-like system in the United States should provide clarification about critical standards, processes, and tools.

FINDING #5: If the United States chooses to adopt a REACH-like system of registration, unnecessary burdens on industry can be lessened by allowing for mutual, cross-Atlantic recognition of registration dossiers.

The full report can be downloaded as a PDF file here.

ACC's Chemical Prioritization Tool - EDFs Analysis is One Thumb Up, One Thumb Down

Last week I reported on an analysis of the EPA's proposed chemical prioritization tool done by Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).  Today I report on Denison's follow up analysis on the counter-proposal prioritization scheme released by the American Chemistry Council the day prior to EPA's webinar.  I'll start with Denison's conclusion:

"While ACC’s tool has some serious flaws and is not something that EPA has the authority or resources to utilize under current TSCA, ACC has put forth a serious proposal for prioritization that should help to raise the level of debate over this critical issue in TSCA reform."

As suggested, Denison notes that the ACC proposal offers some "refreshing elements and acknowledgements."  He describes it as "substantive and specific" and is "welcome in several ways."  He goes on to summarize some of the areas he feels are constructive (see his full blog entry).  Notwithstanding these kudos, however, Denison does suggest that ACC's proposal seems better suited for a full TSCA Reform element and that implementation of the ACC plan is not likely to be possible under the current (and likely future) resource and funding constraints limiting EPA's activities.


Denison finds that there are "a number of quite problematic aspects of ACC's proposal," including:

• Overly rigid rules applied in lockstep: Denison finds ACC's proposed "equal basis" rule to be "sleight of hand" that will "rule out any types of information that may indicate a hazard or exposure of high concern unless it has been measured across basically all chemicals subject to prioritization."  The "high hazard and high exposure" rule would allow prioritization of only those chemicals "for which high hazard and high exposure can be demonstrated;" a proposal that Denison finds to be "simply shortsighted." He also critiques ACC's "persistent and bioaccumulative" rule, which he finds includes "extremely narrow definitions of P and B" that would avoid prioritizing chemicals that would in fact be either P or B (or both).
• Consistent use of the least conservative classification values: Denison points out that the ACC proposal relies on the classification criteria developed under GHS, which he generally supports.  However, he does quibble with what he feels are two limitations - GHS doesn't include every endpoint of concern and ACC chooses the least conservative values instead of adhering to GHS' cutoff values faithfully.  A choice where Denison feels "ACC fails badly."
• Over-relying on limited exposure information and discounting evidence of hazard: Denison notes that ACC's tool lumps together its health and environmental hazard rankings into a single score while combining scores for its three exposure elements, which "means that a chemical that harms both people and other organisms only gets counted once, while a chemical that is low-volume and used only as an intermediate and is not P or B gets credit for being of low concern for all three attributes."  The way the tool handles hazard vs exposure rankings also is likely to skew the results such as to avoid prioritization for chemicals that could indeed be problematic.

Despite these significant critiques, Denison feels that the ACC prioritization tool is a good effort and a basis for informed debate as the process moves forward.  Combined with his previous critique of the EPA prioritization proposal, there clearly is a path forward for enhancing chemical regulation and improving protection of the environment and human health.  But will it happen?

Avoiding Paralysis by Analysis - EDF's Analysis of the EPA TSCA Chemical Prioritization Proposal

Last week the USEPA held a webinar to introduce their proposal for how they will attempt to prioritize TSCA chemicals for closer assessment.  One day prior to the webinar the ACC announced its own competing prioritization scheme. Earlier this week, Environmental Defense Fund Senior Scientist Richard Denison offered his views on the EPA scheme, which he called "a sensible approach to identifying chemicals of concern." [Note: Denison will be addressing the ACC proposal in a following post on the EDF web site.]

The "paralysis by analysis" noted to in the title refers to the futility of asking EPA to evaluate the entire TSCA Inventory akin to the Canadian approach.  The Canadian approach was actually "mandated by statute" (via the 1999 amendments to the CEPA) and both Environment Canada and Health Canada were given "seven years and a major infusion of new resources" just to complete the first phase of the process.  According to Denison, with nearly four times as many chemicals on the Inventory, and "without the authority and the resources, well, that's just a recipe for paralysis by analysis" to ask EPA to do the same. 

Which is why the EPA proposal is so reasonable, according to Denison.  He indicates that EDF and the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition "generally support EPA's approach and believe it strikes the right balance between clarity and transparency and avoiding paralysis by analysis."  Denison does, however, offer a series of 10 additional suggestions for improving the EPA proposal.  The full list can be seen on the EDF blog page, but include broadening the sources of data specified in Step 1 (perhaps by including some of the source from Step 2), consideration of the published literature, adding specific criteria for children's health and exposure, expanding the range of "vulnerable subpopulations" beyond just children's health, and providing additional clarity on how EPA plans to move from Step 1 to Step 2.

Overall, Denison finds that the attempts by EPA to reintroduce "action" into their proposed prioritization and action plan process are much needed.  He welcomes EPA looking at chemicals in commerce to identify those for which it would be prudent to take a closer look at their potential risk.  And with the additional actions suggested, he believes that it is a good step in the right direction.

To read EDF's analysis and the full list of suggestions, see Richard Denison's blog entry for September 13, 2011.

ACC Proposes TSCA Prioritization Tool to Improve Chemical Review Process

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade association representing many large chemical manufacturers, has proposed a new prioritization tool "to increase effectiveness of EPA's chemical review process."  The press release comes in a preemptive strike a day before EPA holds a webinar in which it will describe its own proposal for prioritizing chemicals.

ACC states that "EPA does not have a systematic way to determine which chemical uses need further characterization" and worries that "EPA may be wasting time, energy and resources gathering additional information on already well-understood chemicals."  According to their fact sheet and an accompanying powerpoint presentation, ACC's prioritization tool "would be administered by EPA" to:

• Evaluate chemicals against transparent, consistent, scientifically-based criteria focused on the hazard associated with the chemical, how the chemical is used and how people or the environment are exposed to the chemical;
• Ascribe a score based on the criteria;
• Rank order chemicals based on their scores and the professional judgment of EPA officials; 
• Utilize the rankings to determine which chemicals should be given full risk assessments

Individual criteria for ranking chemicals would include human health hazards (e.g., carcinogenicity or reproductive/developmental toxicity), potential environmental effects, the industrial, commercial and consumer uses, persistence and bioaccumulation potential, production volume, and other factors such as use in children's products or detected in biomonitoring programs.

EPA's prioritization scheme to be discussed tomorrow (September 7, 2011) differs significantly from the ACC plan.  ACC has clear scoring criteria for all chemicals where the EPA plan relies more on prior listings of chemicals by other regulatory bodies.  ACC's plan also gives greater weight to potential exposure (i.e., focus on risk) whereas EPA's plan would rely more on hazard for at least its first steps.

More information on the ACC prioritization proposal can be found on their TSCA prioritization page, including links to criteria documents, presentation and background information.

Industry Reaction to Lautenberg's Latest Iteration of Safe Chemicals Act

Last week I noted that Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced his Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, which is an updated version of the bill he introduced in the last Congress.  It incorporates much of the feedback received from a wide variety of stakeholders last year.  On Tuesday I provided some of the initial reactions from NGOs, most notably from Richard Denison of EDF.  Denison hoped that this bill would be a starting point for serious discussions that would lead to modernization of the 35-year old TSCA law.  Today I note some of the industry reactions to Lautenberg's bill.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents most of the largest chemical manufacturers in the country, offered a mixed early reaction.  According to ACC President Cal Dooley:

ACC supported many of the goals and objectives of the senator's legislation in the last Congress, but his earlier proposal was inconsistent with the principles that we have set out for a successful TSCA modernization in several important respects. Further, the bill contained provisions that would not have produced the benefits intended by its authors. Unfortunately, it appears many of our concerns have not been addressed in this new version, and the bill introduced today could put American innovation and jobs at risk.

The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) also felt that the bill was an improvement but that it still left many concerns unanswered.  According to CSPA President Chris Cathcart:

The new bill introduced today moves in the right direction as it seeks to adopt important concepts of prioritization and tiered minimum data set requirements.  These two elements, along with the preservation of a risk based system, are essential components of any workable regulatory framework under TSCA.  However, we remain concerned about other sections of the bill, including its approach on Reporting and Declarations, the protection of confidential business information (CBI) and the safety standard. A bi-partisan dialogue can resolve these issues.

The industry/free market advocacy group American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) made no pretense of liking parts of the bill, with its President Elizabeth Whelan asserting:

This law is based on the premise that trace level exposure to chemicals is hazardous to health. Sen. Lautenberg is trying to ‘protect’ us from these chemicals, but there’s absolutely no evidence they have harmed humans or the environment.

The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) seemed more concerned over the bills impact on the economy than health and safety.  According to NPRA President Charles Drevna:

NPRA acknowledges Senator Lautenberg's efforts to exclude chemical mixtures from certain requirements and to incorporate some risk-based parameters into the proposed regulatory process. The draft bill, however, would give EPA unprecedented authority over the American economy, allowing the agency to make decisions on what materials can and cannot be used in manufacturing without requiring scientific justification for those decisions. The bill would also give EPA greater authority to force companies to spend enormous sums of money on animal testing, regardless of the likelihood or extent of potential human exposure to particular materials. 

So what next? It seems that both NGOs and industry see improvement over last year's version of Lautenberg's bill, but will there be a willingness to move forward on the common ground established in an effort to actually put a TSCA reform bill into law?

The ball is in the middle of the court.  Now we have to wait to see if any team wants to show up and play.

Industry Association and Environmental NGO Reactions to Senate Greenhouse Gas Vote - Did They See the Same Vote?

As noted yesterday there were four votes in the Senate on amendments related to climate science.  Senate Democrats narrowly "defeated a Republican effort to ban the Environmental Protection Agency from controlling the gases blamed for global warming." Despite the unlikelihood of it ever becoming law, according to the Washington Post, "the Republican-led House moved Thursday to take away the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases in a vote largely negated by Senate action a day earlier to reject such a repeal." 


Industry and the environmental NGOs had predictably different reactions to the votes.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade association representing most of the large chemical manufacturers, many of who are impacted by the Clean Air Act mandate for EPA to regulate pollutants, "welcomed signs of growing support in Congress for stopping the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations for stationary sources."  According to their press release:

“We are encouraged by these votes, which signal growing momentum toward stopping EPA’s GHG regulations,” said Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council. “Lawmakers from both parties agree this is a critical issue for the country, economic recovery and protecting American jobs. Congress must stop EPA so that business growth and hiring can continue.”

The NGO Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) had a different take on the votes. In EDF's press release, Tony Kreindler accused Congressional Republicans of attempting "to unravel public health protections under the Clean Air Act," and noted that "the amendments are a prelude to further attempts to weaken public health protections as the budget debate continues."  Further:

"Today's votes were an unprecedented assault on public health protections under the Clean Air Act. In 40 years we've never faced such a brazen attempt to rollback air quality standards," said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund. "It remains to be seen which Senators will continue to side with clean air and who will vote to go backward."

Clearly industry and NGOs see this differently.

Chemical Industry Calls for Improvements to US Regulatory System

Representatives from the chemical industry called on Congress to improve the federal regulatory system," including a requirement for cumulative impact assessments of proposed rules, to protect U.S. innovation, investment and jobs."  Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight & Government Spending (yes, it's a long title), American Chemistry Council (ACC) Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs Michael Walls noted:

"If manufacturing is to make a significant contribution to economic recovery, including the creation and maintenance of well-paying jobs, it is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of the impact of proposed regulations on industry.  The full regulatory burden for a particular sector can only be known if the cumulative impact of overlapping regulations is identified."

In particular, Walls indicated that industry felt “the lack of cumulative impact assessments is a fundamental shortcoming in the way government agencies develop and evaluate proposed rules.”  According to the ACC press release, Walls offered four recommendations to improve the economic analysis of proposed rules:

1. Conduct cumulative impact assessments to identify the full regulatory burden being created by a proposed rule.
2. Track the sectors affected by new regulations so the most heavily regulated sectors can be easily identified and regulations can be streamlined appropriately.
3. Seek input from the businesses that will be affected before developing rules in order to better understand the effects that a potential rule may have.
4. Conduct a more comprehensive analysis of the impact of a proposed rule on jobs that considers the type and quality of jobs being affected.  

More information, including Walls' testimony (PDF), can be found on the ACC web site.

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.

2011 - International Year of Chemistry

For some reason I thought of Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery as I typed the title of this post.  In any case, 2011 has been officially declared the International Year of Chemistry by the UN General Assembly and led by IUPAC, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, and UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.  The main goals are to "increase the public appreciation of chemistry in meeting world needs, to encourage interest in chemistry among young people, and to generate enthusiasm for the creative future of chemistry. According to their web site:

The International Year of Chemistry 2011 (IYC 2011) is a worldwide celebration of the achievements of chemistry and its contributions to the well-being of humankind. Under the unifying theme “Chemistry—our life, our future,” IYC 2011 will offer a range of interactive, entertaining, and educational activities for all ages. The Year of Chemistry is intended to reach across the globe, with opportunities for public participation at the local, regional, and national level.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents much of the chemical industry in the United States, issued a press release in support of IYC 2011.  ACC said:

“Chemistry—our life, our future,” is the slogan of IYC 2011. During the year, a global chemistry experiment will be performed by many thousands of school children across the world, potentially becoming the biggest chemical experiment ever conducted.  Under the theme, “Water: A Chemical Solution,” students will focus on modules that examine the properties of their local water and the technological solutions chemistry makes available to humanity in supplying clean drinking water.  The global experiment will promote the goals of the IYC, including generating enthusiasm for science among young people around the world.

Experiment modules can be carried out by children of all ages in schools across all continents because they are adaptable to the skills and interests of students, and use equipment that is widely available at little or no cost.  Results will be electronically showcased as an interactive global data map at the end of 2011, demonstrating the value of international cooperation in science.

Besides the goals stated above, IYC 2011 will celebrate the 100th anniversary of Madame Curie’s Nobel Prize and the founding of the International Association of Chemical Societies.

More information on events and how you can get involved are on their web site at www.chemistry2011.org.

New book attacks the chemical industry as "The Polluters"

A new book by Benjamin Ross and Steven Amter apparently pulls no punches in attacking the chemical industry for lobbying to inhibit regulations of toxic substances.  I have not read this book, so for more information please see the Washington Post book review by Seth Shulman.  The title is "The Polluters: The Making of Our Chemically Altered Environment" and is available at Amazon.com.

Based on the review, it appears to be reminiscent of two other recent books, "Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens your Health" (by David Michaels), and "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.  Both borrow the famous phrase from a former tobacco executive for their titles, and both accuse various industry's trade associations and individual companies of hiding the truth to protect corporate profits.

The Shulman review includes the following regarding the industry's lobbying role:

Some parts of the story are wrenchingly familiar. Just as tobacco executives twisted the science and strove to manufacture uncertainty about the dangers of their products even when fully aware of them, so did the chemical industry undertake a similar campaign through its main lobbying arm, the Manufacturing Chemists Association (now the Chemical Manufacturers Association).

It's unclear whether Mr. Shulman wrote that or if it is extracted from the book, but the Chemical Manufacturers Association is no longer in existence, at least by that name, as it has been called the American Chemistry Council for the last 10 years.  Hopefully the rest of the book is more up to date.

In any case, the book's authors are scheduled to appear at the National Book Festival being held on the Smithsonian Mall on Saturday, September 25th.

Getting TSCA Chemical Reform Right - Are We Close?

What’s important is that we do it right. With 96 percent of all manufactured goods touched by chemistry, any new law must protect public safety without destroying jobs or America’s ability to continue leading the world in innovation.

Such are the words of Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, one of the leading trade associations representing the chemical industry.  Dooley, who is a former Congressman so knows how the political process works, was responding to an editorial in the Las Vegas Sun. The editorial supported the idea that chemicals on the market should be tested to "ensure product safety."  The paper asserted that "manufacturers can simply refuse to test their chemicals, allowing them to claim that they do not have information on toxicity or cancer-causing potential."

Dooley took exception to some of what the editorial said, saying that the editorial "significantly exaggerates the state of the nation’s product safety regulations, serving to confuse rather than inform your readers."  He agrees that the current TSCA law "needs to be updated," and reminded the Sun that the American Chemistry Council "has been participating in the public discussion of this for the past two years."

Yesterday I mentioned that "jobs" had become a new catchword for TSCA reform.  In his letter to the editor, Dooley noted that "in Nevada alone, our industry contributes to over 2,000 direct jobs, and for every chemical industry job, an additional 1.7 jobs are created within the state’s economy. With an unemployment rate at an astounding 14.2 percent, Nevadans should look carefully at any new regulation that might affect their jobs, and not just accept proposals at face value."

The key to all of this is getting TSCA reform right.  Advocacy groups want all chemicals to be tested; industry wants to have a focused, prioritized testing regime that is more manageable for both them and EPA.  They rightly point to the massive ongoing REACH effort, including the creation of an entirely new chemicals agency to handle the receipt of tens of thousands of data dossiers. Given that EPA is unlikely to get that kind of new funding, a more workable solution that provides data on the most toxic and/or most widely used chemicals is probably closer to being "doable."

Industry Reaction to the House Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010

As noted in my posts over the last few days, Representatives Waxman and Rush formally introduced their Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010.  Initial reactions have been offered by various stakeholders.  Given that all were released before anyone really had a chance to review the bill, they not unsurprisingly reflect the prior positions developed following the discussion draft.

Industry's reaction was mixed and somewhat noncommittal.  The American Chemistry Council, which represents many of the largest manufacturers of chemicals, issued a statement noting that the bill "is a step toward modernization of the nation’s chemical safety laws," but also suggesting that "more effort will be required to develop legislation that protects consumer safety, preserves America’s position as a leading innovator and safeguards American jobs."  The National Association of Manufacturers were more direct in stating their dislike for the bill, stating "“manufacturers are concerned with the direction taken in the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act.  In its current form, the bill hurts manufacturers’ ability to innovate and remain competitive in a global marketplace.  It dramatically expands the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority over every sector of our nation’s economy, sets unrealistic standards and timeframes and puts unnecessary burdens on manufacturers with new and inconsistent statutory requirements."   Similarly, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, which represents many smaller and specialty manufacturers, states that the legislation would significantly hamper innovation and impose stringent regulatory burdens on batch, specialty and custom chemical manufacturers - particularly small and mid-sized companies."

No one should be surprised that industry organizations, which had largely indicated support for the modernization of TSCA for the greater part of the last year or two, would express misgivings about the bills when finally introduced.  Obviously after 34-years under the old system, there is hesitancy to jump into something new too fast.  Especially when it could be a significant burden on their memberships.  Given the reaction from industry this would seem to be the final nail in the coffin for passing TSCA reform legislation in this Congress.  With only a handful of legislative days left in the session and a likely rather eventful mid-term election, clearly industry and the minority party in Congress have no incentive or desire to rush a comprehensive bill to passage.  And so there seems to be much work to be done before another version gets introduced in the next Congress beginning January 2011.

Tomorrow I'll take a look at the advocacy community reaction.

Advocacy Groups Use Chemical Trade Show to Highlight Differences with Industry [UPDATED]

[NOTE: See the Update at the end]

Two of the largest chemical trade associations recently sponsored the chemical industry trade show called GlobalChem. Among the many industry, consultant, and government speakers was Dr. Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Dr. Denison took the opportunity in his talk to highlight where the EDF-sponsored advocacy coalition, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, differs from industry in the nuts and bolts of TSCA reform.

Denison first noted that 5 years after the deadline for completion of the voluntary HPV Challenge there are still only 60% of chemicals with final submissions. Not a great track record for self-policing in his opinion. He then listed three major differences between what the SCHF Coalition wants and what he characterizes industry to want.

1) SCHF wants data on all chemicals, while industry wants only to provide data on the small subset of chemicals that are of high priority. Industry believes that a REACH-like data call-in for all of the 85,000 chemicals on the current TSCA Inventory is overly burdensome, impossible to manage, and not very productive. Denison believes that data on all chemicals must be obtained so that safe chemicals can be identified for use as substitutes, otherwise you could identify a problem chemical that needs to be banned but have no data on the safety of potential replacements.

2) SCHF wants prompt action on the "most dangerous" chemicals such as those with high hazard, high exposure, PBTs, and those that have already been identified as of higher concern through other programs, while industry wants a long, costly risk assessment process that prolongs study before taking action.

3) SCHF wants to consider multiple sources of exposure, consistent with the recent NAS recommendations, while industry wants to assume that humans and the environment are only exposed to one chemical at a time. Here there is the logistical problem of just how one might go about determining hazard of mixtures but also of determining exposure not only of one chemical from multiple sources but many similar-acting chemicals from multiple sources.

I suppose one could take exception to whether Denison accurately characterized the industry positions, but at the very least it seems he is close enough for argument. There are very real concerns from industry of the burden of a REACH-like program that requires vast resources, both from industry and EPA (REACH created an entirely new 400-person and growing Agency to deal with the data review). There are also very real concerns that without having data for alternative chemicals there is no way of knowing that they are actually "safer" substitutes for obviously hazardous materials. And if there is no exposure, there is no risk, no matter how hazardous a chemical might inherently be. So an accurate assessment is no easy task.

Clearly there is still a lot of work to be done. Hopefully the expected introduction of the Kid Safe Act will give a concrete proposal on which all stakeholders can then base a dialogue. I think that without an actual bill we will simply be dancing around the edges and not getting into the vast differences in the details.

Update: Note that Richard Denison, the subject of this post, has provided additional information in the comment below, including what he calls “the democratization of chemicals management.” Please click on the Comments link below.

EPA and Industry Butt Heads on Recently Released Chemical Action Plans

On December 30, 2009 the USEPA released four "chemical action plans" that summarized the Agency's plan to regulate four chemicals: Phthalates, Short-chain chlorinated paraffins, Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and Perfluorinated chemicals (including PFOA). That same day the largest chemical trade group issued a news release expressing "strong concerns about EPA's approach." EPA says that the scientific basis for selection of the four chemicals is sound and in accordance with the procedure outlined on its website.

That doesn't mean industry is satisfied. According to the news release, the organization "and its member companies are disappointed that the initial set of chemicals seem to have been selected based on little more than their current “high-profile” nature." They are also concerned about what they believe is a lack of transparency in the way the "action plans" were developed. EPA disagrees and says it has no plans to refine the process.

This little give-and-take between EPA and the major trade association representing industry is to be expected as EPA lays out its plans and industry reacts with challenges. While it's unlikely that EPA will change anything in the short-term, the action plans do provide quite a bit of wiggle room for future flexibility. For example, a couple of the plans indicate that EPA "will consider initiating Section 6 rulemaking" in 2012 or 2013, which gives another 2 or 3 years to work out voluntary phase outs of the chemicals (and in fact EPA recently announced such a phase out by the manufacturer of decaBDE). Even if EPA does initiate a Section 6 rulemaking, the process could take anywhere from months to years to complete, during which time lots of other things could happen.

So while a little tiff between EPA and industry might make headlines, what it really signals is that EPA is going to push the envelope on using the authority that it believes TSCA already gives them. Authority that EPA really hasn't been particularly forceful in using in the past. The reasons for doing it now are uncertain and perhaps quite complex. It may simply be that the new Administration wants to accomplish the worthwhile goals of "protecting human health and the environment." Or it may be that they know they might get sued for "overreaching" that perceived authority, which might light a fire under Congress to finally introduce a bill to modernize TSCA.

Either way, the next few months should be very interesting. Stay tuned!

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.