The first Earth Day protest is widely regarded as a pivotal moment in the birth of the modern environmental movement in the 1970s, which led to passage of landmark environmental and public health laws like the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act. And in the forty years since that first Earth Day, these celebrations have often focused on a particular legislative initiative in Congress, or a major action under way regarding a specific environmental law. But one major law enacted in the wake of the first Earth Day is never invited to the celebration, and is never the focus of an Earth Day anniversary. That law is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), widely regarded as the greatest failure in the post-Earth Day class of environmental statutes.
Poor TSCA. It was intended to stem the rising tide of toxic chemicals to which the public was regularly exposed, in their homes, the workplace and the marketplace. Unfortunately, it started off on the wrong foot , grandfathering the 62,000 chemicals then in use out of new testing and review for safety. In addition, the law was written in a way that has made it extremely difficult for the Environmental Protection Agency to establish which chemicals may be harmful and impose regulatory controls on even those that are widely known to be unsafe – carcinogens like asbestos for example – to which people continue to be widely exposed. The list of TSCA’s problems and failures is long, and the cumulative result of those failures is that, 40 years after Earth Day, we continue to be in the dark about the health and environmental effects of thousands of chemicals in use in all kinds of products, and we don’t really have a functioning system for addressing those chemicals that are unsafe or for protecting the public.
But the time may have finally come for TSCA to have its day in the sun. Tomorrow, Senator Frank Lautenberg and Congressmen Bobby Rush and Henry Waxman will introduce legislation in Congress to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. The details won’t be available until the bills are released, but, based upon general descriptions there is a lot to look forward to. Each bill would go a long way toward reforming the nation’s chemical policies. The bills will expand the public’s right to know about the health and safety effects of most chemicals, require chemicals to meet a safety standard that protects children and other particularly vulnerable populations, and put the burden on the chemical industry to prove that its products are safe. The legislation also requires EPA to develop action plans to reduce unsafe chemicals in communities disproportionately exposed to toxic pollution.
It sounds like the bills will have some shortcomings that will need to be improved (more on this in future posts). But, on balance, the bills that will be introduced tomorrow are likely to provide an excellent starting place to strengthen EPA’s authority to protect the public…which means that the chemical industry is likely to be strongly opposed, and will gear up to weaken or kill the proposals.
Whether it is lead, formaldehyde, asbestos, TCE, arsenic, dioxin, persistent flame retardants, Bisphenol A in bottles and cans, or phthalates in toys – the chemical industry is always ready with deep pockets and an army of lawyers, lobbyists, press flacks, and scientists-for-hire to block, weaken, delay or overturn measures intended to protect the public from unsafe chemicals.
The public should therefore expect that, whether publicly or behind closed doors, the lobbyists for the chemical industry are going to work overtime to pressure members of Congress and the Obama Administration to weaken the bills that will be introduced tomorrow, to ensure that the reforms proposed are less effective, and the protections adopted at the end of the process, do as little as possible to truly reform the nations’ chemical policy.
It will be too soon to celebrate a reformed TSCA this year. This Earth Day people should be gearing up for a fight, to ensure that the best, and strongest possible reform bill can move through Congress and make it to the President’s desk. Some Earth Days, including the first one, have been days of protest, and organizing. Meaningful TSCA reform is not going to be handed to us, either by chemical companies or politicians. We have to win this one for ourselves.
Today I walked briefly through a small park near the Senate that was full of blooming cherry blossoms and azaleas. It was stunningly beautiful, and that got me in the mind of the celebration element of Earth Day, and being grateful for all that we have all around us. So, with Earth Day around the corner, I’m hoping millions of people across the country will celebrate the beautiful planet we all call home, and think about the people they love. Some of them, family or friends, may have cancer, or may have a learning or developmental disability, or autism, or be wrestling with infertility. I hope people will think of everyone they love and care about, and will gear up to Take Out Toxics and join the fight for real chemical policy reform that will make a difference in all of our lives, and will make perhaps the next Earth Day one that is cause for a great celebration.
]]>
Here’s what the Agency announced:
“a series of actions on four chemicals raising serious health or environmental concerns, including phthalates. For the first time, EPA intends to establish a “Chemicals of Concern” list and is beginning a process that may lead to regulations requiring significant risk reduction measures to protect human health and the environment. The agency’s actions represent its determination to use its authority under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the fullest extent possible, recognizing EPA’s strong belief that the 1976 law is both outdated and in need of reform.
In addition to phthalates, the chemicals EPA is addressing today are short-chain chlorinated paraffins, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and perfluorinated chemicals, including PFOA. These chemicals are used in the manufacture of a wide array of products and have raised a range of health and environmental concerns.”
And:
“The actions announced today include:
Adding phthalates and PBDE chemicals to the concern list.
Beginning a process that could lead to risk reductions actions under section 6 of TSCA for several phthalates, short-chain chlorinated paraffins, and perfluorinated chemicals.
Reinforcing the DecaBDE phaseout – which will take place over three years – with requirements to ensure that any new uses of PBDEs are reviewed by EPA prior to returning to the market.”
In the short time that EPA has been under new leadership, the Agency has taken significant and laudable steps toward chemical policy reform, which NRDC has highlighted in our new report the Obama Record. Some key items worth spotlighting right now include:
Today’s announcement is an excellent step forward. EPA is demonstrating a commitment to use its existing authorities to focus on chemicals of concern, including phthalates, brominated flame retardants, and other toxic chemicals. The measures announced today will help increase public awareness and expand the public’s right to know about these chemicals, and start the agency down the road toward reducing or eliminating the use of these toxic substances.
EPA can ring in the New Year proudly. The Agency has accomplished a lot in 2009 and has redeemed its once-tarnished reputation as protector of health and the environment.
]]>The intent of last week's House hearing was to consider how to efficiently and effectively address the backlog of some 80,000 existing chemicals that have never been fully assessed for their health or environmental impacts but can be used in all kinds of products from toys to paint to food containers, to clothes to carpeting. The focus was on how to prioritize certain chemicals for action to protect the public, and other chemicals for assessment to determine whether or not they can meet a safety standard; and for identifying the information needed to be able to fully assess a chemical's safety.
While reform of our nation's broken system for assuring the safety of chemicals used in commerce is both necessary and important, without a reform bill introduced in the House or Senate, or a recent front-page story, I had realistically low expectations for turnout by members of either party.
But not only was there very good turnout on both sides, it was clear that the members were listening carefully to the testimony and questions asked by their colleagues. Members of both parties made clear in their opening statements that they recognized that the status quo was unacceptable both for protecting their constituents from unsafe chemicals, for businesses that cannot comfortably or confidently vouch for the safety of their products, or for chemical manufacturers facing international and state-based efforts to address problems unaddressed for a generation by TSCA. There was almost no partisanship on display at the hearing, and the little bit that did flare-up was most notable for how out-of-place it seemed in the context of a hearing on this issue that cuts across all lines of party, gender, race, age, or geography.
The House hearing didn't result in firm conclusions or agreements on exactly how to best-restructure TSCA. Congress is still reorienting itself toward this law and its many problems; which have been largely swept under the rug for past 30 years. But it was an encouraging start.
On Wednesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold its first hearing this year on chemical policy and the need for TSCA reform. The Committee has spent the bulk of its time this year wrestling with the issue of Climate, and the strong disagreements on the Committee over that issue are well-documented. Now that a bill has been reported, there is some more room on the Committee's schedule to devote to other topics. The hearing tomorrow will feature only three witnesses: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., the Director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and John B. Stephenson, Director of Natural Resources and the Environment for the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
All three witnesses work for the federal government, and will not be representing the views of chemical manufacturers, downstream businesses, environmental groups, or any of the other interested stakeholders. They will be testifying about the problems with TSCA and, presumably, the importance of fixing those problems to protect public health and the environment. That seems like a good place to start.
As in the House, members of the Senate sit on multiple committees and typically have schedules that are full from morning until night (this is true for Republicans and Democrats; I think how hard most members of Congress work is not very well appreciated). With the Health Care on the floor of the Senate, undoubtedly some members will be unable to attend the hearing. But I'm hoping that, like in the House, turnout will be strong, and that members on both sides will come with their ears open and their questions ready, without pre-conceptions, so that a genuine effort to address this serious issue can begin. The public has been waiting for a generation, and shouldn't have to wait much longer for Congressional action to address the health threats posed by exposure to toxic chemicals.
]]>Bisphenol A is a ubiquitous chemical used in plastics, food and beverage can linings, and other consumer products such as baby bottles, sippy cups and reusable water bottles. More than 90 percent of people tested in the United States have residues of BPA present in their urine, and BPA has also been found in amniotic fluid and breast milk. BPA is a hormone-disrupting chemical that mimics estrogen. Laboratory animal studies have linked exposure to BPA to reproductive harm and increased susceptibility of some kinds of cancer. Many people have begun to hear more about BPA in recent years because of the growing number of scientific studies that call into serious question its safety.
One aspect of the Post story that jumped out at me was the response of the chemical industry. Steven Hentges, the spokesman for the chemical manufacturing industry's main trade association, (called the American Chemistry Council) acknowledged that the study contained "interesting information" but opined that the study "has little relevance to average consumers who are exposed to trace levels of BPA."
In the first place, his statement suggests a distinction between "workers" and "consumers" as though a worker isn't also a consumer, or that a "consumer" shouldn't concern him or herself with either the well-being of "workers," or the implications of chemicals that harm workers to which the general public is also routinely exposed. A broader and more generous view of the relationship between public health and policies for controlling toxic chemicals would be that chemicals should be safe enough that neither consumers or workers are at risk of cancer, reproductive harm, or any other illness or chronic disease or condition as a result of exposure. The study reported in the Post was done on workers in factories in China, but BPA is also manufactured in the United States, and there are no workplace safety standards in place for exposure to BPA. Presumably those workers, whether in the U.S. or China, have some reason to be concerned about their health. The chemical industry has a responsibility to protect its workers, as well as the general public, from unsafe chemicals, and should not be shrugging off these types of study results as merely "interesting" or "irrelevant." Awareness of that responsibility is notably absent from Mr. Hentges' comment to the Post.
Second, the chemical industry is doing the public a serious disservice by dismissing out of hand the relevance of the recent study. The industry is well aware of other relevant facts about BPA, though it prefers not to discuss them: the population-wide exposure, and the continuous exposure (BPA is rapidly excreted and then replenished in our bodies by new exposures); the growing body of science documenting the potential health impacts of even low doses of some chemicals, as well as the greater understanding about the potential importance of the timing and duration of exposure during critical windows of development. Strong confirmation with human evidence that exposure to high doses of BPA can cause serious sexual dysfunction is most certainly "relevant" to the tens of millions of people who are exposed to BPA every day, who carry it in their bodies (along with dozens or hundreds of other toxic chemicals), and who want protection from unsafe chemicals and products that contain those chemicals. In a column published a few days before the Post story, Dr. Ted Schettler of the Science and Environmental Health Network had it just right when he said to Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times: "When you have 92 percent of the American population exposed to a chemical, this is not one where you want to be wrong." (Steve Hentges also makes an appearance in the Kristof column).
Speaking of which, how does Mr. Hentges know that the public is only exposed to "trace amounts" of BPA? And, even assuming his statement is correct, where are those trace amounts coming from? And why are they seemingly constant? The public would surely like to know, and has a right to know, all of the places BPA is currently used, which uses result in human exposure, and how much exposure. How much BPA is released into the air? Is it in our water supplies? Is it in our food? What food? How much? How often? How is it getting into babies? How is it getting into unborn babies? Who makes BPA and where do they make it and how much do they make? How much exposure occurs at the workplace? All of that information seems potentially "relevant" to consumers (and workers) who need it to decide for themselves whether or not they want to take a chance of being exposed to BPA, trace amounts or otherwise. Is the industry willing to share this information with the public? Why should the public have to wait for a new law to be written, or for EPA to issue a rulemaking (which can take months or years) to get the information? If the chemical industry is so certain about its safety, why isn't it being up front with everything it knows about BPA, as opposed to patronizing the public with statements about what information is relevant?
Mr. Hentges is nearly as ubiquitous as BPA itself; and it seems as though he can be found in more than 90 percent of the stories about the chemical, always resolutely defending its safety. The problem isn't Mr. Hentges, but his message, which severely undercuts the credibility of an industry that is struggling to rebrand itself as committed to serious reform of our country's law for ensuring the safety of chemicals used in commerce, and to protecting the public from unsafe chemicals. See for example the industry's misleading website, under the (dis)guise of the "Coalition for Chemical Safety." Gee, that picture of the worker's gloves and hard hat is a nice touch! My colleague Richard Denison of EDF did a nice dissection of the industry's website in his excellent blog which you can read here.
NRDC is part of the Safer Chemicals Health Families campaign that is working for meaningful reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Our platform calls for expanding the public right to know about the health impacts of chemicals, as well as where they are used and how people are exposed. It also calls for immediate action to reduce or eliminate exposure to the worst chemicals. The chemical industry also claims to support right to know, and the need to protect the public from unsafe chemicals. But when it comes to BPA and other chemicals, whether it is formaldehyde, lead, asbestos, or phthalates, the industry is steadfast in its resistance to acknowledging potential harm, or the need to reduce (or eliminate) human exposures.
Given its track record, and its current posture as reflected in the Post story, why should people trust the chemical industry?
]]>The Bush administration's eight years have featured both persistent efforts to weaken existing protections from exposure to toxic chemicals, including curtailing the public's right to know about chemical releases from industrial facilities; and steadfast opposition to taking meaningful steps to address current or emerging concerns related to chemical exposure. The coming months will require a dual effort to restore protections recently lost, and move forward with badly needed initiatives to address our nation's chemical policy.
Today a number of environmental groups including NRDC released a report with recommendations for the next administration on priority issues that merit serious attention. In the area of health and toxics, the report outlines a number of steps that need to be taken, both to reverse Bush Administration policies, and to affirmatively address current and emerging issues. Denying reality, ignoring the future, standing in the way of addressing serious threats to public health, these have been the hallmarks of the Administration's approach to chemical policy over the past eight years. Here are a few examples:
Throughout the 1990s, the mantra of polluters and their supporters in Congress and conservative think-tanks was the need for "sound science" to guide regulatory decisions. Over the past eight years, we have seen repeatedly that "sound science" is a euphemism for censored science, ignored science, industry-funded science, and political interference with science. A perfect example is the Bush Administration's recent changes to the EPA process for assessing the health hazards posed by toxic chemicals. While it has an arcane name - the Integrated Risk Information System, or "IRIS" - it is a cornerstone program that guides the federal government, as well as many state and foreign governments, in setting health standards for exposure to toxic chemicals in our air and water, and for setting cleanup levels at toxic waste sites. Earlier this year, the Bush Administration revised the IRIS process to provide multiple opportunities for the most polluting federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense and Energy, as well as the White House via the Office of Management and Budget, to interfere with EPA's scientists tasked with determining the levels at which toxic chemicals pose a health hazard. In keeping with the Administration's preferred practice of reducing the public's right to know about health risks of chemicals, as well as political decision-making, the new policy ensures the "advice" and "consultation" EPA receives from agencies with an interest in weak health standards remain behind closed doors, and shielded from public scrutiny. My colleague Dr. Jennifer Sass has written extensively on this subject on her excellent blog. Reversing the Bush Administration's changes to the IRIS program, and taking additional steps to ensure the program's transparency and integrity, should be a top priority for the next EPA administrator.
Many people remember the human catastrophe that occurred in Bhopal, India in 1984, when a cloud of methyl isocyanate leaked from a chemical plant, killing thousands of people and permanently injurying thousands more. Those who are not familiar with what happened in Bhopal should take some time to learn about it. For one thing, people in Bhopal are still suffering from the harm caused by that toxic cloud almost twenty-five years ago. For another, it was the impetus for a number of environmental policies adopted in this country in its aftermath, and is still an important touchstone for guiding us on what kinds of policies are needed to increase public protection, whether from chemical accidents, or the potentially deadly results of a terrorist attack on a facility storing hazardous chemicals.
The risks to the public posed by the accidental release of certain toxic chemicals are not just a concern for people in faraway lands. Thousands of facilities across the country store or use chemicals that could be extremely harmful to the public if released.
Particularly since 9/11, the potential for a terrorist attack on a chemical facility has loomed large in the concerns of many national security experts. Yet since 9/11 the Bush Administration has repeatedly sided with the oil and chemical industries to block strong legislation to ensure that the nation's chemical facilities were taking the necessary steps to ensure safety to the greatest extent possible. Moreover, the Administration attempted to block states from adopting stronger protections than the weak measures the Administration worked out with industry. The Bush-industry approach is set to expire in 2009, and adoption of strong chemical security measures to protect the public from the deadly effects of a terrorist attack on our chemical facilities must be a top priority for the Department of Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency.
In the wake of the Bhopal tragedy, Congress enacted the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), which contained several provisions to help emergency responders and local officials to be informed and prepared about the potential risks posed by toxic chemicals stored on-site at the nation's chemical facilities. The law also created the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) which established the public's right to know about toxic chemicals that are being stored and released in their communities. This simple law, which doesn't set standards or control emissions, but ensures people have information about what is going on at the chemical facilities in their communities, has been extremely effective in assisting local communities in getting companies to reduce their chemical releases. Few companies want to be at the top of a list of local or national emitters of toxic chemicals to our air, water or land. Since its creation, the principle of the public's right to know about toxic chemical releases (and other chemical-related matters) has been accepted across a broad political spectrum, and the Toxics Release Inventory has been an essential part of the toolbox for many community activists seeking to protect their families from exposure to dangerous chemicals.
Unfortunately, the principle of the public's right to know, and the great success of the TRI program were not at all respected by the Bush Administration or its political appointees at EPA. In 2006, EPA weakened the TRI program by raising the amount of chemicals a facility must release before it is required to provide detailed reporting to the public. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), more than 3,500 facilities across the country were absolved of their previous reporting requirements by EPA's rule change. What's more, opposition to the proposal was overwhelming. OMB Watch reviewed the public comments and determined that EPA received 122,386 (99.97%) of comments strongly opposed to the proposed changes, and only 34 (00.03%) comments expressing some degree of support for the changes. The House of Representatives -- led at the time by Dennis Hastert and Tom Delay - voted to prevent EPA from spending any funds to finalize their plan to weaken the reporting requirements (because the spending restriction was part of an appropriations bill that never passed Congress, it never took effect and EPA finalized the rule). The weakening of the TRI program was a perfect illustration of the contempt EPA's current political leaders hold for the public and the right to know principle. It should be reversed immediately.
The scientific evidence of potential harms caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals has increased dramatically over the past eight years. But the Food and Drug Administration continues to side with the chemical industry (and rely upon industry-funded studies) to reaffirm the safety of one of these chemicals, Bisphenol A (or BPA), in our food supply. BPA is used as a liner in many food containers, a use for which it was approved in the 1960s. It has now been shown in dozens of scientific studies to be associated with a range of health effects at levels at which human exposure is common. A significant source of that exposure is almost certainly the leaching from food packaging. My colleague Dr. Sarah Janssen has written several excellent posts about the health concerns raised by BPA and other endocrine disrupting chemicals (including phthalates) and the failure of FDA and other agencies to forthrightly address those concerns. I encourage you to read them. At this time, the FDA is widely recognized as a damaged and demoralized agency. Restoring the agency to the path of protecting the public, including from exposure to dangerous chemicals in food - presumably part of its core mission - must be a priority for the next Administration.
Although it has yet to gain widespread public attention, the rapid development of nano-technology, (the use of microscopic particles that have unique properties and a host of potential uses - many of them beneficial) poses serious challenges for addressing potential threats to public (and especially worker) health and the environment. The Administration's anti-protection ideology has led to an irresponsible policy of inaction that is not sustainable if the many promises of nanotechnology are to be realized. My NRDC colleague Dr. Jennifer Sass, and Richard Denison of EDF, have written about this issue extensively, and the folks at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies have issued a series of excellent reports on the topic. For people who want to save the planet, and do it in a way that also protects the people, working to ensure that nanotechnologies are safe is critical.
Many of the challenges posed by how to address the potential risks of some types or uses of nanotechnologies are subsets of the larger question how to address the potential risks posed by the tens of thousands of chemicals currently authorized for use in today's marketplace, and the new chemicals that enter the stream of commerce each year. Few outside of the chemical industry will argue that the current system is working well and doesn't need a major overhaul. In fact, Europe fully recognized this reality and has now begun implementing a new EU-wide chemicals policy known as REACH which stands for Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical Substances. Among the most fundamental principles of REACH is that, rather than presuming that chemicals are safe, until regulators with weak authority and inadequate resources can prove otherwise, the burden should be on chemical producers and distributors to prove that chemicals to be used in the stream of commerce are safe, or their use - with some exceptions - should be restricted or banned altogether.
That change in thinking is needed here in the United States, where our own toxics law, the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) has foundered for years. Let's put it this way, when a law designed to protect the public from dangerous chemicals is so onerous and so restrictive of EPA's authority that the agency can't ban the use of asbestos in most products, a new approach is necessary. REACH may provide some guidance for how Congress and the next Administration approach the reform of TSCA.
I've only discussed a few of the health priorities discussed in today's report. I urge those of you who are interested in the issue of toxic chemicals, environmental and public health, and policy (including politics) to take a look at the full list, get up to speed on the issues that interest you most, and get involved. There is plenty of work that needs to be done (and there will be plenty of opposition from the oil and chemical industries, as well as others). The more people who add their voices and advocacy skills to the efforts to protect the public; ensure safe products, rely upon real science-based decisions, and defend the public's right to know, the better for all of us.
The chemical industry spends a great deal of money on advertising to remind the public how vital chemicals are to our modern society. They would like to frame the argument as one in which you are either for chemicals and their beneficial contribution to society, or you are opposed to all chemicals or plastics, and therefore can't be taken seriously if your concern is limited to unsafe chemicals in kids' toys and baby formula; or rocket fuel, solvents, or fuel additives in our drinking water; or formaldehyde in building supplies; or pesticides blowing into school yards; or endocrine disrupters and nanoparticles in our bodies. It is a false choice that won't fool the public, and hopefully won't cow Congress or the next Administration as they grapple with the enormous challenges of developing policies and ensuring protections for our food, water, and products for the coming decades.
The new Administration and the new Congress cannot be counted on to take the steps necessary to address the threats to public health and the environment posed by toxic chemicals without the strong encouragement of the public, their constituents. As bad as the Bush administration has been - and it has been terrible in virtually area of toxic chemicals policy - the next Administration cannot simply rest on being "better than Bush." The standard for judging the next Administration (and future administration's) must be - have they taken the necessary actions to protect the public and the environment from dangerous chemicals. Now is a time for anticipation and optimism, but reality will intrude soon enough, and that's when the real work begins.
The Green Group report being released today is not a comprehensive account of the agencies that need to be reformed (or rescued) or the policies that need to be reversed or the protections that need to be adopted. Two important agencies that are not covered in the report, but deserve attention and support from the new Administration and Congress, are the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Chemical Safety Board. If this turns out to be more than a one-time venture into the world of blogging, I'll discuss these two agencies, and track the progress of issues discussed here, and other priorities in today's report, in future posts.
]]>