Just what the doctor ordered: TSCA reform
Posted April 25, 2011 in Health and the Environment
Today the professional organization of pediatricians, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), issued a strong policy statement calling for better protection of children and pregnant women from hazardous chemicals. Citing the unique vulnerabilities of the fetus and children, the group states that the current law governing the use of most chemicals, the Toxic Substance Control Act (TCSA), “fails to protect children and pregnant women”. And the pediatricians have written a prescription to Congress on how to fix it.
The AAP makes a long list of recommendations, including a rewrite of the legislation which:
- Requires chemical manufacturers prove their products are safe before they are marketed;
- Establishes the same standard of safety for old and new chemicals;
- Makes chemical testing relevant to the special needs of pregnant women and children, by including data on reproductive and developmental toxicity, including endocrine disruption, as it relates to reproduction, neurotoxicity, and puberty;
- Allows for bans of chemicals based on reasonable levels of concern rather than demonstrated harm after release; and
- Gives EPA the authority demand additional data about a chemical and to limit or stop the marketing of a chemical when there is a high degree of suspicion that the chemical might be harmful to children, pregnant women, or other populations.
The AAP also made calls for expanded biomonitoring, increase federal funding for research to prevent, identify and evaluate the effects of chemicals on children’s health, and the promotion of green chemistry efforts to develop safer replacements.
Many of these recommendations are incorporated in the recently introduced TSCA reform bill introduced by Senator Lautenberg. As pointed out in the pediatrician’s statement, TSCA was first introduced in 1976 but has never been revised and reform is long overdue.
Since then, a number of chemicals which should have been regulated by TSCA have been linked to harmful effects in children. These include bisphenol A, phthalates, flame retardants, TCE and other solvents.
The AAP’s statement is timely and their important voices join others in the scientific and medical community who have become increasingly vocal about the need for TSCA reform. This includes the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association and the 2010 President's Cancer Panel.
Pediatricians are concerned about the future health of our children and have just written a prescription to Congress. Congress should heed their advice and get to the business of reforming this outdated law.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Travis Michael — Apr 25 2011 01:12 PM
The TSCA, the document which regulates chemicals in the U.S. needs major revision. There are materials such as asbestos that need further regulation. This mineral was used in thousands of different products even after manufacturers knew that exposure to it can cause serious health problems such as mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis. It is time that the U.S. banned this poison once and for all. Regards, TM http://www.banasbestosnow.com/
Steve Risotto — Apr 25 2011 05:53 PM
Dr. Janssen’s view that phthalates “should have been regulated by TSCA” is not shared by many in the academic and regulatory communities. The term phthalates comprises a group of ~25 substances with a variety of physical and chemical characteristics and, as a consequence, potential toxicity. To suggest that all of phthalates should be regulated adds to the general confusion about these products and complicates efforts to improve the nation’s chemical management framework.
Many phthalates have been in widespread use for several decades – a fact that runs contrary to suggestions that they have contributed to health trends that have emerged more recently. These substances have been very well studied and have been subject to numerous reviews in North America and Europe. While some in the group have raised concerns – based on laboratory testing – most have not. Where concerns have been expressed (i.e., in toys & child care articles; neonatal medical devices), steps have been taken to reduce or eliminate potential exposure to certain phthalates.
It is NRDC whose views on phthalate toxicity and exposure are outdated, not EPA. The phthalates that have been restricted in toys are not used in personal care products. Diethyl phthalate (DEP) is the only phthalate in common use in these products – as an ingredient in fragrance – and it is time for NRDC and others to stop suggesting otherwise. (Dibutyl phthalate, or DBP, is no longer used in nail polish – a fact confirmed by a search of the ingredient database at safecosmetics.org.) In recent months, leading researchers have indicated quite clearly that DEP does not contribute to the adverse effects in rodents that NRDC attributes to all phthalates.
While NRDC is correct that the phthalates restricted in toys are used in many other flexible vinyl applications, they are wrong to suggest that such use presents a public health concern. Numerous reviews have concluded that exposures from these applications – even when added together – do not present a health risk.
The American Chemistry Council, which I represent, has been a vocal supporter of the need to revise the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Such revision can only be achieved if it is built on a foundation of sound science – considering both hazard and exposure.
marsh carroll — Apr 26 2011 12:28 AM
Complete labeling of all chemicals will help. See the
HAZCOM Song http://bit.ly/e88T9g
James Singmaster, Ph.D. — Apr 26 2011 02:21 AM
I have sent AAP a statement that the EPA-FDA approved methyl bromide fumigation of food warehouses may be forming altered biochemicals of unknown toxicity in dried packaged baby foods. An AAP official indicated well over a month ago that AAP would check and make an answer in less than a week, but AAP has not responded. I have sent e-mails about this to Ms. Janssen and others but none has indicated any concern with a response. I shall send another follow-up to AAP with copy to Ms. Janssen and ask her here to question AAP about its concern on having baby foods getting fumigated.
Methyl bromide will react with various key vitamins. I tested some rice shipped to Puerto Rico with that fumigant used on it and found none of the fortifying B-vitamin, Niacin, present. It did have the product of the reaction of niacin with methyl bromide called trigonelline that is not active as a vitamin. I hope some reading this will start asking EPA-FDA what is going on with continued approval of this fumigation that can be altering baby food vitamins. Some years ago soon after I wrote FDA about finding the altered niacin, an official claimed some sort of task force was trying to check, but nothing has happened as far as I know. A group like NRDC ought to start making noise about this fumigation to its members and Congress. Dr. J. Singmaster, Environmental Chemist, Ret., Fremont CA