Rallying For Better Chemicals Regulation

A rally at a chemicals conference in Baltimore on March 30 brought to light differences between environmental activists and the chemical industry over reform of the nation's chemical control law. Congress is considering reform of this 1976 law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

On the surface, the activist groups and most major chemical trade groups have the same goal – revision of TSCA (C&EN March 9, 2009, page 24).  But Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families -- a broad coalition of environmental and public health groups that led the rally -- made clear the key divergences between activists and industry on recasting TSCA for the 21^st century.

Andy Igrejas, national campaign director for the coalition, laid out those differences while standing in front of a 20-foot high yellow duck. The inflatable duck is symbolic of a child's bathtub toy and its connection to phthalates, a class of chemicals used in plastics and suspected of inhibiting hormone activity. The duck was tethered across a narrow canal from the Baltimore hotel where the chemical industry's annual conference on TSCA is taking place this week.

A major divergence, Igrejas said, is that activists want industry to supply EPA with basic health and safety data for all commercial chemicals. He pointed out that this sort of data is necessary for pesticides and pharmaceuticals before they can be sold.

In contrast, industry has backed EPA use of existing information, which is limited for many substances, to identify priority chemicals for further data requirements.

The activists also want Congress to ensure that EPA acts quickly to reduce the impact of chemicals widely known to be hazardous, such as certain persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals that governments elsewhere in the world have restricted. They do not want EPA to get bogged down conducting full-blown risk assessments on these substances, as some in industry suggest.

In addition, the activists' coalition also wants EPA to consider people's aggregate exposures, which would include exposure from emissions, consumer products, or other sources together. Igrejas contrasted this with an industry position calling for EPA to determine the uses of a chemical that are safe, a process which he said fails to take into account all of a person's exposure to that substance.

The American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates, hosts of the GlobalChem Conference, issued a joint statement in response to the activists.

"There is a diversity of views among representatives of industry and the [non-governmental organization] community," the statement said. "It is with an eye toward narrowing or even eliminating some of those differences that ACC and SOCMA have been working to bring together stakeholders from industry, government, environmental, labor, and consumer groups to have frank and constructive dialogs about the future of chemicals management."

"We are thrilled that the chemical industry finally agrees that we need to reform this outdated law," Igrejas said. "But reforming TSCA is not just about improving PR for the chemical industry — it's about genuinely protecting public health."