![]() One such action concerns the way the EPA prioritizes and then evaluates existing chemicals.īroadly put, the Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to prioritize these chemicals by the risks they pose to human health and the environment, and then to fully evaluate the most dangerous ones. Nevertheless, during the rollout, the EPA has taken a number of steps that “undermine almost everything” the Lautenberg Act was intended to achieve, said Jennifer Sass, senior scientist with the environmental not-for-profit Natural Resources Defense Council. The new law has triggered a flurry of action over the last two-plus years, with tight deadlines delineating its rollout. The Lautenberg Act was seen as a brave new world in chemical regulations-a fresh opportunity for the EPA to systematically review existing chemicals already in the marketplace, as well as all new chemicals joining them. One of the law’s most high-profile losses came in 1991, when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the EPA’s asbestos rule, which had banned its use in most products. Indeed, up until 2016, the EPA had successfully restricted the use of only five chemicals during a 40-year period. There are currently more than 85,000 listed on the inventory, though the EPA has identified about 37,000 in active use.Ĭentral to the original law’s many flaws was the fundamental premise that it wasn’t up to chemical manufacturers to prove their chemicals were safe before they entered the market - it was up to regulators to prove that chemicals were unsafe. Over the subsequent years, thousands more chemicals were added to the inventory, which comprises all chemicals used in the US, whether they were manufactured in the US or shipped in from abroad. “Significantly Narrowed”Ī landmark legislation passed a little over 42 years ago, TSCA grandfathered in roughly 62,000 chemicals already in use without a proper framework for evaluating their potential risks. In a statement provided by the EPA on background, the agency denied the new TSCA has been diluted, and that any subsequent changes have followed the “original intent” of the Lautenberg Act. “Not much has improved, and we seem to be going backwards in a couple important areas.” ![]() “I’d be hard-pressed to say that the actions of the EPA under the new law are more effective than its actions under the old law,” Sussman told Truthout. Robert Sussman, a former EPA official and now a counsel for chemical reform organization Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, agrees. Tom Udall, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee overseeing EPA’s budget, has called implementation of the law a “remarkable disaster.” Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, continues to be rolled out under the Trump administration, critics point to recent modifications made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the way it evaluates and regulates chemicals, prioritizing industry concerns over human health and the environment. This led to a major overhaul two years ago, and a revised TSCA signed into law near the end of the Obama administration, shepherding in a number of “ important improvements.”īut as the new law, the Frank R. For decades, however, TSCA was widely criticized by many environmental and consumer advocacy groups for being toothless-that it achieved very little in regulating the nation’s chemicals. This act is the centerpiece of the nation’s table-display of chemical regulations, which include different laws governing food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is a federal safety net that ensures these chemicals don’t cause harm to humans or the environment. Indeed, roughly 30,000 pounds of chemicals are produced per person, per year in the US. ![]() They’re in our work places, our homes, our bedrooms, the clothes we wear, the water we drink, the paint on our walls, the products we clean with. This post was written by Daniel Ross for : We are a community of over one million parents united against air and climate pollution to protect our children’s health.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |