Senators Work Together to Ensure Safer Chemicals

  • submit to reddit

BornFree glass baby bottles are seen on display in the foreground as a mother shops at Babies'R'Us, Tuesday, March 11, 2008 in Peabody, Mass. (AP Photo/Lisa Poole)

BornFree glass baby bottles are seen on display in the foreground as a mother shops at Babies'R'Us in Peabody, Mass. (AP Photo/Lisa Poole)

A bipartisan bill unveiled Wednesday by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and David Vitters (R-VA.) would give the Environmental Protection Agency more power to ensure the safety of chemicals before they are allowed to go to market.

As public health historians David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz explained on last week’s Moyers & Company, existing legislation allowed the EPA to test chemicals only after there was cause to believe they were dangerous. Of the 84,000 registered chemicals in the United States, only about 200 have been tested. Each year, another 700 chemicals are introduced into the environment. They argued that the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act was in great need of a major overhaul, but that they didn’t expect new legislation to pass anytime soon.

In the compromise bill, lauded by industry and activists, it looks like they might get some of what they were hoping for. While the new version doesn’t go as far as the Safe Chemicals Act Lautenberg introduced last month, it covers some of the same territory, namely:

Require Safety Evaluations for All Chemicals: All active chemicals in commerce must be evaluated for safety and labeled as either “high” or “low” priority chemical based on potential risk to human health and the environment. For high priority chemicals, EPA must conduct further safety evaluations.

Protect Public Health from Unsafe Chemicals: If a chemical is found to be unsafe, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the necessary authority to take action. This can range from labeling requirements to the full phase-out or ban of a chemical.

Prioritize Chemicals for Review: The Environmental Protection Agency will have to transparently assess risk, determine safety, and apply any needed measures to manage risks.

Screen New Chemicals for Safety: New chemicals entering the market must be screened for safety and the EPA is given the authority to prohibit unsafe chemicals from entering the market.

Secure Necessary Health and Safety Information: The legislation allows EPA to secure necessary health and safety information from chemical manufacturers, while directing EPA to rely first on existing information to avoid duplicative testing.

Promote Innovation and Safer Chemistry: This legislation provides clear paths to getting new chemistry on the market and protects trade secrets and intellectual property from disclosure.

Protect Children and Pregnant Women: The legislation requires EPA to evaluate the risks posed to particularly vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant women, when evaluating the safety of a chemical—a provision not included in existing law.

Give States and Municipalities a Say: States and local governments will have the opportunity to provide input on prioritization, safety assessment and the safety determination processes, requiring timely response from EPA, and the bill establishes a waiver process to allow state regulations or laws to remain in effect when circumstances warrant it.

The new bill was a surprise to many because the two senators had reportedly been working on competing bills for months. Lautenberg was updating a 2011 bill that had made it through committee that year, but never came to a vote. Vitter was said to be working on a bill with help from the American Chemistry Council. In an interesting report, E&E‘s Jason Plautz writes that Vitter’s staff reached out to Lautenberg’s, they discovered that their bills had a lot more common ground than previously thought and they worked out a compromise.

Although some activists consider the new bill a step back from Lautenberg’s original, most agreed that the bipartisan bill had more of a chance of passage and were generally positive about the direction it takes. Andy Igregas, executive director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, told Politico: “On the one hand, the bill gives EPA new tools to protect the public from toxic chemicals. It also gives state governments, who have made important gains in public health protections, a continued role in chemical regulation. On the other hand, the bill omits many of the deadlines in the Lautenberg/Gillibrand legislation, its special focus on heavily impacted communities and other important provisions.”

Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, called the bill a “policy and political breakthrough.” He told Politico that “while this bill represents a hard-fought compromise, it opens, at last, a bipartisan path forward to fix our badly outmoded system to ensure the safety of chemicals in everyday use.”

  • submit to reddit

BillMoyers.com encourages conversation and debate around issues, events and ideas related to content on Moyers & Company and the BillMoyers.com website.

  • The editorial staff reserves the right to take down comments it deems inappropriate.
  • Profanity, personal attacks, hate speech, off-topic posts, advertisements and spam will not be tolerated.
  • Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements, impersonate someone else, break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.

If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.

We need your help with this. If you feel a post is not in line with the comment policy, please flag it so that we can take a look. Comments and questions about our policy are welcome. Please send an email to info@moyersmedia.com

Find out more about BillMoyers.com's privacy policy and terms of service.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pat.elgee.5 Pat Elgee

    Why not BAN toxic plastics used or intended for use with foods. Then look at some of the chemicals used in prepared foods, that in small amounts do not affect the average person. That does not take into account that some people are not average, rather they are hyper sensitive to toxins, while others have diets consisting of entirely prepared foods. Then there are meds that do more harm than good.

  • Anonymous

    мy rooмαтe’ѕ eх-wιғe мαĸeѕ $69 every нoυr oɴ тнe coмpυтer. ѕнe нαѕ вeeɴ υɴeмployed ғor 9 мoɴтнѕ вυт lαѕт мoɴтн нer pαyмeɴт wαѕ $16152 jυѕт worĸιɴɢ oɴ тнe coмpυтer ғor α ғew нoυrѕ. ɢo тo тнιѕ weв ѕιтe αɴd reαd мore Zap2­2­.c­o&shym&shy

  • Tom Macchia P.A.-C.

    Considering the Senate source I thought this might be too good to be true. Then I got the following:
    http://www.nrdc.org/media/2013/130524.asp

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Contact: Jake Thompson, 202-289-2387, jthompson@nrdc.org, or Elizabeth Heyd, 202-289-2424, eheyd@nrdc.org

    NRDC: Toxic Reform Bill Needs to be Improved to Protect Public from Dangerous Chemicals

    WASHINGTON (May 24, 2013)
    – Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and David Vitter (R-LA) announced
    this week they have reached a bipartisan agreement on a bill to update
    the Toxic Substances Control Act, which hasn’t been modernized since it
    was passed in 1976.

    Daniel
    Rosenberg, senior attorney in the public health program at the Natural
    Resources Defense Council, made these comments on the Lautenberg-Vitter
    “Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013” bill:

    “Senators
    Lautenberg and Vitter deserve credit for working on a bipartisan
    proposal to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a law that
    has never accomplished its goal of protecting the public from dangerous
    chemicals. NRDC has long been interested in seeing bipartisan reform
    enacted, and this bill is a step in that direction.

    “However,
    we cannot support the bill as currently drafted because it still leaves
    too many gaps in protecting the public. To cite just one important
    example, the bill establishes no statutory deadlines for the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review chemicals or take
    appropriate action. This could mean that the bill ends up being just as
    much a dead letter as TSCA has proven to be. We look forward to working
    with all interested parties to improve this proposal so effective
    chemical reform can move forward.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/sean.oriordan Seán O’Riordan

    So instead of getting passage of a bill that moves toward the goals we want, which can be built upon in the years to come, we will just say no to the whole damn thing.

  • soniasuniyeyhoo

    Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Cuyahoga, Hudson Bay, and all our water is toxic. Do not drink. Which Public Health initiative was preached in NMH 1993? UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT. Who was in Benghazi, WW3, Vietnam, Pnom Penh, The Yangtze, South China Sea when it happened, ask me not to disclose my name because YOU FEAR PUNISHMENT NOT ME! GM, Chrysler, Brugges, LOOK AT THEIR TIES! AIG, BoozAllenHamilton, HP, BCBS, Re-coding ICD Diagnosis codes so patients cannot be reimbursed for surgeries and medical procedures, “Please Anita Leave Out your Medical Training So BIENEN CAN DINE WITH CUBBAGE”, Beatty loves whiskey receipts, homespun and BORN IN THE USA, Honors Program in Medical Education, new Concert Hall, fluff, zebramussels, oncampusrape, The Daily NWUdotEDU, funds chemistry, think clearly, ENRON, Arthur Anderson, Bearing Point, BeePeeOh Keane, playing with names, playing with life itself, stemcells, bloodproducts, contamination, fatal viruses, playing with chemical regulations, rewriting history to blame the other side, the patients come last at our teaching hospitals, Baxter gave them kickbacks and Dennis Quaid sued, Cohen & Philipps sued Glaxo, Pfizer, Amgen, etc, met with head of BCBS with Heidi Bertram Art and Aye in 1994, met AMA head same yr, aced all clerkships with 24-hr call every 3rd night with pager for 76 weeks PAY ME FOR IT Strep Staph StewCurry