Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act

Project TENDR: A call to action to protect children from harmful neurotoxins

kkrisberg — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 21:59:13 +0000

Project TENDR: A call to action to protect children from harmful neurotoxins

Just 10 years ago, it wouldn’t have been possible to bring leading physicians, scientists and advocates together in a consensus on toxic chemicals and neurological disorders in children, says Maureen Swanson. But with the science increasing “exponentially,” she said the time was ripe for a concerted call to action.

Swanson is co-director of Project TENDR (Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks), a coalition of doctors, public health scientists and environmental health advocates who joined forces in 2015 to call for reducing chemical exposures that interfere with fetal and child brain development. This past summer in July, after more than a year of work, the group published its TENDR Consensus Statement in Environmental Health Perspectives, laying down a foundation for developing future recommendations to monitor, assess and reduce neurotoxic chemical exposures. The consensus concludes that a new framework for assessing such chemicals is desperately needed, as the “current system in the United States for evaluating scientific evidence and making health-based decisions about environmental chemicals is fundamentally broken.”

Swanson said the consensus statement is a first of its kind, adding that it’s “unprecedented” to have such a breadth of scientists come together and agree that the “science is clear” on toxic chemicals and neurodevelopmental disorders.

“Part of the urgency is because these toxic chemicals are in such widespread use and exposures for children and pregnant women are so widespread — they’re just ubiquitous,” Swanson, who also directs the Healthy Children Project at the Learning Disabilities Association of America, told me. “The urgency is also in seeing the trends in learning and developmental disorders and cognitive and behavioral difficulties — they’re problems that only seem to be increasing.”

According to the consensus statement, which Swanson said involved hundreds of studies and “countless hours” and reviewing and assessing the evidence, the U.S. is home to an alarming increase in childhood learning and behavioral problems, with parents reporting that one in six American children are living with some form of developmental disability, such as autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. That statistic is an increase of 17 percent from a decade ago. The statement offers examples of toxic chemicals that can contribute to such disorders and lays out the argument for a new approach to chemical safety.

For example, the statement notes that many studies offer evidence that “clearly demonstrates or strongly suggests” adverse neurodevelopmental toxicity for lead, mercury, organophosphate pesticides, combustion-related air pollution, PBDE flame retardants and PCBs. Lead, as Swanson noted, is a perfect example of a widely used chemical that contributes to cognitive problems and intellectual impairment — “and yet it’s still everywhere, in water pipes, in cosmetics. We thought we’d done a good job of eliminating lead problems, but we haven’t done enough,” she said. Another prime example are chemical flame retardants, one of the most common household toxic exposures associated with neurodevelopmental delays in children.

“Of course these disorders are complex and multifactorial, so genetics plays a role, nutrition does and social stressors do,” Swanson told me. “But the contribution of toxic chemicals is a piece that we can prevent. We can do something about this part to decrease the risk to children.”

On taking action, the consensus argues that the current system for evaluating the human health effects of chemicals is “broken,” noting that of the thousands of chemicals now on the market, only a fraction have been tested for health impacts. The consensus reads:

Our failures to protect children from harm underscore the urgent need for a better approach to developing and assessing scientific evidence and using it to make decisions. We as a society should be able to take protective action when scientific evidence indicates a chemical is of concern, and not wait for unequivocal proof that a chemical is causing harm to our children.

Evidence of neurodevelopmental toxicity of any type — epidemiological or toxicological or mechanistic — by itself should constitute a signal sufficient to trigger prioritization and some level of action. Such an approach would enable policy makers and regulators to proactively test and identify chemicals that are emerging concerns for brain development and prevent widespread human exposures.

As many of you know, President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21^st Century Act into law in June, reforming the woefully outdated federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which hadn’t been updated since 1976. And while TSCA reform is certainly a “step in the right direction,” Swanson said the sheer backlog of chemical safety testing as well as the pace of testing set forth in the new law means the process of reducing or removing toxic exposures will likely be incredibly slow — and even that’s still dependent on whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is fully funded to implement TSCA reform.

“TSCA reform by itself is insufficient to address the magnitude of these problems,” she said, noting that pesticides are outside of TSCA’s and the new law’s jurisdiction.

In turn, consensus authors called on regulators to follow scientific guidance when assessing a chemical’s impact on brain development, with a particular emphasis on fetuses and children; called on businesses to eliminate neurotoxic chemicals from their products; called on health providers to integrate knowledge about neurotoxics into patient care and public health practice; and called on policymakers to be more aggressive in reducing childhood lead exposures.

The problem of harmful chemical exposures can seem like an overwhelming one — “nobody can shop they’re way out of this problem,” Swanson said — but there are steps that can be taken right away to reduce exposures. For example, Swanson noted that when the U.S. phased out the use of lead in gasoline, children’s blood lead levels plummeted. Similarly, after Sweden banned PBDEs in the 1990s, levels of the chemical found in breast milk dropped sharply.

In terms of next steps, Swanson said Project TENDR will continue reaching out to policymakers, health professionals and businesses on how to work together toward safer chemical use and healthier children.

“There’s a lot we can do that can make a substantial difference in a relatively short time frame,” Swanson told me. “Our key message is that this is problem we can do something about. There’s reason for alarm, but also reason to get working and take care of it collectively so that our children are not at greater risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.”

To download a full copy of the Consensus Statement, as well as find tips on reducing harmful exposures on an individual level, visit Project TENDR.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for nearly 15 years.

kkrisberg Fri, 09/30/2016 - 17:59

Improving TSCA: The job’s not done yet and new rules are key to protecting public health

egrossman — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:10:53 +0000

Improving TSCA: The job’s not done yet and new rules are key to protecting public health

By Elizabeth Grossman

While the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21^st Century (LCSA) was signed into law with considerable fanfare, the job of reforming and improving the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is far from complete. And while there may have been some hope that the June 22^nd White House signing ceremony meant the end of wrangling between the chemical industry and environmental health advocates, it’s too soon to pack up the talking points. It also remains to be seen whose interests will prevail.

Among the biggest changes the new law brings is its requirement that the EPA evaluate all the chemicals it regulates. This means not only new but also existing chemicals – including the 62,000 grandfathered in without testing data when TSCA was enacted in 1976. But exactly which chemicals the EPA will review first and how it conducts these risk assessments has yet to be determined. Both will be decided by rules that must be finalized by June 2017. How these rules are written will in many ways determine how effectively the LCSA protects Americans from hazardous chemicals.

As part of this process, last week the EPA held two public meetings. On August 9^th the agency took comments that will, in the EPA’s words, “inform a proposed rule on its process for conducting risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” And on August 10^th the EPA held a meeting “to gather input that will inform a proposed rule to establish a risk-based process for chemical prioritization.” Comments made at both suggest that the EPA has some critical decision-making ahead of it.

Chemical industry voices familiar concerns

For example, expressing what’s been a chemical industry concern since the earliest days of the EPA and TSCA, two toxicologists employed by Shell cautioned the EPA against “overly conservative assessments of risk.” The chemical industry has long argued that a precautionary approach could push businesses and consumers away from useful chemicals, and lead to costly environmental cleanups and exposure prevention measures. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has used this same language to criticize the EPA’s draft risk assessments of dioxin, formaldehyde, and trichloroethylene (TCE) among other chemicals. The ACC has also made this argument in opposing California’s proposed drinking water standard for perchlorate – and to Congress in its general and long-standing critique of EPA’s risk assessment process.

Several chemical industry representatives also asked the EPA to base risk assessments and prioritization on chemicals’ “intended use” rather than on production volume or inherent hazard. This will likely raise cautionary flags for those concerned about the storage and transport of and occupational exposures to highly hazardous chemicals – like phosgene or hydrofluoric acid – that are used selectively in manufacturing but don’t end up in consumer products.

Others, including Steve Risotto of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), urged the EPA to give industry scientists and other experts “equal consideration for appointment” to EPA chemical review panels. This is another ongoing complaint of the chemical industry that has, in fact, historically dominated the science the EPA considers in its chemical reviews and regulatory process.

The ACC strongly supports the new TSCA, that it was deeply involved in drafting, and released a statement stressing the importance of the EPA’s prioritization and risk assessment process. But as in so many things, the devil is in the yet-to-be decided details.

And the big unanswered question is whether the EPA’s new chemicals assessments will shift the status quo and result in more effective health protection.

The Pump Handle will discuss comments from those on the environmental health advocacy side of the aisle in an upcoming post. – Both rules are open for public comment through August 24^th.

Elizabeth Grossman is the author of Chasing Molecules, High Tech Trash and other books. Her work has appeared in a variety of publications including National Geographic News, the Intercept, Scientific American, Environmental Health Perspectives, Mother Jones, Ensia, Civil Eats, The Guardian, Yale e360, In These Times, The Washington Post, Salon, and The Nation.

egrossman Wed, 08/17/2016 - 13:10

Obama calls out asbestos at TSCA signing ceremony

cmonforton — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:44:18 +0000

Obama calls out asbestos at TSCA signing ceremony

President Obama signed into law today a bill to improve the way toxic substances are regulated and allowed into products that enter our homes, schools, and workplaces. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is the first amendment in 40 years to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA).

During the White House signing ceremony, the President explained why the new law is needed:

"...the system was so complex, so burdensome that our country hasn't even been able to uphold a ban on asbestos --a known carcinogen that kills as many as 10,000 Americans every year. I think a lot of Americans would be shocked by that." [Here's a one-minute video of him saying it.]

There are tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce, but asbestos was the only toxic material the President called out by name at the event. That's because the "magic mineral" became the poster child for TSCA's failure. Now starts a new chapter on how chemicals are regulated in the U.S.

Next week, Kim Krisberg will provide a full report from Linda Reinstein who attended the signing ceremony. She and Doug Larkin founded 12 years ago the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO). After leaving the White House today, Linda told me:

"Never in our wildest dreams did we imagine ADAO’s work would be given such esteemed recognition."

With the shout out by President Obama, let's set our sights on turning asbestos from the poster child of TSCA's failure into the hallmark of success for this new chemical safety law.

cmonforton Wed, 06/22/2016 - 13:44

In your final paragraph, you meant to say "Let's set our sights ...", not "Let's set our sites ..." (In the same paragraph, "shout-out" would be preferable to "shout out".)

Shrugging shoulders, holding noses on passage of TSCA reform bill

cmonforton — Thu, 09 Jun 2016 18:44:41 +0000

Shrugging shoulders, holding noses on passage of TSCA reform bill

A major health and environmental law is headed to the President’s desk for his signature. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act passed the US Senate this week by a bipartisan voice vote, and earlier passed the House by an overwhelming 403-12 margin. Science magazine’s Puneet Kollipara wrote the new law:

“…is perhaps the most far-reaching and influential environmental statute passed by Congress since the body updated the Clean Air Act in 1990.”

The coalition Safer Chemicals, Health Families prepared this recap of it of the new law.

But I've observed an unusual thing on the public health and environmental listserves to which I belong. There’s been no flurry of messages applauding it or congratulating colleagues on the victory. The absence of reaction to a major new environmental health law is striking.

For decades, many environmental, labor, health and consumer groups have sought reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. It's a broken law which was not even capable of ensuring a ban on asbestos. But these same groups seem to be holding their noses and shrugging their shoulders about the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. The coalition Safer Chemicals, Health Families prepared this recap of it.

The bill was passed unanimously because of intense lobbying by and on behalf of two groups: the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Their marriage gave lawmakers from both sides of the aisle the validation to support ACC and EDF's legislative offspring (the bill). As ultra-conservative Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) said:

"Anytime you have the Chamber of Commerce and you have the manufacturers [ACC] and the Environmental Defense Fund all together, that gets people’s attention."

From the beginning, the alliance alone made me wary. But I grew more apprehensive about early (and late) versions of the bill when I assessed the diversity of health and environmental groups who had not jumped on board: The Breast Cancer Fund, Blue/Green Alliance, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Consumers Union, and many others.

Amendments were made to the bill that made it more palatable, but not enough to have groups high-fiving and dancing in the street. On passage of the bill, I've read lukewarm statements such as the following:

"Tonight’s vote marks the end of a very long and difficult process. The final bill gives EPA important new powers to require chemical testing and to take action to restrict priority chemicals. The pace will be slow, however, and the bill has other limitations. It is important for the public to remain engaged as EPA implements the new reforms." (Andy Igrejas, director of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition)

And,

"It will be some years before we know for sure how successful the bill will be at protecting the public. NRDC will press hard to ensure the strong implementation of this bill.” (Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council)

And from Linda Reinstein of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO):

“While this is a landmark step forward, the fight is far from over... Under this legislation, the EPA may take as long as seven years to assess, regulate, and ban asbestos in America. To the chemical industry, this unnecessary delay is about maximizing dollars and cents, but as the ADAO community knows all too well, the true cost of delay will be measured in lives. ...Asbestos has been the poster child for TSCA reform and will be the litmus test for the efficacy of this bill."

It's obvious, however, that other groups are intentionally silent on the bill. Some may need time to read it before offering an opinion. All the intricacies of the 178-page law may only be understood by a handful of congressional staff and lobbyists. Groups who are silent may need time to dissect and digest what's in the bill. Others may see pluses and minuses in the bill, but don't see much accomplished by articulating those views. The law's already been passed. Still others may be choosing to hold their tongues until EPA begins implementation of the new law. Critical decisions will be made early in the next Presidential Administration which will signal how much EPA intends to embrace its new authority. Some of the silence comes from groups who are taking a wait-and-see attitude.

President Obama will host a signing ceremony soon. EPA officials will be developing an action plan and assigning tasks to implement the law. I've no doubt that those who are holding their noses today, will quickly turn the page. I expect they will work diligently to push the EPA to meet deadlines, set high bars for health protection, and reject paralysis by analysis. And if the agency doesn't rise to met this new opportunity to address exposure to toxic substances, I'm sure lawsuits to compel EPA action will follow.

cmonforton Thu, 06/09/2016 - 14:44