Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

5 Ways Chemical Safety Is Eroding Under Trump

Health + Wellness
5 Ways Chemical Safety Is Eroding Under Trump

By Richard Denison

In June 2016, Congress had the rare success of passing bipartisan legislation to update our nation's badly broken chemical safety system. It finally gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to strengthen health protections for American families.

Fast-forward 22 months and the implementation of that law is now in jeopardy.


The Trump administration is systematically weakening the EPA and seeking to dismantle key new authorities and mandates Congress just gave it under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act. This with the goal of shifting critical policies to serve the chemical industry's agenda instead of protecting public health.

Here are five actions Trump's EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and his handpicked political appointees have already taken to undermine the law—potentially setting us back decades.

1. Shelved proposed bans of three toxic chemicals

In January 2017, the EPA proposed to ban high-risk uses of three dangerous chemicals: methylene chloride, N-methylpyrrolidone and trichloroethylene. Methylene chloride, for one, is used in widely available paint strippers and is responsible for dozens of deaths in recent years.

Less than a year later, with a new president in the White House, the EPA has indefinitely delayed action on these chemicals by moving the proposed bans from active to "long-term action" status. This effectively puts them on the back burner, going against the very spirit and goal of the 2016 chemical safety reform.

2. Issued new and illegal rules for TSCA

One of the first orders of business under the 2016 Lautenberg Act was for the EPA to issue "framework rules" governing how the reformed law will work for years to come.

The proposed rules—released at the tail end of the Obama administration—were fair and faithful to the law. But the final rules published in July 2017 did a U-turn from those that had been proposed and now reflect the wish list of the chemical industry.

They are also patently illegal, which is why we're suing the EPA.

3. Reversed course on new chemical reviews

After the new law passed, the EPA immediately began to conduct the more robust reviews of new chemicals before they entered the market that the legislation called for.

But in response to industry demands, the EPA reversed course to instead avoid applying protective measures to speed up the approval process.

These changes circumvent clear requirements in the law and essentially return America to an era where few chemicals were adequately assessed or tested for safety as a condition of entering the market—and the public was kept in the dark.

4. Pushed to dismantle key EPA programs

Political leadership at the EPA is targeting key programs for "reorganization." Those at risk include:

  • The Integrated Risk Information System program, which provides critical scientific information on chemical hazards to support public health decisions. Attempts by Pruitt's political appointees to weaken or eliminate the program have so far been unsuccessful, but this fight is far from over.
  • EPA's Safer Choice program, which certifies products made with safer chemicals to help shoppers find products that are better for people and the planet. Pruitt has transferred a full third of its staff to another program.
  • Science and research funding critical to furthering understanding of how chemicals affect our health and environment. Pruitt's latest budget request slashed funding for such programs by more than 48 percent.

5. Stacked the agency with industry cronies

It's no secret that the Trump administration has placed scores of people with deep conflicts of interest in powerful positions across the federal government.

Political appointees to the EPA are no exception. Case in point: Immediately prior to her appointment to the EPA, Nancy Beck was a senior official at the American Chemistry Council—the chemical industry's primary lobbying arm. In her new job, she is shaping policy on hazardous chemicals, making decisions that directly affect the financial interests of ACC member companies.

Among her numerous controversial moves so far: To direct the weakening of the TSCA framework rules—changes that in some cases mirrored the exact wording of ACC comments on the proposed rules. Beck, while at ACC, actually wrote such comments.

By reversing progress on toxic chemical regulation and by crippling the agency charged with its implementation, the Trump administration is consistently elevating industry interests over the protection of our health.

Richard Denison is a lead senior scientist at Environmental Defense Fund.

With restaurants and supermarkets becoming less viable options during the pandemic, there has been a growth in demand and supply of local food. Baker County Tourism Travel Baker County / Flickr

By Robin Scher

Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.

Read More Show Less

Trending

A technician inspects a bitcoin mining operation at Bitfarms in Saint Hyacinthe, Quebec on March 19, 2018. LARS HAGBERG / AFP via Getty Images

As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.

Read More Show Less
OR-93 traveled hundreds of miles from Oregon to California. Austin Smith Jr. / Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs / California Department of Fish and Wildlife

An Oregon-born wolf named OR-93 has sparked conservation hopes with a historic journey into California.

Read More Show Less
A plume of exhaust extends from the Mitchell Power Station, a coal-fired power plant built along the Monongahela River, 20 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, on Sept. 24, 2013 in New Eagle, Pennsylvania. The plant, owned by FirstEnergy, was retired the following month. Jeff Swensen / Getty Images

By David Drake and Jeffrey York

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The Big Idea

People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.

Read More Show Less