Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Passage of the Chemical Safety Bill Is a Murky Milestone for Children’s Health

Health + Wellness
Passage of the Chemical Safety Bill Is a Murky Milestone for Children’s Health

By Ansje Miller, Center for Environmental Health

Following the recent passage of the chemical safety bill (The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which passed the Senate on June 7), President Obama has signed the first major update to an environmental health law in decades. The bill is being touted as a milestone in our country's environmental history.

While health advocacy efforts won important victories like safeguarding California's Prop 65 (more below), unfortunately the bill falls short of rules our children and families need for protection from chemicals that can cause cancer, birth defects and other serious illnesses.

The bill falls short of rules our children and families need for protection from chemicals that can cause cancer, birth defects and other serious illnesses.

To be sure there are some small steps towards progress in the bill. For the first time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be required to assess chemicals and decide if they are safe, based solely on human health and environmental effects. The bill gives the agency enforceable targets and deadlines for the pace of chemical assessments. EPA must also take into account those most vulnerable to chemical exposures, like children or those who live near chemical polluters, when developing new chemical regulations.

But the bill signed by the president contains weak provisions even within these positive steps. While the pace of chemical review is prescribed, the prescription falls woefully short for dealing with many of the most risky chemicals. There are more than 80,000 chemicals on the market and EPA has stated that at least 1,000 of these are of enough concern that they should quickly be reviewed. So it is shocking that the bill calls on the agency to review just 20 chemicals per year. Given that the bill allows EPA to take as long as seven years per review—and given the agency's long history of missing deadlines (e.g., see here and here and here), we can expect that most of these chemicals will remain untested for decades.

The law has other troubling provisions as well. EPA cannot bar imports of products, including toys and other children's products, containing harmful chemicals unless the agency first finds that the product will likely expose consumers to health risks (since companies are not required to disclose their products' chemical contents, the agency apparently must make this judgment by clairvoyance). This loophole for toxic imported products is actually a major step backwards from current law.

Furthermore, states that have been successfully protecting children and families from harmful chemicals in the absence of federal rules now face new barriers to providing urgently needed protection. State laws have led to national action against products like baby bottles with BPA and children's products with toxic flame retardants, but now such state actions may be less likely.

Still, thanks to advocacy by the Center for Environmental Health and other health groups, the final bill includes leeway for some state actions and most importantly, the law protects a vital California law that for decades has stopped nationwide sales of hundreds of dangerous products.

This law, known as Prop 65, will continue to be fully enforceable. This matters because under Prop 65, companies have been forced to end their use of arsenic-based wood playground equipment, shampoo containing cancer-causing chemicals, lead-containing materials in baby bibs, children's jewelry and lunchboxes and harmful chemicals used in many other products.

While the details of how EPA will implement the new law remain murky, now is the time to remain vigilant. We must monitor EPA's enforcement and pressure state lawmakers to act. Now more than ever, it's important for all of us to carefully read the labels, to hold companies accountable for using risky chemicals, to send letters and call our elected officials and federal and state regulators and talk to our friends and families about how to protect our health from toxic chemicals.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Interactive Map Shows How 6,500 Factory Farms Put North Carolinians at Risk

3 Things You Should Know About the Most Important Environmental Law Passed in Decades

These 16,000 Foods May Contain the Hormone-Disrupting Chemical BPA

Monsanto Issued Two GMO Permits Despite Objection From 5 Million Nigerians

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