Safe Chemicals Act Passes Senate Committee on Party Line Vote
A key Senate committee today approved the first fundamental overhaul of federal chemicals regulation since passage of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), widely considered the weakest of the major U.S. environmental laws.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee endorsed Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg’s (D-NJ) Safe Chemicals Act on a party-line vote, marking an important milestone in the decade-long efforts by Environmental Working Group (EWG) and others to update and strengthen the flawed system that is supposed to protect Americans from toxic chemicals in consumer products and the environment.
“For the first time since 1976, a Senate committee has advanced a measure that would fundamentally shift how toxic chemicals are tested, approved and used in the marketplace,” Heather White, EWG’s chief of staff and general counsel, said. “The Lautenberg bill would flip the burden of proof on its head, forcing chemical companies to prove that their products are safe for human health and the environment. That has not been the case these last 30 years. As a result, tens of thousands of manmade chemicals are used into every conceivable consumer product without adequate safety testing. If the Lautenberg legislation becomes law, that wild west approach to chemicals management, which has long put human health and the environment at risk, might finally come to an end.”
Scott Faber, EWG’s vice-president for government affairs, noted that the bill proposed by Sen. Lautenberg and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) also includes provisions to protect manufacturers’ ability to protect their proprietary trade secrets.
“The presence of so many toxic chemicals in our lives is the leading suspect behind a number of serious public health challenges, including cancer, birth defects and behavioral disorders in children,” Faber said. “The bill developed by Senators Boxer and Lautenberg will, for the first time, subject thousands of chemicals to real review. What's more, the bill addresses many of the concerns raised by companies that manufacture and use chemicals by allowing them to protect information important to their businesses. It's not too late to pass chemical safety legislation that addresses the safety concerns of consumers and meets the economic needs of manufacturers.”
The bill would:
- ensure that all chemicals in on the market pose a “reasonable certainty of no harm,” considered the gold standard for protecting children and accounting for all chemical exposures
- require all manufacturers to justify all claims of business confidentiality on chemicals and ensure that first responders and public safety personnel can access important safety information
- require new chemicals to be screened before going on the marketplace
- protect states’ ability to pass stronger laws
EWG has been calling for TSCA reform for more than a decade. In 2005 the organization provided guidance to Sen. Lautenberg and his staff as he drafted the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act, the first proposal by any member of Congress to change the way chemicals are regulated under the 1976 law. That bill never came to a vote.
Underscoring the importance of strengthening the law, EWG researchers have produced a number of groundbreaking reports documenting the extent to which people are polluted with potentially harmful chemicals.
In 2004 and again in 2008, EWG had outside laboratories test umbilical cord blood samples for hundreds of industrial chemicals and found many of them in the babies’ blood, demonstrating that numerous exposures take place even before birth.
Following EWG’s first cord blood study in 2004, EWG President and Co-founder Ken Cook used the findings of that report to develop a presentation titled Ten Americans, using compelling slides and eye-opening statistics to make the case that Congress needed to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. Cook and others have delivered the talk to hundreds of audiences across the country, including an abbreviated version presented on Feb. 4, 2010 before the Senate Subcommittee for Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, chaired by Sen. Lautenberg.
EWG also conducted the first investigation of toxic fire retardants in parents and their children, showing that toddlers and preschoolers typically had three times as much of these hormone-disrupting chemicals in their blood as their mothers. In all, the study found 11 flame retardants in the children tested.
In 2010, an intensive review of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents by EWG discovered that manufacturers’ overuse of trade secret claims meant that the public had no access to crucial information about approximately 17,000 of the more than 83,000 chemicals on the EPA's master inventory. Companies were shielding the information from disclosure requirements by exploiting broad exemptions allowed under the Confidential Business Information section of TSCA.
And in 2004, EWG assembled what was at the time the most thorough review of the size and scope of the public health tragedy caused by asbestos contamination in the U.S.. The Lautenberg-Boxer bill would designate asbestos as a chemical of very high concern, restricting its used and reducing Americans’ exposure to asbestos and the deadly risks it poses.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), who is a member of the EPW Committee and voted in support of the Lautenberg-Boxer bill, has been a leading advocate for those individuals and their families who have suffered as a result of exposure to the deadly carcinogen, asbestos. One of the worst asbestos contamination sites in the country is located at an abandoned mine in Libby, Mt.
- Thom Yorke of Radiohead Releases Song With Greenpeace to Help ... ›
- Patti Smith, Thom Yorke, Flea and More Featured on Just Released ... ›
- Musicians and Activists Unite at 'Pathway to Paris' - EcoWatch ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A national park in Thailand has come up with an innovative way to make sure guests clean up their own trash: mail it back to them.
- Supermarkets in Thailand and Vietnam Swap Plastic Packaging for ... ›
- Malaysia Sends Plastic Waste Back to 13 Wealthy Countries, Says It ... ›
- Thailand Begins the New Year With Plastic Bag Ban - EcoWatch ›
- Coronavirus Worsens Thailand's Plastic Waste Crisis - EcoWatch ›
- Marium, Thailand's Beloved Baby Dugong, Is the Latest Victim of ... ›
By Ilana Cohen
Four years ago, Jacob Abel cast his first presidential vote for Donald Trump. As a young conservative from Concord, North Carolina, the choice felt natural.
But this November, he plans to cast a "protest vote" for a write-in candidate or abstain from casting a ballot for president. A determining factor in his 180-degree turn? Climate change.
Fractures Among Young Climate Conservatives<p>While young conservatives have united around the urgency of climate change, they remain divided over how to bring their concerns to the ballot box. Some embrace right-wing <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-attacks-republican-convention/2020/08/24/434e5b46-e66d-11ea-970a-64c73a1c2392_story.html" target="_blank">attacks</a> painting Biden as a "tool of the left" and find his climate agenda "radical." Others can't find a way to justify voting for Trump, even if it means breaking with their party.</p><p>Patrick Mann from Orange County, California, voted for Trump in 2016. But today, he's leading Aggies for Joe at Texas A&M University and is co-founder of Texas Students for Biden. </p><p>Mann grew up watching wildfires ravage his home state, nearly forcing his family to evacuate in 2017. The GOP is failing to "meet the moment" for climate action, Mann said. He's hoping Biden will deliver on a promise to "<a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/caucus/2020/01/06/joe-biden-democrat-president-iowa-caucus-restore-soul-our-nation/2806422001/" target="_blank">restore the soul of our nation</a>." </p><p>Taylor Walker from Pensacola, Florida, is also determined to make her voice heard on climate, including by casting her first-ever vote for president—but not for Biden.</p>
A False Equivalency<p>Young climate conservatives may fear climate denial and delayed climate action, but more than that, they fear the growing political momentum around the Green New Deal, the massive spending it entails and <a href="https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/" target="_blank">Biden's citing of it</a> as a "crucial framing for meeting the climate challenges we face."</p><p>Many don't want to split with their party to support a Democrat whose <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/09/03/757220130/joe-biden-on-bipartisanship-gun-control-and-regrets-over-inaction-after-a-traged" target="_blank">allegedly bipartisan intentions</a> they doubt. If stymieing what they consider a radical green agenda means re-electing a climate change denying president, so be it. </p><p>"I'm scared of climate change, but I'm also scared of the Green New Deal and what it means for America," said Ben Mutolo, a republicEN spokesperson and junior at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. </p><p>Mutolo felt encouraged by former Ohio Governor John Kasich's <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2020/08/17/kasich-speech-to-democratic-convention-follows-years-of-building-conservative-credentials/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">appearance</a> at the Democratic National Convention, but he still struggles to see himself voting for Biden. Though the candidate paints himself as a <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-08-12/harris-biden-different-generation-similar-political-instinct" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">centrist,</a> Mutolo believes he's "cozying up to the ultra-progressive left." </p><p>Mutolo, who wants to see market-based climate solutions like a carbon tax, feels torn between a candidate whose climate plan relies on taking an "<a href="https://joebiden.com/environmental-justice-plan/#" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">All-of-Government approach</a>," and one with no efforts to reign in global warming at all. <span></span></p><p>Leiserowitz said he appreciated how a conservative might feel Biden's climate plan "doesn't jive with their limited government, free-market approach."</p><p>But he sees a strong distinction between voting for a presidential candidate with a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/us/politics/biden-climate-plan.html" target="_blank">$2 trillion climate plan</a> that includes large renewable energy investments, which have <a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-april-2020/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan support</a>, and a candidate trying "to take the country in the opposite direction, towards more fossil fuels."</p>
- 7 Republicans Joined Senate Democrats in Vote to Fight Climate ... ›
- Climate Change Acknowledged by Increasing Number of ... ›
The World Health Organization (WHO) announced Monday that 64 high-income nations have joined an effort to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine fairly, prioritizing the most vulnerable citizens, as Science reported. The program is called the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility, or Covax, and it is a joint effort led by the WHO, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
- Trump Denies CDC Director's 2021 Timeline for Coronavirus Vaccine ›
- CDC Tells States to Prepare for a Vaccine Before November Election ›
- Fauci Warns Pre-Pandemic Normalcy Not Likely Until Late 2021 ... ›
By Gloria Oladipo
In the face of dangerous heat waves this summer, Americans have taken shelter in air conditioned cooling centers. Normally, that would be a wise choice, but during a pandemic, indoor shelters present new risks. The same air conditioning systems that keep us cool recirculate air around us, potentially spreading the coronavirus.