🏡 index : old_projects/debreader.github.io.git

---
  layout: post
  title: The U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act TSCA
  author: Joe Schwarcz
  source: McGill Blogs
---
  HYPERLINK
"http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2016/08/27/the-u-s-toxic-substances-control-
act-tsca/"  The U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

  Amidst the cacophony of jingoist, vacuous blather at the Republican
Convention there were some noteworthy phrases that probably slipped by
most viewers. A number of speakers talked about the need to reign in the
activities of the Environmental Protection Agency, the “EPA.” That
is something one would expect from Republicans who want as little
government interference in their life as possible. But these are the
same Republicans who voted to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control
Act that finally was passed in June by Congress with bipartisan approval
after ten years of debate. This update was very much needed because
significant information has been accumulated since 1976 about exposure
to chemicals in the environment and their potential effect on health.

The old law required companies to register new chemicals that would
enter commerce with the EPA but there was no requirement to furnish any
safety data, and there was no provision for EPA to tackle the risks
associated with chemicals already on the market at the time. The
assumption was that chemicals are safe unless shown to be otherwise. The
EPA did have the power to ban a chemical, but the burden of proof of
harm was on the agency. Also, the economic downsides had to be factored
in before the use of any chemical was limited. With companies
introducing about 700 chemicals every year, and the EPA inventory
building up to some 85,000 substances, the task of ferreting out
dangerous ones is overwhelming. While determining risk when exposure is
high, such as in an occupational setting, is relatively easy,
determining risk to consumers who may be exposed to some chemical in
tiny amounts over a long period is daunting.

But under the new law, EPA has to examine a chemical before it is put on
the market and make a decision about safety. The risk assessment will
take into account how a chemical is used. For example, a fluorinated
compound may be deemed to be fine for use in airplane fire
extinguishers, but not as an oil repellant in pizza boxes. An important
new feature is that the agency will now have the authority to ask for
information from producers about studies that have been carried out and
can even ask for further studies. Another new facet is that EPA does not
have to consider the economic implications of declaring a substance to
be toxic. Furthermore, it is going to be much tougher for a company to
withhold information claiming trade secrecy.

There are also 90 chemicals that have been identified as meriting
investigation and possible regulation with EPA having to adhere to
mandatory deadlines. The new bill has the support of the chemical
industry because it should reduce consumer angst given that EPA will now
be charged with examining the safety of chemicals before they go on the
market. But here is the issue. While Republicans in the House voted for
the bill, they also voted to cut the EPA’s funding and staffing for 2017.
If EPA is going to carry out its new duties effectively, it will
need more, not less funding. The plan is that some of the shortfall will
be offset by charging companies fees for submitting chemicals for EPA to
review. That may not sit well with Republicans.

Joe Schwarcz PhD – Aug 27th/2016