As many times as my parents used it, “because I said so” is never a good rationale-- but that’s basically what EPA wants us to believe for why the chemical Pigment Violet 29 is not risky. We blogged previously that the meager available data does not support this conclusion, and EPA’s release of additional information- … Continue reading Using shoddy methods, EPA says chemical is not risky
In October 2017, Drew Wynne, 31, succumbed to methylene chloride fumes while removing paint from the floors of his coffee company. This was almost a year after EPA proposed but refused to finalize a rule to ban methylene chloride paint strippers (“2017 rule”) which could have prevented his death. When EPA finalized their rule in … Continue reading The deadly omission in EPA’s Methylene Chloride rule
The House Energy & Commerce sub-committee on Environment and Climate Change is holding a hearing on “Mismanaging Chemical Risks: EPA’s Failure to Protect Workers.” Dr. Tracey Woodruff, Professor and Director at the University of California, San Francisco Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, gave this statement: "The science is clear: workers face disproportionately high … Continue reading House investigates EPA’s failures on workers and toxic chemicals
One of EPA’s core responsibilities under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is to protect public health by evaluating chemicals and limiting the risky ones. EPA recently released step one in this process-- its first chemical evaluation since TSCA was reformed in 2016, on the chemical Pigment Violet 29. Unfortunately, our analysis found alarmingly poor … Continue reading EPA assessment should be called Pigment “Violate” the science
1,4-dioxane is a cancer-causing chemical contaminating drinking water in Michigan, a situation local officials are calling “a slow-motion environmental disaster,” and significant problem with the water supply. Yet, despite such clear and acknowledged dangers, EPA will ignore 1,4-dioxane in people’s drinking water entirely in its health risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). … Continue reading EPA ignoring major risks in chemical assessments
There are almost 40,000 chemicals in commerce, and EPA needs to take action to limit those that are dangerous. That’s why the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) directs EPA to select (through a prioritization process as shown below) 20 “high-priority,” potentially risky chemicals by the end of next year for assessment. To make informed … Continue reading EPA’s unwritten policy on chemical data: don’t ask, don’t tell
The Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment invites you to the following events at the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting & Exposition 2018, on November 10-14, 2018, at the San Diego Convention Center...
When Congress reformed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016, it gave EPA a critical job: to protect the public’s health from the ‘worst of the worst’ hazardous chemicals – those that build up in our bodies and persist in the environment, known as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals (PBTs). EPA’s recent assessment of … Continue reading ‘Worst of worst’ chemicals here to stay – EPA, we need action
EPA recently released its new TSCA “systematic review” method that establishes how the Agency will use science to make decisions about whether to limit toxic chemicals in our air, water, food and everyday products. Unfortunately, our analysis finds that instead of ensuring a comprehensive, unbiased evaluation, like a systematic review is supposed to do, the … Continue reading EPA method will curtail science used in chemical evaluations
Our April 2018 legislative briefing “Is the New Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Working as Congress Intended?,” held in partnership with The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), was attended by 95 people including Congressional and agency staff, media and NGOs. Leading experts shared concerns about EPA’s approach to the science in TSCA implementation- … Continue reading Is the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) working as Congress intended?
