Republican House bill guts laws protecting US consumers from toxic chemicals

A new Republican House bill proposes sweeping changes to US toxic chemical laws that would gut protections for consumers, workers and the environment, public health advocates mobilising against the legislation warn.

Among other changes to the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the bill would limit the type of science that is used to determine health risks, stop legally requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure chemicals won’t harm people, give industry a prominent role in chemical review processes, and make it more difficult legally for the agency to ban toxic substances.

Congress in 2016 strengthened TSCA and the bill, drafted by Republican Alabama congressman Gary Palmer, would reverse many of those changes. Industry has been attacking the law for the last nine years and is seizing an opportunity to attempt to gut it with the GOP fully in charge of the federal government, said Daniel Savery, an attorney with the Earthjustice legal nonprofit, which is among hundreds of groups organizing against the proposal.

“Industry has said it has a ‘historic opportunity’ to revise TSCA, or gut it, as we believe it to be,” Savery said. “It’ll be interesting to see what shade of lipstick they’re going to put on this pig to sell it to their constituents, who are rightly concerned about the prevalence of toxic chemicals in food, water, soil, and everywhere else.”

The legislative assault on TSCA coincides with a flurry of rule changes within the EPA that also seek to weaken chemical oversight. Donald Trump campaigned on cleaning up the nation’s water and food supply, a priority for the Robert F Kennedy Jr-led Maha movement that helped propel the president to office.

But the Trump administration also has close ties to the chemical and pesticide industries, and its ongoing deregulation operation has fueled tension among many Republicans and Maha. The chemical safety office is now headed by former chemical and pesticide industry lobbyists.

Among the most serious changes, the new TSCA law would eliminate the EPA mandate to ensure new chemicals won’t harm people. The agency would only have to ensure a chemical probably won’t harm people, an important legal distinction that would allow many dangerous substances, like Pfas “forever chemicals”, to go to market despite obvious health risks, advocates say.

Additionally, TSCA currently requires the EPA to put restrictions in place on how a chemical is used in consumer goods or in the workplace if it finds a substance presents an unreasonable risk to human health. The new law would eliminate that requirement.

Meanwhile, any controls put in place would have to be cost-effective for companies, or “reasonably feasible”, a vaguely defined term that advocates say would cripple oversight by opening the door for inaction and lawsuits.

“These were characterized as ‘small changes’, but no, they are fundamental changes that put industry profits ahead of health,” said Maria Doa, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund nonprofit.

The revised law would alter how scientific research is used to review chemical safety, in part by giving greater preference to industry science. It would also limit exposure testing. Doa cited research that determines how much toxic flame retardant comes off furniture as an example of exposure testing that protects consumers from chemicals in everyday products.

The new law would require the EPA to meet with industry during the new chemical review process, which “takes away the independence of the review”, Doa, a former EPA attorney, said. If new chemicals were not approved in 90 days under the new law, then the EPA’s top administrator would be required to produce a report that explains the delay to industry.

“There would be so much pressure on the staff not to exceed the 90 days, and it would force scientists to make determinations even if they haven’t finished the review,” Doa said.

Meanwhile, the new law would stop the agency in some instances from considering the cumulative effects of an exposure from multiple routes, like in the air, water, or dermally. It would also allow industry to sue the EPA during the risk assessment process instead of requiring it to wait until a rule is published, which would grind the scientific review process to a halt with litigation.

Advocates also fear what the changes would mean for worker safety because the new law would prohibit any regulation that is stricter than Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) standards. But OSHA on its website states that its chemical exposure limits are often “outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health”. The Osha limit for TCE, or trichloroethylene, a common dry cleaning chemical, was set in 1971 and is 500 times higher than the level that the EPA more recently found to be safe.

In a statement, Chris Jahn, CEO of the American Chemistry Council, which represents the nation’s largest chemical producers, applauded the legislation.

“Getting TSCA back on track is critical for American chemistry and for the industries like energy, healthcare and agriculture that rely on our innovations,” he said. “America’s chemical manufacturers depend on a regulatory system that is timely, predictable, and grounded in the best available science.”

While the GOP controls the government, an unpopular bill will likely be a tough sell among Republicans concerned with Maha support, and who face re-election fights later this year, Savery said.

“It should be a difficult vote for Republicans to take this year,” Savery said.