Boxer Chemical Safety Proposal Provides a Way Forward

A new proposal drafted by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) offers a path toward meaningful reform of our broken chemical safety laws.

Chairman Boxer’s recent counterproposal to a bill developed by Sen. David Vitter (D-La.) would ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency has the tools it needs to quickly review and regulate dangerous chemicals found in everyday products.

In particular, the Boxer proposal would:

1)    Ensure that chemicals are safe. The proposal would require that chemicals pose “no harm” to consumers, the same standard established for pesticides in 1996. By contrast, the Vitter bill would continue to allow chemicals to pose harm – so long as it is not “unreasonable.”

2)    Consider “aggregate” chemical exposures. Boxer’s bill would require EPA to consider all the ways that people are exposed to chemicals – whether in food, water or the air. Plus, her proposal would direct the agency to consider the risk of spills and other “reasonably foreseeable” but unintended exposures.

3)    Review hundreds of chemicals. The Boxer draft would require EPA to put 15 chemicals on a high priority list every year for five years from the date of enactment – 75 chemicals within five years. Plus, it would require EPA to add three new chemicals to the list each time one is reviewed, regulated or taken off. By contrast, the Vitter bill only requires that 10 chemicals be designated as high priority in the first year and none thereafter – except when a chemical is removed.

4)    Set tough deadlines. Boxer’s proposal requires expedited review of asbestos and other toxic chemicals that persist in the environment and accumulate in the body. So-called “PBTs” – for “persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic” – would have to be evaluated and regulated within four years. Asbestos would have to be reviewed and regulated within three years. All high-priority chemicals would have to be reviewed within six years.

5)    Preserve a role for the states. The Boxer draft would preserve a role in chemicals regulation for the states, some of which have been protecting consumers from dangerous substances for decades. By contrast, the Vitter bill would block any state action at all on chemicals that EPA deems “low-priority.” What’s more, Boxer’s proposal would preserve the rights of people injured by chemicals to sue for damages.

6)    Level the playing field. The Boxer bill would level the playing field by allowing the EPA to meet same standard for judicial review – “reasoned decision-making” – that the agency must meet for its other regulatory actions. By contrast, the Vitter proposal would require the agency to meet a higher legal bar by mustering “substantial evidence” in support of banning or restricting a chemical.

7)    Make industry pay its fair share. Boxer’ proposal would require the chemical industry to help share the cost of EPA’s chemical safety reviews. Vitter’s draft provides for no new cost sharing by an industry that reported near-record profits in 2013.

Areas of Focus
Disqus Comments

Related News

Continue Reading

What is GRAS?

Food and chemical companies are permitted to approve the use of new potentially harmful additives and other substances in snacks, drinks and more without the Food and Drug Administration’s review and...