Comments on: Is this EPA Serious about Chemical Regulation?

By: Lydia

Lydia — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:23:18 +0000

I agree with Richard – focused, human-relevant testing is essential to actually addressing the concerns of dangerous chemicals. But we’ll never get there with the toxicity testing methods we have now. Language regarding improved testing methods needs to be included in the KSCA, so that we can continue to move forward in effective chemical regulation. The National Research Council already has a reachable vision for human-relevant, non-animal chemical testing, outlined in their report “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and Strategy.” We need to support them in this vision by including the modernization of chemical testing methods in legislation. Imperfectly tested chemicals are just as dangerous as those untested – improvements to these tests will ensure the enhanced safety of all families.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:29:54 +0000

I saw an interview with Lisa Jackson where she seemed to have positive things to say about current environmental issues and regarding research and development. Perhaps, with her guidance, we can see a reform in the EPA’s approach to such subjects?

By: Richard Wiles

Richard Wiles — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:44:13 +0000

Yes we need more testing, but the trick is figuring out which chemicals need to be tested. We would argue that the place to start is with chemicals found in people, particularly babies. From there we can focus testing resources on compounds where we already have an indication of hazard or on those that are used in a way that would expose people, but that for some reason are not detected during biomonitoring.

By: Shannon

Shannon — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:16:07 +0000

There needs to be more chemical testing. Not all chemicals threaten human health.

Shannon