The Environmental Working Group's legal team has concluded that the Chemical Safety Improvement Act proposed last week (May 21) by Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and David Vitter (R-La.) would provide far weaker protections for public health and the environment than either the ineffective Toxic Substances Control Act, federal law since 1976, or the Safe Chemicals Act, the legislation previously introduced by Sen. Lautenberg.
Would the Chemical Safety Improvement Act protect children and other vulnerable people?
Click here to see the overview Memorandum.
How does the Chemical Safety Improvement Act stack up against the Safe Chemicals Act?
Click here to read the side-by-side comparison.
EWG's section-by-section comparison concludes that the Chemical Safety Improvement Act:
- Uses a weaker safety standard;
- Opens the door to heightened judicial review;
- Lacks minimum data requirements;
- Includes broad preemption language that would undermine states' ability to set their own standards;
- Lacks fee and cost-sharing provisions;
- Fails to focus on vulnerable populations and biomonitoring data.