We regularly highlight environmental topics that shape the lives of ordinary citizens in thousands of communities around the nation.

Toxic Chemicals

20 November 2009

Dr. Peter deFur
Martha Ellen Wingfield

Most people I speak with are surprised to learn how little the federal government actually controls the chemicals in our everyday lives. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical substance inventory, the US has over 83,000 chemicals registered for commercial use. Registering a chemical is surprisingly easy and requires remarkably little information – in fact, only available data are required. Whether the use is to make a carpet, a computer, make-up or cleaning products, the process is basically the same – completing a Pre-manufacturing Notice (PMN) and filing it with the EPA. The PMN is available and downloadable at the EPA website. The form requires some basic chemical information and the intended use – NO laboratory analysis is required.

The chemical registration process is set out in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that was passed and signed into law in 1976. Under TSCA the EPA can require more information on the chemical and deny the application if it is poses “unreasonable risks to human health or the environment.” The request for more data from the applicant is usually in the form of a voluntary submission for more specific information. The EPA can also make a formal demand for data, which involves a more lengthy legal process. EPA has used this formal process less than 50 times in more than 30 years.

TSCA has been criticized as well-intentioned but toothless and ineffective at keeping harmful chemicals away from the public, unlike the more stringent pesticide control laws. This difference in approach can be explained by the inherent nature of pesticides, as they are intended to kill living things that are considered pests. Here, the danger of the chemicals in pesticides is clear. Alternatively, chemicals in consumer products are used to add color, flexibility, rigidity, or electrical conductivity, all properties to make the product more user-friendly. Here the connection to danger is not so blatant. This is why TSCA fails – it is not based on the assumption that commercial chemicals are capable of harming the consumer. TSCA assumes that basic chemical properties can be used to infer the potential for harm instead of taking into account the additive or synergistic effects of so many common compounds.

Over the past 50 years we have learned that many chemicals in commerce either are not so safe or are overtly toxic. Many metals are harmful in small, defined amounts, such as zinc, nickel and cadmium, while other metals are so toxic that there is no safe exposure level, as is the case for lead and mercury. The plastic with which we make bottles, food containers, computers, toys and other goods we use regularly can shed chemicals into water, our food, the air or onto skin. Somewhat counter intuitively, TSCA does not require that those common chemicals be tested for toxicity.

It is not until after their incorporation into everyday products that we discover flame retardants and chemicals in plastics such as phthalates, phenols and styrenes are toxic to humans. Several, if not all of the chemicals that leach from plastics will disrupt hormones and the hormonal process, an especially harmful effect in children and fetuses as it hinders their development. Getting these chemicals out of children’s toys has taken years and acts of Congress and state legislatures.

A move is afoot to strengthen the testing and registration process for chemicals in the United States. The move would reform TSCA, with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson as a strong supporter of the effort. Administrator Jackson has developed principles for TSCA reform, and we hope she will lead the charge to protect us, our children and future generations from the unintended yet still extremely harmful effects of chemicals we use, often unknowingly, in our daily lives.