How Stricter Chemical Regulations Will Be Good for the
Industry
By Kelly Vlahakis-Hanks
Most people probably don't check the labels of chemical products they use, or go online to do research about how dangerous certain chemicals are. That's understandable, but it's also a shame, because there are a lot of scary chemicals out there.
Take
1,4-Dioxane. If you haven't heard of it, I'm not surprised. It's a chemical
used in some cosmetics, detergents, and shampoos.
It
has also been classified as a possible carcinogen. And the agency that's
supposed to test chemicals for toxicity -- the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) -- hasn't. The law that's supposed to regulate toxic chemicals, the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), has failed on this and many other chemicals
currently used in commerce.
Earth Friendly Products doesn't use 1,4-Dioxane in any of our products. Our business model relies on using safer alternatives to existing chemicals. This is important to us because we want to make sure we're not putting the people who buy our products at risk. And for our customers, it's equally important to make sure that they're buying things that won't make them or their families sick.
But
let's be realistic: As long as currently used chemicals -- including
potentially toxic ones -- aren't being regulated, and there's no signal to the
market that safer alternatives will have the chance to compete, a lot of
consumers will buy cheaper alternatives. That's risky -- not just for them, but
for the companies that market those products and will have to deal with hits to
consumer confidence.
We
believe that successful TSCA reform must allow for a full review of chemicals
currently in commerce, and regulatory action against the ones judged to be
dangerous to human health.
Innovators with safer alternatives will have the
chance to compete, and companies wont have to deal with consumer concerns.
Unfortunately, a bill recently proposed in Congress by Senators David Vitter
(R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) would fall well short of these priorities.
There's
a lot about this proposal that concerns us, but most worrisome is the glacial
pace at which this bill would require EPA to review chemicals. Under this bill,
EPA would have to review 10 per year for the first year, 10 more in the third
year, and five in the fifth year after the bill's enactment.
While it's good to
see a floor rather than a ceiling, practically speaking, they are one and the
same -- especially if the EPA does not have the resources needed to review more
chemicals.
What
makes matters worse is a one off/one on provision. Basically, the EPA could
only begin the review process for a new chemical when one of the initial group
has gone through the entire review process, something that could take as much
as seven years.
To put all this in perspective, 62,000 chemicals have never
been tested under TSCA because they were grandfathered in when the bill was
originally passed. To say there's a bit of a backlog is putting it mildly.
We
joined the American Sustainable Business Council and the Companies for Safer
Chemicals Coalition in calling for improvements to the Vitter-Udall bill
because this kind of schedule is simply not sufficient. There are far too many
chemicals that are known, or at least highly suspected, of being toxic -- far
from protecting consumers from those chemicals, this bill would impose a
regulatory roadblock on the EPA.
Any meaningful TSCA reform must allow EPA to
review as many chemicals as needed, give them the resources to do so, and not
impose unnecessary barriers to get the most dangerous chemicals out of the
marketplace.
We
believe the public should have access to information regarding the safety of
the chemicals they use in products every day, that there should be a minimum
safety requirement for those chemicals, and that safer alternatives should be
incentivized. That's what real, meaningful TSCA reform would do.
The
Companies for Safer Chemicals Coalition and the BizNGO Working Group are in
Washington this week to make this case loud and clear to the Senate.
TSCA
hasn't been updated since it was passed in 1976. Nobody questions that its in
desperate need of reform. But companies like mine need reform that actually
addresses current flaws in chemical oversight. Right now, the Vitter-Udall bill
doesn't.
Vlahakis-Hanks
is CEO of Earth Friendly Products, a family-owned company that manufacturers
environmentally friendly cleaning products.
