Congress, industry and environmentalists all agree that regulation of chemicals in the US is broken – but change could soon be on the way

Kids dread back-to-school shopping because it means an end to summer fun. Parents have reason to fear it too, particularly those who read the Back-to-School Guide published annually by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).



Dangers lurk everywhere, according to the EWG. Avoid plastic covers on binders, the group advises. Don’t buy dry-erase or permanent markers, which contain solvents. Avoid lunch boxes made with lead paint, PVC, BPA and antimicrobial chemicals. Look for plain wooden pencils, no paint or glossy coating. Choose clothing that doesn’t carry Gore-Tex or Teflon tags, and avoid fabrics labeled stain resistant or water repellent.



“We’re basically operating in the dark as consumers,” says Heather White, a mother of two and executive director of the EWG. “Our federal toxics law is broken. It’s a mess.”

Few would argue. Mounting confusion over chemical safety has created an unlikely coalition pushing for reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the federal law governing chemicals policy. Unlike most other environmental laws, TSCA hasn’t been significantly amended since it was passed in 1976. But now, after years of debate and inaction, Congress is poised to rewrite the law. Republicans and Democrats, along with environmentalists, the chemical industry, consumer product brands and retailers all say that the US needs a regulatory system that will restore consumer confidence in the safety of the products on store shelves.

With such a broad group pushing for reform, action could come by the end of this year. “We have, for the first time, both parties in both houses recognizing the need for reform,” says Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund.

Will the US ever pass a new chemical safety law? Read more

Are you ready for chemistry class?

Unfortunately, parents would need an advanced degree to sort through the never-ending stream of claims and counterclaims about chemical safety. Even brands known for their sustainability commitments – such as North Face, Nike, Patagonia and Puma – stand accused of selling shoes and jackets using “a family of chemicals you don’t want near your family”. It’s hard to know who to trust.



“When I look at backpacks and lunch boxes, I think vinyl chloride,” says EWG’s White.



But such fears are overblown, says the American Chemistry Council, an industry group. “When ‘avoidance’ lists such as these are created to raise alarm about certain products, it is a disservice to consumers,” says Kathryn St John, an industry spokeswoman. “The approach completely ignores the fundamental scientific principles of exposure and potency.”

But even as the industry and its critics wage public relations battles over the chemicals in food, cosmetics, household cleaners and consumer products, both sides agree on one thing: the way the US regulates chemicals is broken.

California law change sparks nationwide demand for flame-retardant-free furniture Read more

The American Chemistry Council, in a written statement, says both the House and Senate reform bills reflect advances in science and should give families more confidence in the safety of chemicals in consumer products. The ACC notes that both bills include input – and support – from industry, labor, environmental, public health and consumer groups.

But in Congress – as in baseball – it ain’t over until it’s over. The House and Senate bills both have strong and weak points, environmentalists say, and will need to be reconciled at some point. In the meantime, there’s disagreement over which is superior, and the American Chemistry Council – which has reportedly spent more than $4m on lobbying so far this year, as well as over $11m last year – supports both bills.

Why the broad push for reform?

It isn’t hard to see why so many groups are pushing for reform. In the absence of federal action, dozens of states have enacted policies to regulate chemical use, according to Safer States, a coalition of environmental groups. For companies, this translates into an expensive, difficult process as they try to navigate a patchwork of state-by-state rules. To make matters worse, unless the US acts, strict regulation by the European Union could emerge as a de facto global standard.

Chemical companies also had to contend with so-called “retail regulation”, in which companies screen products at the store level. Last year, Walmart and Target joined forces to organize closed-door meetings with suppliers on the safety and sustainability of beauty and personal care products. Target has built its own Sustainable Product Standard that scores thousands of products on a 100-point scale, 50 points of which are related to the toxicity of ingredients. And Walmart has pledged to eliminate 10 chemicals from its shelves but hasn’t said what they are.

“When Walmart decides they’re not going to carry products with a certain chemical anymore, there’s no ability to appeal that to the courts,” notes the EDF’s Denison.

Healthcare companies have also taken matters into their own hands. “A growing number of hospitals are taking a ‘better safe than sorry’ approach to chemicals, eliminating suspected hazards and switching to safer alternatives,” says Health Care Without Harm, an industry alliance. Citing concerns about “increasing levels of potentially harmful chemicals in the environment”, Kaiser Permanente, an industry leader on sustainability, said last year that it would stop buying furniture treated with flame retardants.

Making green chemistry mainstream – event Read more

The trouble is, without government oversight, the ad hoc removal of a chemical from the marketplace provides no assurances that whatever replaces it will be safer or perform better. Back in 2008, Walmart, Target and CVS stopped selling baby bottles and sippy cups containing bisphenol-A, or BPA. Some suppliers turned to a chemical analog known as bisphenol S, or BPS. But, according to Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the National Institutes of Health, a recent study indicates that BPS and BPA have “nearly identical impacts on the rat cardiovascular system”.

BPS is just one of many chemicals whose effects are little-known. In fact, no one knows how many chemicals are in use today – much less, what their side effects are. As Denison has written, “We have tens of thousands of chemicals on the market that we know little or nothing about,” he says, expressing hope that Congress will act soon to improve TSCA. “The ultimate long term solution is a very strong federal system. It’s going to take a while to get there.”