Protecting the Public from Toxic Chemicals

A thing this Congress can get done

By Andy Igrejas, Campaign Director

It’s no secret that Congress is having a hard time
accomplishing things recently. Budgets. Nominees. Funding the government. If
you can name it, it’s probably not getting done.

So – at least on the surface- it’s a little surprising that
the issue I’ve worked on for years, reforming our nation’s chemical policy, has
emerged as that rarest of birds: a thing
that can get done. I say “on the surface” because the groundwork has been
laid for at least ten years. And if you follow the politics of this issue you
know that it appeals at the grassroots level to the Red and the Blue alike.

The
reason is simple: the preventable cancers, birth defects, infertility, and
learning disabilities linked to toxic chemicals affect American families
without regard to their politics.

So what puts chemical reform in the can get done category?

The precipitating event is the introduction
of a broadly bi-partisan bill, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, in mid-May.
The bill was the product of an intense backdoor negotiation between the late
Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, the long-time chemical reform champion, and
Senator Vitter of Louisiana, generally considered a strong supporter of his
state’s oil and chemical industries.

Lautenberg had his Safe Chemicals Act, with 30 co-sponsors, all
Democrats, and the broad support of health and environmental leaders. Vitter
was expected to introduce the chemical industry’s preferred version of reform.
Things were headed toward the expected gridlock. Instead, Senator Joe Manchin –
targeted by both sides for support- brought the two offices together to
negotiate a new bill.

The substance of the bill has had a mostly negative reaction
from health and environment experts and with good reason.

It has significant
flaws. However, a critical mass of those experts can also see a clear path to
fixing those flaws and there is interest from Senators in both parties to do
so. The result would a more modest, stripped-down version of reform than what
many of us wanted in the Safe Chemicals Act, but still a significant
improvement over our current failed policy. In the modern age of gridlock that
would be good enough for government work.

The problems in the bill are fundamental, but each of them
can be addressed within the spirit of the bi-partisan compromise Lautenberg and
Vitter intended. Some simple changes, for example, would insure that EPA
assessments of chemicals reflect real world conditions and therefore lead to
meaningful restrictions that protect health and the environment. The procedural
hurdles and legal red tape that doomed our current program can be further
paired down. The role of state governments in the bill can be enhanced by
following a simple principle: that no state is prevented from restricting a
chemical unless and until the federal government has taken meaningful action.

Good science. Less red tape. Federalism. These are
bi-partisan concepts and the needed changes would only enhance them. 

As Congress tackles this issue it can look at the history of
the current law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, for guidance of the “don’t
let this happen to you” variety.  Probably no one expected that law to fail when it passed in
1976. Yet, it took EPA five years before it even got started trying to restrict
a chemical.

Then it took ten years for the agency to prepare it’s first regulation-
of asbestos. Then that regulation was thrown out of court in 1991, effectively
ending the EPA’s attempts to use the law. In the meantime, the fact that the
states weren’t unduly restricted from enacting their own protections became
that law’s only saving grace.

So Congress should get cracking with an eye on this history,
applying common sense lessons from it to the Lautenberg/Vitter legislation.

Let’s do the thing that can get done.

Related Content:

• Take action now!
• Read our statement on the Chemical Safety Improvement Act 
• Watch a one-minute video about toxic chemicals in consumer products