Toward a New U.S. Chemicals Policy: Rebuilding the Foundation to Advance New Science, Green Chemistry, and Environmental Health

Abstract

oBjective: We describe fundamental weaknesses in U.S. chemicals policy, present principles of chemicals policy reform, and articulate interdisciplinary research questions that should be addressed. With global chemical production projected to double over the next 24 years, federal policies that shape the priorities of the U.S. chemical enterprise will be a cornerstone of sustainability. To date, these policies have largely failed to adequately protect public health or the environment or motivate investment in or scientific exploration of cleaner chemical technologies, known collectively as green chemistry. On this trajectory, the United States will face growing health, environmental, and economic problems related to chemical exposures and pollution. conclusions: Existing policies have produced a U.S. chemicals market in which the safety of chemicals for human health and the environment is undervalued relative to chemical function, price, and performance. This market barrier to green chemistry is primarily a consequence of weaknesses in the Toxic Substances Control Act. These weaknesses have produced a chemical data gap, because producers are not required to investigate and disclose sufficient information on chemicals' hazard traits to government, businesses that use chemicals, or the public; a safety gap, because government lacks the legal tools it needs to efficiently identify, prioritize, and take action to mitigate the potential health and environmental effects of hazardous chemicals; and a technology gap, because industry and government have invested only marginally in green chemistry research, development, and education. Policy reforms that close the three gaps-creating transparency and accountability in the market-are crucial for improving public and environmental health and reducing the barriers to green chemistry. The European Union's REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) regulation has opened an opportunity for the United States to take this step; doing so will present the nation with new research questions in science, policy, law, and technology.

The wicked problem of chemicals policy: opportunities for innovation

“…As a result, current US chemicals policies at all levels fall short in identifying chemicals of concern, managing their risks, and facilitating a shift toward development and use of safer chemicals (US GAO 2007, 2009Wilson and Schwarzman 2009;Denison 2007;Lowell Center for Sustainable Production 2008;Rosenbaum 2010). The current federal policy framework has resulted in three major gaps related to data, safety, and technology (Wilson and Schwarzman 2009): Data gap: Manufacturers and businesses can sell a chemical or product without providing sufficient information about its potential health or environmental hazards to enable agencies or consumers to adequately assess the environmental and health impacts of these chemicals (US GAO 1994;Wilson and Schwarzman 2009;Allen and Dinno 2011).…”

“…The current federal policy framework has resulted in three major gaps related to data, safety, and technology (Wilson and Schwarzman 2009): Data gap: Manufacturers and businesses can sell a chemical or product without providing sufficient information about its potential health or environmental hazards to enable agencies or consumers to adequately assess the environmental and health impacts of these chemicals (US GAO 1994;Wilson and Schwarzman 2009;Allen and Dinno 2011). There is little incentive for companies to develop better information because doing so voluntarily may increase the likelihood that they will uncover evidence of harm, thus triggering government action (Denison 2007;Allen and Dinno 2011).…”

Scientific contestations over “toxic trespass”: health and regulatory implications of chemical biomonitoring

“…While regulatory strategies primarily aim to find a safe level for individual chemicals, science demonstrates that exposures to multiple chemicals can combine to produce effects experienced in the general population and that even some very low-dose exposures can carry risks, a phenomenon that is not well accounted for in risk assessment calculations (National Research Council 2008;Vogel 2008). This type of mismatch between scientific knowledge and regulatory decision-making has led to calls among many stakeholders for updated policies to better protect public health (Wilson and Schwarzman 2009;Cranor 2011;Woodruff et al 2011a). In addition, the complexity and uncertainty in the science of chemical exposures lead to various interpretations and can often be influenced by financial motives (Woodruff et al 2011a).…”

“…Public biomonitoring debates highlight the concept of the Bpublic hypothesis,^whereby new scientific paradigms are the subject of public deliberations and involve the lay public, advocacy groups, and scientific experts (Krimsky 2000). In part by using the media, advocacy groups seek to democratize science, introduce lay knowledge within the scientific enterprise, and implement new policy-making logics, such as reforming existing chemical policies to better protect public health (Morello-Frosch et al 2009;Parthasarathy 2010;Wilson and Schwarzman 2009). Advocacy groups publicize biomonitoring results through storytelling, placing real faces on aggregated exposure data, and disseminating this information in diverse ways ranging from peer-reviewed journals to interactive websites (Washburn 2009).…”

“…A growing body of research demonstrates adverse health effects for several chemicals, but there is a paucity of toxicological and human health data for most of the 84,000 chemicals that circulate in commerce (Judson et al 2009;Woodruff et al 2011a;Porta 2012). This new Bvisibility^of ubiquitous chemical exposures in people reveals the shortcomings of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), the policy that guides the regulation of industrial chemicals (Wilson and Schwarzman 2009). Many chemicals suspected of being hazardous to human health have been allowed under TSCA to remain in consumer products (Schettler 2006;Becker et al 2010).…”