Angela Logomasini

EPA’s Design to Strong-Arm the Chemical Industry

by Angela Logomasini on May 18, 2012 · 1 comment

in Environment, Features, Precaution & Risk

Post image for EPA’s Design to Strong-Arm the Chemical Industry

If you believe the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, its Design for the Environment (DfE) program is an example of a voluntary effort to protect the environment. In reality, it’s nothing less than a tool designed strong-arm industry into abandoning useful products.

The program calls on companies to eliminate certain chemicals from their products voluntarily, largely based on hazard rather than actual risk.

The crux of the problem is the focus on “hazard,” which simply represents the potential for danger given specific circumstances and/or exposures.  \For example, water is hazardous because excessive consumption can produce fatal “water intoxification” or hyponatraemia.  But we don’t need to “voluntarily” take it off the market.

Currently, the agency is using the DfE program to strong-arm the laundry industry to stop using detergents that include a certain class of chemicals — Nonylphenol Ethoxylate (NPE) surfactants — although there has been no proper risk assessment process that would justify regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Meanwhile, the producers of these chemicals are up in arms as they see their market disappear without justification or due process.

The trade association representing these chemical makers and some users — the Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research Council – complained about this effort in a May 10 press statement. It noted that EPA’s review of the issue under the DfE program “represents at best a simplistic hazard-based review that will not ensure that products formulated with the alternative surfactants will be safer or pose a lesser risk to human health or the environment.”

Yet EPA can get away without proper reviews and standards because, after all, the program is “voluntary!” Well, apparently not  for everyone.

Framing the Debate on Chemical Regulation

by Angela Logomasini on May 11, 2012 · 1 comment

in Environment, Features, Regulation

Last week, CEI hosted a congressional briefing on chemical policy and regulation (the video of the event is forthcoming). A news story in Risk Policy Report covering the event proclaims: “Free- Free-Market Group Seeks To ‘Re-Frame’ Hill Debate Over Chemical Risk.” Indeed we do!

I presented on why Congress should not “modernize” the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Dr. Rick Belzer addressed the National Toxicology Program’s faulty carcinogen classification methodology, and Dana Joel Gattuso addressed why Congress need not impose onerous regulations on the cosmetics and personal-care product industries. Unfortunately, our views are unique, but they shouldn’t be. Even those industry groups who will be harmed by misguided chemical policy reforms are not fighting back.

Risk Policy Report [May 8] explains:

In particular, Logomasini highlighted the stalled legislation from Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to put the onus on industry to show chemicals are safe rather than in the current system, where EPA must show chemicals pose an unreasonable risk before it can restrict their use.

She argued that updating the statute with a “reasonable certainty of no harm” standard, as proposed by the Lautenberg bill, would effectively ban many products already on the market and make it difficult for new chemicals to be used. The current TSCA standard — that EPA cannot regulate a substance unless it is shown to pose an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” — is scientifically more sound and less economically burdensome, she said.

“I would argue that’s actually a more appropriate approach to chemical regulation,” Logomasini said in suggesting TSCA is fine as is. Logomasini said in the interview that the CEI event wasn’t inspired by any upcoming votes or hearings on the legislation.

CEI held the event even though the bill’s prospects in the current Congress remain dim. The political environment “means nothing could happen until after the election,” one industry source says. “If after the election the playing field is such that we can get some movement, we’ll work it.”

Industry, in which some groups seek to “modernize” TSCA but have too raised concerns with the proposed “reasonable certainty of no harm” standard, has yet to put together its own TSCA proposal despite the urging of key Democrats. “If we put out a bill, we won’t get to characterize it,” the industry source says. “The NGOs will characterize it as a sham or worse, as making TSCA weaker.”

Chemical industry groups, although they support TSCA “modernization,” are rightly concerned about the proposed legislation. Yet, they offer no alternatives because, as the source in this story explained, they fear greens will unfairly characterize their point of view! What kind of legislative strategy is that?

It’s time to re-frame the debate, and free-market groups like CEI need not act alone. Industry groups should join us by fearlessly defending their products and highlighting the value they bring to society. And they should fight all efforts to limit their freedom to continue marketing and developing their products. If they don’t, we all may suffer from higher prices, reduced consumer choice, inferior substitute products, and reduced innovation — all resulting from misguided regulations imposed by an over-empowered, unaccountable bureaucracy.

Endocrine Disrupters: Should We Fear Mother Nature?

by Angela Logomasini on May 4, 2012 · 2 comments

in Environment, Features, Odds & Ends, Precaution & Risk

A recent article published in the The New York Times touts a new report that claims to have finally proven that trace exposures to man-made chemicals can disrupt human endocrine systems and cause health problems.  The report authors include a number of well-known activists/scientists, who have been making suspicious claims about so-called “endocrine-mimicking chemicals” for decades.

Their Report concludes: “Whether low doses of EDCs [endocrine-disrupting chemicals] influence certain human disorders is no longer conjecture, because epidemiological studies show that environmental exposures to EDCs are associated with human diseases and disabilities.”

The article is little more than a review of the literature, selectively pulling out scientific studies that show statistical associations between health effects and certain man-made trace chemicals. But associations do not prove cause-and -effect, and a collection of studies with largely inconclusive, and often weak, associations do not prove anything. The report suffers from many of the same methodological flaws that Dr. Richard Belzer recently identified in his review of the science employed by the National Toxicology Program for it Report on Carcinogens.

[click to continue…]

Congressional Hearings Question National Toxicology Program’s Science

by Angela Logomasini on April 25, 2012 · 1 comment

in Environment, Features, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Today, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and House Small Business Committee held a joint hearing on the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Report on Carcinogens. The hearing addressed the NTP process for classifying chemicals as carcinogens and its impact on small businesses. In particular, witnesses focused on NTP’s decision to classifying styrene as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”

The NTP issues this report every couple of years to assess whether to list industrial chemicals as “carcinogens.” Although NTP does not issue regulations, mere listing can have significant market impacts, hurting businesses — small and large — that make and use the chemicals.  Listings are also used by other agencies to justify regulations. Such impacts eventually affect consumers as regulators ban or companies abandon useful products, replacing them with second-best and often more expensive alternatives. Accordingly, it is critical that the NTP use the best available, peer reviewed science when making its decisions. Yet it clearly doesn’t do that.

First to testify today was NTP Director Dr. Linda S. Birnbaum, who defended the NTP process, but not very well if you read between the lines. When asked how the NTP comes to its conclusions, Birnbaum said NTP scientists review all the information on a chemical — both good and bad — and then they assemble the information indicating the chemical is a carcinogen when making the assessment. In essence, they review all the information, but then focus on the most damning information to make their decisions.

A scientific approach would instead focus on the best available, peer reviewed science and do a weight-of- evidence-test — placing greater emphasis on the best and strongest evidence. Based on Birnbaum’s comments, NTP does the opposite.

Dr. Richard Belzer, of Regulatory Checkbook, sheds even more light on the flimsy science at NTP. Belzer, who recently produced a paper for CEI on the topic, explained that the NTP relies on purely subjective terms — rather than terms with scientific meaning — which is a clear indicator that the agency’s decisions are largely subjective rather than scientific.

[click to continue…]

Competition in Water Infrastructure

by Angela Logomasini on April 12, 2012

in Economy, Features, Regulation

Today, CEI released a report on how increased competition could make a big difference in the cost to taxpayers for upgrading water infrastructure. Water main breaks and leaking water supply pipes cost American taxpayers billions of dollars every year in lost water and repair costs. In addition, upgrades will be costly. Cohen notes: “Building and replacing water and sewage lines alone will cost some $660 billion to $1.1 trillion,” over the next 20 years.

Unfortunately, many cities do not allow some of the most innovative products to compete for contracts for replacement piping, particularly pipe made with PVC despite the fact that it represents a market innovation that is more affordable and durable. Our paper, authored by scholar Bonner Cohen with the National Center for Public Policy Research, addresses how by simply allowing all technologies to compete for contracts, local governments could save taxpayers a bundle!

Witch Hunt Continues on Bisphenol A

by Angela Logomasini on April 4, 2012

in Environment, Features, Precaution & Risk

This week the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) yet again reaffirmed the safety of the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA), but the witch hunt for evidence against BPA safety continues. Environmental activists and others still won’t accept the findings — encouraging more government spending to study the chemical. But no matter how much the feds spend, researchers are unlikely to find anything new to  condemn BPA.

Human exposure to BPA — which is used to make hard, clear plastics and resins used to line food cans and other things – is simply too low to have public health impacts. FDA’s most recent update notes: “The Food and Drug Administration’s assessment is that the scientific evidence at this time does not suggest that the very low levels of human exposure to BPA through the diet are unsafe.”

FDA’s conclusion echoes findings issued by numerous governmental and scientific bodies around the world. For example, research studies in the European Union, Japan, Canada, and the World Health Organization have all found BPA risks to be negligible. In fact, studies have shown that the human body metabolizes BPA quickly, passing it though the body without any impacts. But never mind the facts. Greens want more of your hard earned tax dollars to fund more BPA research, even though it’s already one of the most studied chemicals ever!

Let’s just hope that researchers continue to report honest findings that allow BPA to stay on the market rather than cave to political pressures. If regulators devise phony science and excuses to regulate, public health and well being may suffer – as documented in our study on the topic.

Congressional Blowout Over Cosmetics Law Reform

by Angela Logomasini on March 27, 2012 · 3 comments

in Features, Health and Illness, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Today, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on cosmetics regulation to consider whether Congress should beef up federal law to ensure public health and safety. Ironically, many calls for federal action came from industry, mostly small firms that simply want the freedom to innovate and market products across state lines without running up against 50 different sets of rules and who want to restore consumer confidence about the safety of their products.

Unfortunately, federal action may move the debate in a different, not-so-positive direction, particularly given the viewpoints expressed by lawmakers who will craft the “reforms.”

The ultimate problem is that these lawmakers focus on hazard rather than risk and they downplay, if not largely ignore, the benefits of the products. Hazard-based standards only consider whether something has the potential for harm at some level or under some specific circumstance. A chemical may be dubbed “hazardous,” even if it poses little risk at existing exposure levels. For example, water can be considered hazardous because excessive consumption can produce fatal “water intoxication.”

Risk involves the probability that something will happen. For example, the risk of water intoxication is low from taking a few sips of water, but the risk level increases an individual continues to consume the water at higher and higher levels. But the hazard posed by the water remains the same in all instances. Likewise, we have many “hazardous” chemicals in our homes — everything from cleaning supplies to bug spray to olive oil (which can make you slip if spilled on the floor). Each can be a hazard, but the risk depends on how we use them. Fortunately, we can benefit from each of these products while managing the risks to keep them low.

[click to continue…]

EPA’s Toxic “Negotiation”

by Angela Logomasini on March 16, 2012

in Features, Health and Illness, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Post image for EPA’s Toxic “Negotiation”

It’s pretty amazing when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can essentially use extortion as a negotiating tool, and industry casts it as a plea to find “common ground.” You can’t blame industry too much for trying to place the issue in a positive light when they basically have a gun to the head. Check out EPA’s latest argument to industry as to why it should support reform to the Toxic Substances Control Act. A March 13 story in Risk Policy Report explains it this way:

Jim Jones, the Obama administration’s nominee to head EPA’s chemical safety office, is urging industry officials to reach a “common sense” agreement with environmentalists and other stakeholders on how to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) in order to speed chemical assessments or face economic losses as consumers abandon substances they fear may not be safe [emphasis added].

Speaking to the 2012 Global Chemical Regulation Conference, Jones said it is in industry’s interest to reach an agreement on how to amend the law to speed chemical reviews since the agency’s recently released plan for assessing — and possibly regulating — existing chemicals under TSCA shows the current law does not allow for speedy action.

“If we really do share a goal [of] safer chemicals, the only way to get there is common sense reform. We’re going to assess [10-15 chemicals per year] and that’s going to leave you [vulnerable.] That’s what’s in it for you,” he said. “Now is the time. Figure out where the agreements are and disagreements” on TSCA reform, Jones added.

Jones’s comments underscore a real dilemma for industry: Even though EPA lacks scientific justification for regulating many chemicals — which have been used safely for decades — regulators can demonize products simply by placing them on “concern lists.” But TSCA reform won’t improve things for industry, it will simply feed the regulatory beast. Jones might as well have said: “We have a gun to your head. Now please give us the power to pull the trigger and put you out of your misery.”

[click to continue…]

Science Washes Hype about “Toxic” Shampoo Down the Drain

by Angela Logomasini on March 7, 2012 · 1 comment

in Features, Health and Illness, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Post image for Science Washes Hype about “Toxic” Shampoo Down the Drain

Every now and then, government regulators manage to do something reasonable. Last week, the Canadians made a smart move by accepting hard science over hype related to a chemical used in personal care products, such as shampoo and skincare products. Canadian Environmental Ministers wanted to list it as a “toxic substance,” but two years after a scientific review, claims about the chemical’s alleged toxicity are washed away. An industry group representing the chemical reports:

The Board of Review was composed of a panel of three renowned toxicologists appointed by the Canadian Environment Minister.  The panel conducted a comprehensive scientific evaluation to assess the behavior of D5 in the environment. The Board’s report, which was released in October of 2011, concluded that “Siloxane D5 does not pose a danger to the environment or its biological diversity.”  Furthermore, the Board found that “based on the information presented, Siloxane D5 will not pose a danger to the environment or its biological diversity in the future.”

This Canadian debate is of interest here in the United States for a few reasons. For one, some of the more wacky environmental activists have suggested that the chemical and related siloxanes — better known as silicones — present a threat to public health, despite the lack of any evidence. Consumers should gain some assurance that claims from these groups should be dismissed thanks to the Canadian review of Siloxane 5.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also embarked on a review of siloxanes as part of its controversial “chemical action plan” program, which the Obama administration created under the auspices of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Historically, TSCA has not been used in an arbitrary and capricious fashion largely because it has one of the best risk standards written into environmental law, which CEI highlights in a study we released this week. Specifically, the EPA may regulate an existing chemical (EPA has stricter rules for “new” chemicals) when the agency finds that the chemical may pose an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” The EPA explains on its website:

[U]nreasonable risk involves the balancing of the probability that harm will occur and the magnitude and severity of that harm against the effect of a proposed regulatory action on the availability to society of the expected benefits of the chemical substance.

[click to continue…]

Don’t Fear the Feast: Pass the Canned Cranberry Sauce, Green Beans, and Gravy!

by Angela Logomasini on November 23, 2011 · 25 comments

in Environment, Features

Post image for Don’t Fear the Feast: Pass the Canned Cranberry Sauce, Green Beans, and Gravy!

It seems like the leftist activists don’t want anyone to enjoy life. They’d rather we be fraught with worry. During the weeks and days leading up to Thanksgiving Day, they’ve issued bogus reports on why Americans should fear their holiday feast.

“Study finds chemical BPA in popular Thanksgiving canned foods,” says the Los Angeles Times. The story cites a study released by anti-chemical activists at the Breast Cancer Fund. “The organization tested four cans of each of the following: Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom Soup, Campbell’s Turkey Gravy, Carnation Evaporated Milk, Green Giant Cut Green Beans, Libby’s Pumpkin and Del Monte Fresh Cut Sweet Corn, Cream Style,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

You might expect such sensationalism from the Los Angeles Times, but what about the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)? JAMA also appears all too willing to take advantage of the holiday news hook to promote its publication of a study on BPA in canned goods. The new study appears in JAMA’s print magazine dated November 23/30, 2011 — Thanksgiving Day! the Thanksgiving issue. An abstract of the story is already posted on their website, which has garnered media attention for the publication by linking the study to turkey day.

[click to continue…]

← Previous Entries