Life Cycle Thinking Blog

Sen. Lautenberg released the 2011 version of the Safe Chemicals Act for TSCA Reform April 14 here. I’ve blogged about it before and posted a summary pdf here.

The notable changes I see from last year’s version:

– References to mixtures and articles have been deleted here and there. No PMNs by new mixture makers. But mixture and article makers with new uses of “existing” chemicals will still have to submit essentially SNUNs (with minimum data set updates) or proof that the use meets the safety standard (if there is one). Mixture and article makers are still “processors” under SCA, so there still needs to be clarification in the bill. Oddly, the new bill drops allegations of adverse effects and information on substantial risk (old 8(c) and (e)) on mixtures.

Great article on sustainability “Embracers” vs “Cautious Adopters” by MIT Sloan Management and Boston Group

EPA declassified confidentiality claims in a batch of 42 health and safety studies (mostly 8(e) notices of substantial risk) March 24, 2011, following through on their promise of transparency.
Certainly there are some old claims out there that are no longer valid (many on what was at the time R&D activity that has either gone commercial or died). And some claims were pretty bogus to begin with. But the idea of going back and having to re-substantiate the thousands of claims that have been made over the last 35 years – holy cow! Believe it or not, some of the claims will still be valid (just like the secret ingredients of Coke).

Nice summary of whether there is really anything behind the surveys on all the consumer demand for “green” products by Joel Makower http://bit.ly/eYG9Ef Essentially, he says that consumers say they want green, don’t really know what “green” (or “sustainable”) means and won’t pay more because they either don’t trust companies and/or are buying on price and performance. Except for a few diehards who are true believers and/or want everyone to view them as green (a status thing).

Proposed bills to reform TSCA have argued to put the burden on chemical manufacturers to prove that there is “reasonable certainty that the substances pose no harm.”
But what does this mean, particularly in light of recent EPA positions on dioxin risk and endocrine disruptor tiered screening? [Covered in Feb 23, 2011, InsideEPA.com’s Toxics Regulation News]