How does the U.S. government regulate chemicals?
By Tony Davis

Chemicals are inescapable: About 82,000 chemicals are common in this country, with more than 700 new ones introduced each year. Thousands may be found in your home.

Many chemicals pose hazards only when misused. Many times, though, simply reading a label doesn’t shed much light on whether a particular compound poses a health risk. To help explain how and why products are labeled, here are some questions and answers about how government regulates chemicals.

Q. Who tests and regulates the safety of the products used to build and clean my home?

A. The federal Clean Air Act regulates outdoor air pollution but has no control over what goes on inside your home. The Environmental Protection Agency regulates the chemicals that could muck up your indoor air. They’re covered by the federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.

Q. How heavy a hand does the EPA wave over the safety of these products?

A. Not very, say watchdogs in federal government and academia. Led by the congressional watchdog Government Accountability Office, they say federal law is inadequate and hinders EPA enforcement.

Q. I buy cleaners and wood panels and varnishes and paints, and they don’t even tell me what’s in them. Why not?

A. The law authorizes the EPA to require labeling only when it finds the chemical poses or may pose an unreasonable risk or is produced in large amounts and could be released in large quantities. Companies must tell the EPA what’s in their chemicals -- but the EPA must keep most of the information confidential to protect trade secrets.

Q. How often does the EPA require labeling?

A. Very rarely. Such a step usually is reserved for high-profile toxins such as asbestos, chromium and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were used in electrical transformers until outlawed.

Q. Then why do beauty and food items list their ingredients?

A. That’s required under a different law, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1954. Experts at the EPA and the environmental group Environmental Defense say the chemical act isn’t as tough on labeling because it regulates chemicals, not consumer products. The food and drug law regulates products.

Q. What other problems does the federal government face in regulating chemicals?

A. Before the EPA can require companies to test their chemicals, it must prove they pose unreasonable risks and could expose the public in large amounts. The Government Accountability Office calls this the “burden of proof” rule.

Q. What’s been the result?

A. The EPA has required little testing of chemicals and instead uses computer models to try to predict how chemicals will behave in various situations. As a result, it has regulated or banned only five existing chemicals. The agency has taken action to reduce risks of more than 3,500 out of 32,000 new chemicals that companies have submitted for the agency’s review. Overall, GAO says EPA lacks enough data to ensure that potential health risks of new chemicals are identified.

Q. What does industry say?

A. The American Chemistry Council, a trade group, says many concerns about federal regulation are overstated. It says that no more than 9,000 chemicals are produced or imported in amounts of more than 10,000 pounds annually. The remaining 73,000 present little or no health risk, the group says. Manufacturers have submitted more than 50,000 health and safety studies to the EPA and have supplied test data covering more than 95 percent of all chemicals in commerce.

Q. Is there a better way?

A. Environmentalists and some researchers like the new REACH policy just approved by the European Union, which regulates issues of common interest for 27 European countries and 490 million people. Compared to the U.S., the burden of proof is reversed: Chemical companies must show a product is safe.

Q. Is there a downside?

A. The chemistry council expresses many concerns about the European policy: It will make Europe less competitive, may cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and will discriminate against imported chemicals, in violation of international trade agreements.

Q. What’s being done to increase oversight in this country?

A. The EPA has spent the last nine years coaxing companies to voluntarily turn over information about 2,500 high-volume chemicals in heavy use. The U.S. government also has signed an agreement with Canada and Mexico to determine the safety of 9,000 heavily used chemicals and take needed action on them by 2012.

Q. With so little agreement over what’s safe and what’s not, is more protection of consumers even possible?

A. In 2005, the Kid Safe Chemicals Act was introduced in Congress, to amend the 1976 toxic substances law to require chemical manufacturers to certify the safety of new chemicals. The bill died without a hearing, but its sponsors are considering reintroducing it. It could fare better now, because Democrats supporting the measure have since taken control of Congress.

Q. Would government inspectors come snooping into my house for indoor air pollution?

A. Almost certainly not. To the feds, it is too hot to handle, said Charles Weschler, an adjunct professor of environmental and occupational medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. “People say ... don’t tell me what to do in my home.”

Q. How the heck do I know whom to believe?

A. Your best bet is to trust not people but evidence. Peer-reviewed research on chemicals trumps a position paper, and three studies reaching the same conclusion beat one.

Tony Davis covers environmental issues for the Arizona Daily Star, Tucson. Contact: tdavis@azstarnet.com.