Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T19:08:43.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

U.S. Chemical Program: Purpose, Challenges, and Evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Odelia Funke
Odelia Funke*
Affiliation:
Environmental Protection Agency, USA
*
Correspondence should be addressed to 5308 Reno Road NW, Washington, DC 20015, USA (e-mail: funke.odelia@epa.gov).
Get access

Abstract

This article explores long-term issues and problems that have seriously undermined the U.S. Chemical Testing Program established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act. This program is meant to gather information needed to protect human health and the environment from damaging exposure to toxic chemicals. Despite seemingly broad and impressive authority under the statute, there are a number of inherent difficulties, as well as substantial political constraints, that impede comprehensive oversight of chemicals in U.S. commerce. The article discusses several approaches that EPA has adopted to overcome statutory and political limitations and increase chemical testing information. The most recent and promising of these efforts has involved international negotiations to harmonize testing approaches with OECD nations and to cooperate on an agenda that will better share the testing burden on an international level.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , September 2001 , pp. 175 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Auer, C. (1998). “Chemical Hazard Data Availability Study.” Chemicals in Our Community (Fall). EPA 747-N-98-001.Google Scholar
C&IM (1998). “Europe to Ban Hormone Mimics,” Chemical and Industry Magazine. Issue 21 (November 2).Google Scholar
Cimino, M.D. (1998). “OECD Test Guidelines in Health and Environmental Effects.” Chemicals in Our Community (Fall). EPA 747-N-98-001.Google Scholar
Colburn, T., Dumanoski, D., and Myers, J.P. (1996). Our Stolen Future. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
DER (1999). Daily Environment Report, No. 18 (January 28). Washington, DC: BNA.Google Scholar
Davies, J.C. (1990). “The United States: Experiment and Fragmentation.” In Haigh, N. and Irwin, F. (eds.), Integrated Pollution Control in Europe and North America. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation and Institute for European Environmental Policy.Google Scholar
French, H.F. (1998). “Investing in the Future: Harnessing Private Capital Flows for Environmentally Sustainable Development,” WorldWatch Paper 139 (February).Google Scholar
Funke, O. (1997). “Prospects for Integrated Environmental Policy.” In Caldwell, L.K. and Bartlett, R.V. (eds.), Environmental Policy. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
General Accounting Office (1985). “Chemical Inventory: Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Inventory Update.” December. GAO/RCED-86-47FS.Google Scholar
General Accounting Office (1991). “Toxic Substances: EPA's Chemical Testing Program Has Not Resolved Safety Concerns.” June. GAO/RCED-91-136.Google Scholar
General Accounting Office (1994). “Toxic Substances Control Act: Legislative Changes Could Make the Act More Effective.” September. GAO/RCED-94-103.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, R.A. (1986). “TSCA's Unfulfilled Mandate for Comprehensive Regulation of Toxic Substances—The Potential of TSCA §21 Petitions.” Environmental Law Reporter (November): 16ELR10330–10337.Google Scholar
Guerrero, P.F. (May 17, 1994). “Toxic Substances Control Act: EPA's Limited Progress in Regulating Toxic Chemicals.” May 17. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Toxic Substances, Research and Development, Committee on Public Works. U.S. Senate, GAO/T-RCED-94-212.Google Scholar
INFORM (1995). Toxics Watch 1995. New York: INFORM, Inc. Press.Google Scholar
International Council of Chemical Associations (1998). “Major Global Chemical Industry Initiatives Launched in Prague.” Press Release (October 12).Google Scholar
Jones, B. (1996). “The OPPT Structure Activity Team.” Chemicals in the Environment (Fall). EPA 749-R-96-001c.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. (1999). ALDF Letter to EPA's FOIA Officer (dated January 12, 1998[sic]).Google Scholar
OECD Secretariat (1996). SIDS Manual, Second Revision (May). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
P&TCN (1998a). “EDSTAC Delivers Final Report to EPA with Recommendations for Screening, Testing nearly 87,000 Chemicals.” Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News (September 3).Google Scholar
P&TCN (1998b). “European Chemical Industry Urges Global Approach to Endocrine Disruptor Research.” Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News (November 19).Google Scholar
P&TCN (1998c). “European Parliament to Call for EU Ban on Endocrine Disruptors.” Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News (September 3).Google Scholar
P&TCN (1998d). “Explosion in Toxicity Studies Leaves Key Questions about Potential Endocrine Disruptors Unanswered, Researchers Say.” Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News (November 19).Google Scholar
Roe, D., Pease, W., Florini, K., and Silbergeld, E. (1997). Toxic Ignorance: The Continuing Absence of Basic Health Testing for Top-Selling Chemicals in the United States. Washington, DC: Environmental Defense Fund. Available atwww.environ-mentaldefense.org/pdf.cfm?ContentlD=243&FileName=toxicignorance.pdf.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, W.A. (1994). “The Clenched Fist and the Open Hand: Into the 1990s at EPA” In Vig, N.J. and Kraft, M.E. (eds.),. Environmental Policy in the 1990s, Second Edition. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, E. and Wheeler, J. (1993). “Unreasonably at Risk.” The Environmental Forum 10 (4): unpaginated reprint.Google Scholar
Ruggerio, C. (Fall, 1989). “Referral of Toxic Chemical Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act: EPA's Administrative Dumping Ground.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 17 (1).Google Scholar
Schutz, D. (1998). “PMN (Premanufacture Notice) Chemical Testing Issues.” Chemicals in Our Community (Fall). EPA 747-N-98-001.Google Scholar
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 2601–2629. Referred to as TSCA.Google Scholar
UN Economic Commission for Europe (1998). “Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.” June. ECE/CEP/43.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress (1989). “Whatever Happened to the Toxic Substances Control Act?” Hearing before the House Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations. October 3, 1988. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (1994). “U.S. EPA/EC Project on the Evaluation of the (Quantitative) Structure Activity Relationships.” Final Report (March). EPA 743-R-94-001.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (1996a). “1996 Master Testing List: Notice of Availability.” Federal Register 61FR65936 (December 13).Google Scholar
U.S. EPA (1996b). Chemicals in the Environment. Fall. 749-R-96-EPA 001c.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives (1976). Committee Report, Legislative History of the Toxic Substances Control Act (1976). Chapter 3. H.R. 14032, 457.Google Scholar