Why the U.S. Needs Stronger Chemical Regulations

Chemicals are everywhere, influencing almost every aspect of our daily lives. From the cleaning spray under our sinks to the ingredients in our food, these silent substances play a crucial, if often unnoticed, role. But the uncomfortable truth is that the regulatory system governing these chemicals in the United States is increasingly under fire. It's an "unfortunate truth" that many industries in the U.S. use toxic chemicals and generate hazardous wastes, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines as "dangerous or capable of having a harmful effect on human health or the environment". Unlike the European Union, which has established strong, proactive regulations to protect public health and the environment, the U.S. has adopted a demonstrably more relaxed approach that critics argue leaves us dangerously vulnerable.

The Current State of Chemical Regulation in the U.S.

Chemical regulation in the U.S. largely relies on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) from 1976. And frankly, it's been called out as "antiquated and ineffective". The original act was so heavily influenced by the chemical industry that an Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances at the EPA even dubbed it "industry-blessed"?. This meant a monumental flaw from the start because it became the government's responsibility to prove a chemical was dangerous, rather than the chemical industry's job to prove it was safe.

Moreover, the 1976 law forced the EPA to choose the "least burdensome" regulation for chemical companies, a rule that courts would even uphold against EPA decisions. And for a truly shocking statistic: when TSCA was enacted, an astounding 62,000 previously created chemicals were simply grandfathered in as approved, leaving the EPA with the Herculean task of proving each one was an unreasonable risk to get it banned. By 2015, only five of those tens of thousands of chemicals had been banned. This created a severe "data gap," as chemical producers were legally required to disclose very little toxicological or other test data, keeping both the public and downstream users in the dark.

Although updates like the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act sought to improve safety, critics argue that the system is still profoundly inadequate. While this update removed the least burdensome requirement and made evaluating existing chemicals mandatory, the fundamental focus still tends to be on assessing risks rather than preventing harm. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) remains tasked with proving a chemical should be regulated, contributing to a significant safety gap. As a result, chemicals may remain available until conclusive evidence of their dangers is presented – a reactive, rather than proactive, stance that has severe repercussions. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has, since 2009, consistently listed the need for controlling toxic chemicals on its High-Risk Series, underscoring that this issue is far from resolved. Part of the problem? The EPA is often understaffed and struggles to oversee the thousands of chemicals already on the market.

Europe's Precautionary Principle

In stark contrast, the EU emphasizes a precautionary principle through its groundbreaking REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) regulation. Here's where the philosophy fundamentally shifts:, before companies can market new chemicals, they must proactively demonstrate that their products are safe. This rigorous, safety-first approach has empowered the EU to ban thousands of hazardous substances, significantly contributing to healthier environments and populations. It actively prevents toxic substances from entering society in the first place, safeguarding workers and reducing the chances of environmental disasters.

This difference is not just bureaucratic; it has profound economic and public health implications. Without a parallel transformation in U.S. chemicals policy, the United States risks becoming a "market for hazardous chemicals that become banned in Europe". In other words, we could be the dumping ground for toxins too dangerous for other industrialized nations. This lack of investment in green chemistry research and development in the U.S. creates a technology gap potentially hindering the U.S. chemical industry’s global competitiveness as green chemistry accelerates under REACH.

The Impact of Weak Regulations, Domino Effect

The ramifications of insufficient chemical regulations can, without exaggeration, have grave and far-reaching consequences. Research has indeed linked exposure to specific chemicals – such as bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, and heavy metals like lead – to serious health and environmental issues. But the impact stretches even further.

Hazardous chemicals released into the environment can damage soil, water, and air. They may kill or impair the fertility of animals and insects and cause genetic defects. These toxins can accumulate in the food chain, eventually affecting higher-level species, including humans. Chemicals can contaminate freshwater sources, making water unsafe to drink. Some airborne pollutants contribute to acid rain, ozone depletion, and changes in the greenhouse effect.

The human toll is equally alarming. Communities living near hazardous sites face not only potential direct exposure but also the stress and anxiety of knowing their environment is contaminated. This often leads to increased healthcare costs. Shockingly, the burden of these sites is not distributed evenly; populations around Superfund sites are disproportionately made up of minority groups, low-income individuals, and linguistically isolated or less-educated groups.

And what about our most vulnerable? Children. While lead levels often peak around age 2, new research reveals that 5- to 6-year-olds may be particularly susceptible to the cognitive and behavioral effects of lead exposure. This isn't just about childhood IQ; studies have shown that children with relatively higher lead exposure at age 5 or 6, compared to age 2, had significantly higher arrest rates for criminal behavior in adulthood. This highlights a crucial need for continued lead testing in school-age children.

The tragic reality is that the current market and regulatory conditions in the U.S. value function, price, and performance over safety, effectively "externalizing the costs of chemically related health and environmental damage to the public". This systemic failure has created a monumental task of remediating already contaminated sites, a process that is often lengthy and costly. For instance, a site like Crown Cleaners of Watertown, contaminated with PCE (perchloroethylene), was discovered in 1991, but remediation isn't expected until 2025.

What To Do?

To assure that U.S. regulations align with stronger standards like those in the EU, decisive measures must be taken:

1. Adopt a Precautionary Principle:

    The U.S. should shift the burden of proof to manufacturers, requiring them to prove the safety of their chemicals before market approval.

   
   

2. Increase Transparency: Chemicals should be clearly labeled, detailing their potential risks, enabling consumers to make informed purchase decisions.

   
   

3. Regularly Reassess Existing Chemicals: A comprehensive review of chemicals currently on the market should be implemented, potentially banning those that pose serious health threats.

   
   

4. Encourage Innovation: Provide financial incentives for companies that invest in the research and development of safer alternatives. For example, when independent studies came out about harmful chemicals in menstrual products, people started to buy the brand 'Cora' because they were open about their regulations.

A Wake-Up Call

The message is undeniably clear. The U.S. chemicals policy is in need of profound change. We must fundamentally depart from the federal policies of the last 30 years, replacing the outdated TSCA with a fortified piece of legislation that unequivocally shifts the burden of proving chemical safety from the government to the manufacturers. This isn't about catching up to Europe, it's about making human safety the undeniable priority.

Imagine a world where chemicals are less likely to need later investigation for harmful effects, where workers and communities aren't recklessly exposed, and where environmental disasters are far rarer. This vision is achievable by embracing proactive, safety-first regulations and closing loopholes that allow polluters to evade financial responsibility for the contamination they cause.

A proactive approach that emphasizes prevention over reaction will not just benefit consumers but can also encourage innovation, create job opportunities, and foster a healthier future for everyone. It is crucial for lawmakers and regulators to recognize the urgency of this issue and take the necessary steps towards enacting stronger chemical regulations.