From Heartland.org:

Efforts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act could end up harming human health by stifling innovation and keeping perfectly safe and beneficial products from reaching consumers, concludes a just-released study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Changes Would Stifle Innovation

“Changes to TSCA are highly unlikely to have any measurable positive effect on public health, given the scant evidence that the trace-level substances that TSCA regulates have any significant health impacts,” said Angela Logomasini, director of risk studies at CEI, in a press release accompanying the study.“Rather, a stronger TSCA law may harm human well-being by leading to bans on many valuable products, undermining innovation, and diverting resources from valuable enterprises to meet burdensome regulatory mandates.”

TCSA Balances Costs, Benefits

Enacted in 1976, TSCA is designed to regulate chemicals not covered by other environmental statutes. TSCA also differs from other environmental laws in setting a risk-based standard for allowing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate chemicals.

TSCA “also demands that the agency consider both cost-benefit considerations and potentially adverse outcomes of its regulatory actions,” noted Logomasini. “Under TSCA, EPA is allowed to regulate when the agency finds that a chemical poses ‘an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.’ Once that determination has been made, EPA must apply such restrictions ‘to the extent necessary to protect adequately against such risk, using the least burdensome requirements.’”

Precise Language Drives Success

The CEI study, “The Real Meaning of TSCA ‘Modernization’: The Shift from Science-based Standards to Over-Precaution,” warns “reforming” TSCA may transform the law into the antithesis of what it was created to do.

Because TSCA has a risk-based approach to regulation, the carefully crafted language of TSCA has generally avoided creating controversies like those that have surrounded the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other more loosely worded laws. Weakening the statute’s scientific safeguards could bestow EPA with far-reaching discretionary power to regulate as it sees fit, the study warns, which will dramatically change the intended nature of the law.

“Contrary to many claims,” the study explains, “the EPA has managed to use [the TSCA] to impose thousands of regulations, collect substantial data under both mandatory and voluntary programs, and demand testing of chemicals.”

Activists Seek Presumption of Guilt

Ironically, it is the clear and carefully tailored language of the TSCA that has frustrated environmental activists and prompted them to pressure the Obama administration to call for “modernizing” the statute. Richard Dennison of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), for example, advocates a “presumed guilty until proven innocent” approach to a restructured TSCA.

On the legislative front, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced a bill in 2009 to, in his words, “put the burden of chemical safety where it belongs: on the chemical companies.” Lautenberg’s bill was not enacted, but that hasn’t kept environmental activists from urging Congress to scrap TSCA’s current risk-based standard for a more speculative “precautionary” approach.

“Some would model the new rule after the ‘reasonable certainty of no harm’ standard set in the Food Quality Protection Act, which has produced a host of unnecessary bans and regulations on valuable products that are used to ensure affordable food production and control of dangerous pests,” Logomasini explained.

Where Is the Need?

“Where is the evidence that we, the people, need to be protected from environmental exposure to tiny amounts of chemicals?” asks Gilbert Ross, M.D., medical director of the New York-based American Council for Science and Health.

“The cries for ‘reform’ emanate from the same environmental activist groups that oppose so many other beneficial chemicals and technologies,” Ross continued. “These well-funded groups, whose raison d’etre is to foment regulation and litigation, say the law is creaking at age 36, and only a handful of chemicals have been regulated under its auspices. Talk about circular logic—the chemicals assessed have been found to be safe, so they say something must be wrong with the law!”

We will keep you informed about any changes to the TSCA.

From OEHHA:

Effective March 16, 2012, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is adding methanol (CAS No. 67-56-1) to the list of chemicals known to the State to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of Proposition 65.¹

The listing of methanol is based on formal identification by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an authoritative body,² in a report by the NTP Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, that methanol causes reproductive toxicity (developmental endpoint).  The criteria used by OEHHA for the listing of chemicals under the “authoritative bodies” mechanism can be found in Title 27, Cal. Code of Regs., section 25306.

The documentation supporting OEHHA’s determination that the criteria for administrative listing have been satisfied for methanol is included in the Notice of Intent to List [Can you create a hyperlink to this Notice of Intent to List] published in the January 2, 2009 issue of the California Regulatory Notice Register (Register 2009, No. 1-Z).

A complete, updated chemical list is published in this issue of the California Regulatory Notice Register and is available on the OEHHA website at www.oehha.ca.gov.  In summary, methanol is being listed under Proposition 65 as known to the State to cause reproductive toxicity, as follows:

¹The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code section 25249.5 et seq.

² See Health and Safety Code, section 25249.8(b) and Title 27, Cal. Code of Regs., section 25306.

³ Listing mechanism:  AB – “authoritative bodies” mechanism (Title 27, Cal. Code of Regs. Section 25306).

Because of the significant public interest in methanol, an Interpretive Guideline No. 2012-001 is being published concurrently with this rulemaking notice. Follow this link to download a copy of the Interpretive Guideline.

We will keep you updated with any ongoing Prop 65 developments.

From: OEHHA

OEHHA has selected the chemicals below for the DARTIC’s review for possible listing under Proposition 65.  OEHHA is initiating the development of hazard identification materials on these chemicals.

By this notice, OEHHA is giving the public an opportunity to provide information relevant to the assessment of the evidence of developmental and male and female reproductive toxicity for deltamethrin and xylene.  Interested parties or members of the public wishing to provide such information should send it to the address given below.

The publication of this notice marks the start of a 60-day data call-in period.  This period will end on Tuesday, March 20, 2012.  The information received during this data call-in period will be reviewed and considered by OEHHA as it prepares the reproductive toxicity hazard identification materials on these chemicals.

For more information, please click on the above link.

From: OEHHA

Health Canada’s sampling and evaluation program has revealed that the recalled piece of jewellery contains lead in excess of the allowable limit.

Benzophenone, coconut oil diethanolamine condensate (cocamide diethanolamine), diethanolamine, and 2-methylimidazole each meet the requirements for listing as known to the state to cause cancer for purposes of Proposition 65.

OEHHA is providing this opportunity to comment as to whether the chemicals identified above meet the requirements for listing as causing cancer specified in Health and Safety Code section 25249.8(a). OEHHA must receive comments by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 21, 2012.

Click on the links for more information.

From OEHHA:

The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) intends to list the chemicals kresoxim-methyl and tetraconazole as known to the State to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. This action is being proposed under the authoritative bodies listing mechanism.

OEHHA requested information relevant to the possible listing of kresoxim-methyl and tetraconazole in a notice published in the California Regulatory Notice Register on October 22, 2010 (Register 2010, Vol. No. 43-Z). OEHHA received public comments on both chemicals.

Background on listing via the authoritative bodies mechanism: A chemical must be listed under the Proposition 65 regulations when two conditions are met:

1. An authoritative body formally identifies the chemical as causing cancer (Section 25306(d) ).
2. The evidence considered by the authoritative body meets the sufficiency criteria contained in the regulations (Section 25306(e)).

However, the chemical is not listed if scientifically valid data which were not considered by the authoritative body clearly establish that the sufficiency of evidence criteria were not met (Section 25306(f)).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is one of several institutions designated as authoritative for the identification of chemicals as causing cancer (Section 25306(m)).

OEHHA is the lead agency for Proposition 65 implementation. After an authoritative body has made a determination about a chemical, OEHHA evaluates whether listing under Proposition 65 is required using the criteria contained in the regulations.

OEHHA’s determination: Kresoxim-methyl and tetraconazole each meet the criteria for listing as known to the State to cause cancer under Proposition 65, based on findings of the U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA, 1999; U.S. EPA, 2000).

The full article can be found here.

We will keep you informed of any future updates.

From OEHHA:

OEHHA has selected the chemicals below for the CIC’s review for possible listing under Proposition 65.  OEHHA is initiating the development of hazard identification materials on these chemicals.

Chemical Name                                                                  CAS#

C.I. Disperse Yellow                                             32832-40-8

Dibenzanthracenes and dibenz[a,c]anthracene             215-58-7

Hazard identification materials for the chemicals in the table above will be presented at future meetings of the CIC for Committee review for possible listing under Proposition 65.

By this notice, OEHHA is giving the public an opportunity to provide information relevant to the assessment of the evidence of carcinogenicity for the chemicals shown above.  Relevant information includes but is not limited to:

• cancer bioassays
• cancer epidemiological studies
• genotoxicity testing
• other pertinent data on:
  • pharmacokinetics,
  • biomarkers
  • effects on biochemical and physiological processes in humans.

Interested parties or members of the public wishing to provide such information should send it to the address given below.

The publication of this notice marks the start of a 60-day data call-in period, ending on Tuesday, January 10, 2012.  The information received during this period will be reviewed and considered by OEHHA as it prepares the cancer hazard identification materials on these chemicals.

We encourage you to submit relevant information on these chemicals in electronic form, rather than in paper form.  Submissions transmitted by e-mail should be addressed to P65Public.Comments@oehha.ca.gov.  Please include the chemical name in the subject line.  Submissions in paper form may be mailed, faxed, or delivered in person to the addresses below:

Mailing Address: Ms. Cynthia Oshita
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
P.O. Box 4010, MS-19B
Sacramento, California 95812-4010
Fax: (916) 323-8803
Street Address: 1001 I Street
Sacramento, California 95814

From: OEHHA

A meeting of the Proposition 651 Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) was held on October 12, 2011, at the California Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Building in Sacramento, California.  The Committee considered the listing of Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate and fluoride and its salts as known to the state cause cancer.  The Committee also provided OEHHA with its advice concerning the relative priority of 39 chemicals for possible hazard identification material preparation.  In addition, the Committee discussed procedures for public comment presentations, committee discussions and committee voting.

Go to the link below for access to the summary of this meeting, including slide presentations.

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/cic101211synop.html

From: OEHHA

Effective October 28, 2011, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is adding tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) (CAS No. 13674-87-8) to the list of chemicals known to the State to cause cancer for purposes of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).

Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) was considered by the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) in its official capacity as the “state’s qualified experts” at a public meeting held on October 12, 2011.  The CIC determined that tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) was clearly shown, through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles, to cause cancer.

A revised Propsition 65 list in available on the OEHHA website.

From: JCK

Sixteen retailers and manufacturers, including Saks and Target, agreed on Sept. 2 to a settlement that requires them to strictly limit the amount of cadmium they use in both children’s and adult’s jewelry.

The agreement calls for jewelry sold by the companies to contain no more than 0.03 percent (300 parts per million) of cadmium by Dec. 31, 2011.

The agreement is in response to a lawsuit launched by the Oakland, Calif.-based Center for Environmental Health in February 2010. The suit charged the retailers with violating California’s Proposition 65, which requires companies to warn consumers when their products expose them to potentially harmful chemicals.

Click on the links for more information.

From OEHHA:

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) within the California Environmental Protection Agency is adding titanium dioxide (airborne, unbound particles of respirable size) to the list of chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer for purposes of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65 ).  The listing does not cover titanium dioxide when it remains bound within a product matrix.  The listing of titanium dioxide (airborne, unbound particles of respirable size) is effective September 2, 2011.

For more information or the current Proposition 65 list see the above link.