Auto Industry Worried Chemical Regulations in...

As Senator Lautenberg prepares to introduce chemical control reform legislation in the US, possibly as early as this month, some in the auto industry are worried that they will be severely impacted. But then, maybe not. There is a lot of misinformation out there and everyone seems to be worried about US chemical legislation somehow mirroring the worst parts of REACH, the chemical legislation that has industry frustrated in Europe.

While the reform (or modernization, if you prefer) of the 33 year old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is unlikely to look exactly like REACH, there clearly are some facets of REACH that will be in the new law. EPA, industry and the advocacy community all seem to be on the same page with respect to the general principles, but still differ considerably on the details.

The auto industry, and for that matter most other industries, were concerned about potentially significant disruptions to the supply chain as companies not normally considering themselves in the chemicals business were brought into the review process. But the experience of the auto industry in Europe has suggested that even REACH hasn't been as disruptive as they expected. That doesn't mean it has been easy for the smaller firms, but the larger firms have had the resources to be ahead of the game.

So the wait continues to see if the newly introduced chemical control legislation will look like REACH, the previously introduced Kid Safe Chemical Act, or something completely different.

Comments: 20

Jack E. Nov 4, 2009, 1:30pm EST

Sounds like another stall by the GOP. They played the same game with health care saying a single payer system was to much like Europe.

Ed Da Head Toker Nov 6, 2009, 12:06am EST

The health care reform is NOT a single payer system. ALL insurance companies will be able to offer health insurance.
One of the MAIN CHANGES is NO MORE DENIALS FOR "PRE-EXISTING CONDITION'S."
And affordable health care for all.

reply to this comment

Larry M. Nov 4, 2009, 1:35pm EST

We are unlikely to be protected since there is a lot of money to be made from exposing the public to pollution by all sorts of substances. The money involved means that good legislation is unlikely to be passed.

Chuck L. Nov 4, 2009, 7:41pm EST

We are unlikely to be protected since there is a lot of money to be made from exposing the public to pollution by all sorts of substances.

That's an amazingly stupid thing to say.

Larry M. Nov 4, 2009, 9:53pm EST

If you can give me good reasons why that's stupid, perhaps you can convince me to agree with you. :-)

Gerry Wass Nov 5, 2009, 1:46pm EST

I think the current debate over BPA is a perfect example of Larry's point and verifies its intelligence nicely. The chemical industry is determined to go on using the stuff and maintains that it is safe. I don't agree and neither do those who seriously study its effects.

Larry M. Nov 5, 2009, 2:11pm EST

Thank you Gerry. Your confirmation of my observation makes by agreement with Chuck that much less likely.

Of course, Chuck may merely have been trying to be insulting rather than participating in a discussion. We may never know.

David K. Nov 5, 2009, 7:10pm EST

I would note that the chemical industry feels that BPA is not a health hazard. It isn't that they just want to make money, because their kids and families also are exposed to it. They feel that the dangers have been overhyped.

Jack E. Nov 6, 2009, 6:30am EST

All products using BPA have been banned in my state. For companies its a question of profit not right or wrong, we teach this to our own people through our business schools.

reply to this comment

Jennifer K. Nov 4, 2009, 2:21pm EST

Thank you for the information.

reply to this comment

Randall C. Nov 4, 2009, 2:35pm EST

I must not be up to date with this stuff. Thanks David

reply to this comment

Robert S. Nov 5, 2009, 11:48am EST

We need good legislation. The nay-sayers and their bad data really should not be a factor in these decisions. Economic impact should not be an overiding factor when we are talking about the ability of our planet to sustain our survival.

reply to this comment

lisa frack Nov 5, 2009, 6:35pm EST

I work for the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and we've been working for TSCA reform and the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act for some time. If you're interested in learning more, please visit our blog about toxics policy: http://bit.ly/3bl4rD. And if you want to take a stand, we have a petition: http://bit.ly/noXOP. It's great to see this issue going mainstream. It's time. Cheers, Lisa

David K. Nov 5, 2009, 7:00pm EST

Thanks for the information Lisa.

reply to this comment

Ed Da Head Toker Nov 6, 2009, 12:14am EST

Like Robert S stated, Economic factors should NOT be THE determining factor, but should be included.
The toxic factors of some chemicals, like BPA, which Canada banned from baby bottles, is also found in some cans. From some del monte, Progresso soup, and other cans.
This chemical has caused some problems with brain activities. And the "safe level" is unknown. That is IF there is a safe level.
That is just one chemical. What a mess there is to discover.

David K. Nov 6, 2009, 8:13am EST

There seems to be quite a bit of discussion still regarding the health concerns or BPA, with several governments determining that it is not a significant risk.

The goal of "TSCA Reform" is, or should be, a rational, fact-based, mechanism for identifying what chemicals may result in unreasonable risk (preferably before they go on the market) and which ones can be used safely. There currently is a disconnect between industry and the public on what constitutes "risk." And clearly most the old chemicals have not been adequately assessed so that we can make a judgment one way or another.

Ed Da Head Toker Nov 6, 2009, 8:10pm EST

That is sooo true.
When Canada banned BPA in baby bottles, just started to open up the look at the health risks in this one chemical.
Is there an "unreasonable risk" with BPA???
I agree. A lot of chemicals have not had a health risk assessment done.
Our safety is at risk.

reply to this comment

lisa frack Nov 6, 2009, 12:45am EST

Here is some info from EWG on how we're exposed to BPA, and how we can avoid it: http://www.enviroblog.org/2009/05/ewgs-tips-to-avoid-bpa-exposure.html. Also, we just wrote a blog post today about the FDA's role in it all (sorry if this is too much info on just the one chemical!): http://bit.ly/10cTcP. Cheers, Lisa

David K. Nov 6, 2009, 8:09am EST

I'm a big believer in having enough information to make informed decisions.

reply to this comment

David K. Nov 13, 2009, 2:31pm EST

Thanks for the comments.

reply to this comment

Auto Industry Worried Chemical Regulations in US Will Look Like Europe's REACH Program

Comments: 20

Join the Conversation

You might also like

More by David K.