This week, Erik and I were communicating with a friend and colleague who is an expert technical consultant for TSCA risk evaluations. Specifically, we were exchanging emails on how EPA interprets conditions of use. Our “virtual” conversation prompted me to look this morning at the PV 29 updated risk evaluation – comments are due on EPA’s update to this document by the end of the month.
Former top Obama administration officials, academics and public health groups have crafted a comprehensive set of science and risk-based recommendations for the incoming Biden administration which they say would make EPA’s TSCA program more health protective, including for chemical evaluations, environmental justice and other policy areas.
A new paper by researchers at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) charges that EPA’s methods for ranking studies for use in its TSCA and other chemical evaluations discard studies based on quality factors that may not be appropriate and that other review approaches do not use, resulting in fewer studies being used to answer key questions.
The recent spate of wildfires across Northern California has caused a new concern for expectant parents already dealing with worries over the COVID-19 pandemic: Could exposure to toxic smoke and ash have a lasting impact on babies’ and mothers’ prenatal and postnatal health?
Environmental health researchers are raising concerns that EPA could adopt all or parts of a chemical industry risk assessment for a siloxane chemical after the agency accepted the industry’s request to evaluate the substance under TSCA, the third such request EPA has accepted from manufacturers but the first to contain an industry assessment.
A university researcher is suggesting the agency redo a core component of its risk analysis for methylene chloride, which causes non-cancer effects to the nervous system, in a way that it usually assesses cancer risks -- an approach that could bolster any cost-benefit analysis the agency conducts to justify its upcoming risk management rules under TSCA.
Studies have linked certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to adverse birth outcomes in rodents, such as pregnancy loss, reduced growth, and pup death.
Hormone-disrupting phthalates can be found in everything from plastics and household goods to personal care products. Studies have shown they may be harmful to women’s reproductive systems.
EPA’s toxics office leaders are considering dropping a controversial numeric scoring system staff have used for ranking the quality of studies the agency has considered for use in crafting the first 10 TSCA chemical evaluations after some experts charged it does not represent best practices in such systematic review policies.
Recent warnings from a federal health agency that exposures to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) may worsen outcomes from COVID-19 are driving new calls for EPA regulation of the chemicals in products, though one researcher says states are more likely to act than the Trump administration.
As the novel coronavirus continues to rage like a wildfire across the planet, its devastating toll has left many asking whether climate change — another multifaceted phenomenon with global reach — has played a part in spreading, even triggering, the pandemic.
If there’s one thing the Trump administration is really good at, it’s denying science.
Nine months after U.S. regulators found an industrial “forever chemical” in chocolate cake at levels some 250 times higher than federal recommendations, nearly three dozen independent scientists from 11 countries are warning that inadequate global regulations of chemicals in food packaging pose a growing risk to human health.
The new rule would limit the kinds of scientific studies the agency could use in support of future regulations. In short, in order for EPA to take a study’s finding into account when developing a regulation, the researchers would need to have made all the data in that study available to the public.
Who can blame a parent for wanting to avoid introducing their kids to toxins? The anxious parents know there are chemicals that could harm their kids everywhere — in toys, clothing, crib mattresses, pacifiers, diaper cream.