Updated United States adopts major chemical safety overhaul

admin vfkxn , , , , , , , , ,

first_imgThe U.S. Senate yesterday unanimously approved a major overhaul of the nation’s primary chemical safety law—marking one of the last steps in a decades-long reform effort. The House of Representatives on 24 May overwhelmingly approved the rewrite of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which governs how industrial chemicals are tested and regulated. The legislation now moves to President Barack Obama for signing.The measure—H.R. 2576, named for the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D–NJ), a long-time TSCA reform champion—is perhaps the most far-reaching and influential environmental statute passed by Congress since the body updated the Clean Air Act in 1990. The measure aims to make chemical safety reviews more science-based, and includes provisions designed to reduce the use of animals in chemical testing and promote the study of so-called cancer clusters.“The end result … is a vast improvement over current law,” said Representative John Shimkus (R–IL), who co-sponsored the House bill, on the House floor. The bill, he added, is “a careful compromise that’s good for consumers, good for jobs, and good for the environment.” “While this is a compromise bill, it is a long overdue step forward in protecting families and communities from toxic chemicals,” said Representative Frank Pallone Jr. (D–NJ), top Democrat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.Numerous fixesBoth environmentalists and industry have long agreed that the TSCA, originally passed in 1976, has numerous flaws. It includes legal barriers, for example, that essentially prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from acquiring toxicity data on chemicals and imposing new restrictions on them—even on highly toxic substances such as asbestos. Critics say the current legislation also favors economic concerns over scientific findings, and has led to thousands of chemicals entering the market without adequate health and safety oversight.The reform bill seeks to fix a number of these flaws. It aims to make chemical safety reviews purely science-based, by eliminating a long-time requirement that EPA weigh regulatory costs in the safety review process. It also repeals a long-time requirement that EPA select the “least burdensome” method of regulating a toxic substance. And the bill would require EPA to deem a new chemical safe before it could enter the marketplace; under current law, a chemical can enter the marketplace unless EPA deems it unsafe within a certain time period.The bill would also make it easier for EPA to order chemical companies to generate any toxicity data that the agency needs to inform its reviews; under current law, EPA can only order these data by going through a lengthy rulemaking process that often ends up mired in litigation. And the bill would require EPA to take tougher action on persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals, and ensure that chemicals are safe for vulnerable groups such as infants, seniors, and chemical workers.Animal protection and animal rights groups hailed another provision that aims to reduce EPA and chemical companies’ use of animal-based toxicity testing methods. It would task EPA with using non–animal-based methods “to the extent practicable,” and the agency would have to devise a plan to research, develop, and eventually use more nonanimal methods—including computational modeling, high-throughput screening, and cell-culture testing.The bill also includes a measure known as Trevor’s law that encourages federal agencies to study “cancer clusters”—areas that appear to have unusually high numbers of cancer cases that may be linked to a shared environmental cause. The Society of Toxicology in Reston, Virginia, although praising the bill, expressed some concern about including the cancer-cluster measure and other topic- or chemical-specific language in the bill. Doing so “detracts from the wider range of priority chemical-specific or analytical issues that, as toxicologists, we address every day,” society President John Morris said in a 23 May letter.Rocky historyThe TSCA reform bill is the result of years of negotiations involving lawmakers in both parties and a wide range of stakeholders. Many previous efforts to overhaul the TSCA failed after lawmakers couldn’t strike a consensus among competing interest groups, such as chemical companies and environmental groups. The current effort succeeded, however, despite the toxic political climate in Washington, D.C., and a government divided between a Democratic-held White House and Republican-held Congress.To arrive at the current bill, the House and Senate first approved their own bipartisan—but widely different—versions of TSCA reform. Then, lawmakers spent months negotiating a compromise between the chambers.It wasn’t clear for instance, whether the animal testing provisions—which were in the Senate bill, but not the House’s—would ultimately survive. “But the fact that we are now going to severely restrict the unnecessary cruelty to animals is something that I’m very proud that the leadership helped preserve,” Senator Cory Booker (D–NJ), a proponent of the language, told reporters outside the U.S. Capitol on 19 May in announcing his support of the bill.A much bigger sticking point was concern, voiced by many liberal Democrats and environmental groups, that the legislation would weaken states’ ability to issue their own chemical regulations. Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA), the top Democrat on the Senate environment panel, had argued especially forcefully against language in the Senate bill that would have kept existing state chemical regulations on the books, but reduced the states’ ability to issue new regulations in the future.But Boxer ultimately supported the final compromise. The final bill is far from perfect on that issue, but it’s better than current law, she said in announcing she would support the reform measure. “What a battle that was,” she said. “Well, we no longer have that battle.”Not all lawmakers were won over. As the House voted 403 to 12 to approve the reform measure, Representative Paul Tonko (D–NY) cited the state preemption provisions as one reason he was voting against the bill. He was one of just nine House Democrats to oppose the bill; three House Republicans also voted against it.The reform measure led to splits among interest groups. Some environmental and health groups, such as the Breast Cancer Fund, have opposed it, whereas still others, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, were noncommittal. But many industry groups and some environmental groups support the final product.And Senator Bernie Sanders (D–VT), who is seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, sees both good and bad in the bill, but said that the preemption language would prevent his state from “going above and beyond” federal levels of action. “That makes no sense … federal chemical regulations should be a floor, not a ceiling,” Sanders said in a statement.*Update, 8 June, 10:30 a.m.: This item has been updated to reflect the final Senate vote.*Update, 26 May, 2:20 p.m.: This item has been updated to reflect current information on the timing of the Senate vote. Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Emailcenter_img Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Countrylast_img

You May Also Like..

Ecobank Ghana Limited (EBG.gh) HY2007 Interim Report

first_imgEcobank Ghana Limited (EBG.gh) listed on the Ghana Stock Exchange under the Banking sector has released it’s 2007 interim results for the half year.For more information about Ecobank Ghana Limited (EBG.gh) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Ecobank Ghana Limited (EBG.gh) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Ecobank Ghana Limited (EBG.gh)  2007 interim results for the half year.Company ProfileEcobank Ghana Limited is a financial institution offering banking products and services for the consumer, commercial, corporate and investment sectors. The company provides banking solutions for government departments, financial institutions, multi-nationals, international organisations, small- and medium-sized enterprises and individuals. Ecobank Ghana Limited offers an extensive product offering; ranging from current and savings accounts to business accounts, term deposits, personal loans, mortgage loans, microfinance and business loans. Ecobank Ghana Limited also offers financial solutions for value-chain financing, short-term and mid-term finance and trade finance as well as investment banking, mergers and acquisitions, structure and project finance, capital market services, wealth and asset management, securities brokerage, custodial services and electronic banking services. Ecobank Ghana Limited is a subsidiary of Ecobank Transnational Incorporated. Its headquarters are in Acca, Ghana. Ecobank Ghana Limited is listed on the Ghana Stock Exchangelast_img

New director for the World Development Movement

first_img The World Development Movement has appointed Deborah Doane as its new director, and she started work there at the beginning of this month.Doane was previously Head of Sustainable Consumption at WWF-UK, where she led strategies to achieve an 80% reduction of the UK’s carbon footprint by 2050. She has spent 15 years working with NGOs, think-tanks and the private sector on ethical trading, human rights and sustainable development issues.She was director of the CORE (Corporate Responsibility) coalition from 2003 to 2007, a coalition of over 130 NGOs, which campaigned for and achieved changes to UK Company Law strengthening corporate accountability over social and environmental impacts. Advertisement  19 total views,  1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Tagged with: Management Recruitment / people Howard Lake | 8 June 2009 | News New director for the World Development Movementcenter_img She is also a regular guest lecturer at the London School of Economics and the London Business School.www.wdm.org.uk About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThislast_img

DuPont Pioneer Harvest Update 11/21/16

first_imgMeacham says, like 2016, the 2017 year will be a year to manage costs as tightly as possible, “A lot of farmers are looking for ways to be more efficient with their nitrogen, and we have some Encirca tools that can help.“ He added the warm and dry conditions this fall have allowed for a good deal of field preparation for next spring. SHARE Facebook Twitter Facebook Twitter Previous articleClosing CommentsNext articleBrexit May Open British Farmers to GM Crops Gary Truitt By Gary Truitt – Nov 21, 2016 DuPont Pioneer Harvest Update 11/21/16The last of our DuPont Pioneer Harvest updates examines some of the lessons learned that may apply to next year. In 2016, there were essentially two planting seasons: one in April and one in late May.  Bill Meacham, with DuPont Pioneer, says this year really reinforced the importance of planting early, “We saw the yields in the May planted corn were less than the yields in the April planted corn.”center_img For growers in Southern Indiana, 2016 showed the benefits of using a fungicide, “We saw the southern rust disease come in; and, when we finalized the data, those farmers who applied a fungicide really did much better. I think a lot of growers will have this top of mind when they consider a fungicide for next year’s corn.” SHARE DuPont Pioneer Harvest Update 11/21/16 Weed pressure was an issue in 2016; but, in 2017, growers will have some new technology especially in soybeans, “We have some new Roundup Ready 2 Xtend varieties that we will introduce for 2017.”  Meacham added that weed pressure was considerable in many soybean fields this year and that growers are looking for some new technology to help control these resistant weeds, “The new varieties we are introducing are really performing strong, so there is a lot of interest by growers in that technology.” Home News Feed DuPont Pioneer Harvest Update 11/21/16last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *