A Forecast for U.S. Reform of Chemicals Policy

The report argues that the U.S. federal framework for chemical regulation, primarily the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), is fundamentally flawed and overdue for reform. It highlights that TSCA allows the majority of chemicals on the market to escape scrutiny and limits the EPA's ability to ban substances. While federal political polarization hinders national reform, the document identifies 'scattered sunshine' in the form of proactive state legislation (notably in California and Maine), the influence of the European Union's REACH regulation, and a shift among some U.S. businesses toward safer alternatives to maintain global competitiveness. It concludes that while the immediate political climate is challenging, long-term pressure from international standards and state-level 'laboratories' makes comprehensive reform inevitable.

• The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 is considered ineffective because it failed to screen the vast majority of chemicals on the market; over 95 percent of chemicals available today were already 'existing' by 1979 and thus avoided the scrutiny applied to new chemicals.
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is severely limited by TSCA, which provides no penalties for failing to gather safety data and requires the agency to prove 'unreasonable risk' before restricting a chemical. Consequently, the EPA has required testing on fewer than 200 of the 62,000 chemicals in the original inventory and has not banned a single chemical since 1990.
• Federal efforts to weaken environmental protections include proposed changes to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) that would raise reporting thresholds from 500 to 5,000 pounds and allow biennial rather than annual data collection.
• The United States has failed to ratify the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) because ratification would require amending TSCA to allow the EPA to regulate new POPs and resolve conflicts regarding the rights of state governments to maintain stricter standards.
• In the absence of federal action, state and local governments are implementing their own chemical restrictions. For example, by May 2005, at least six states restricted certain brominated flame retardants, and Maine issued an Executive Order in February 2006 to promote safer alternatives to PBTs and neurotoxins.
• California is emerging as a leader in chemicals policy, with 35 bills addressing chemicals and health introduced in 2005 and a March 2006 University of California report proposing a framework similar to the EU's REACH regulation.
• The 'Child, Worker and Consumer-Safe Chemicals Act' (Kid-Safe Chemicals Act), introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senators Lautenberg and Jeffords, proposes a system similar to REACH where producers bear the burden of providing safety data and includes mandatory biomonitoring and substitution of safer alternatives.
• U.S. businesses are increasingly adopting safer chemical standards to remain competitive in global markets, particularly those influenced by European directives for electronics and cosmetics. Companies like Dell, HP, and Kaiser Permanente are leveraging purchasing power or product design to eliminate hazardous substances.
• The European Union's REACH regulation is acting as a primary driver for U.S. reform by introducing concepts such as 'no data/no market' and the precautionary principle into U.S. state proposals and corporate strategies.

APA

Ditz, D. (2006). A Forecast for U.S. Reform of Chemicals Policy. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Cloudy_Skies_9May06.pdf

Chicago

Ditz, Daryl. A Forecast for U.S. Reform of Chemicals Policy. Center for International Environmental Law, 2006. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Cloudy_Skies_9May06.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Ditz |first1=Daryl |title=A Forecast for U.S. Reform of Chemicals Policy |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=2006 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Cloudy_Skies_9May06.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{ditz2006forecast, author = {Ditz, Daryl}, title = {{A Forecast for U.S. Reform of Chemicals Policy}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2006}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Cloudy_Skies_9May06.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }